An Illustrated Manual for Inflicting Violence: A Guide to Fightering

[EvilAnagram]

I think the reason that that answer is unsatisfying to many people is because it doesn't work all that well to balance something kludgy and/or situational against a major investment resource that also can be used to buy something that is really not situational, like an ASI.

I don't know that it's terribly situational. The situations in which it's useful are simply so wide. Dexterity saves are common, and even if the effect is targeting more than just you, you can turn a save for half damage into a save for zero damage. The shove effect can create great synergy if there's a damaging effect like Cloud of Daggers or Wall of X nearby, so there's synergy with control casters, in addition to the synergy with every other melee character. Hell, it's great simply to make you a little stickier, and it's a decent way to cheese a grappler build.

The fact that it doesn't give you the leeway to knock a character prone, then unleash all your attacks does not make it a bad feat.

[LudicSavant]

and it's a decent way to cheese a grappler build.

There's that word again.

I don't know that it's terribly situational. The situations in which it's useful are simply so wide. Dexterity saves are common, and even if the effect is targeting more than just you, you can turn a save for half damage into a save for zero damage. The shove effect can create great synergy if there's a damaging effect like Cloud of Daggers or Wall of X nearby, so there's synergy with control casters, in addition to the synergy with every other melee character. Hell, it's great simply to make you a little stickier, and it's a decent way to cheese a grappler build.

The face that it doesn't give you the leeway to knock a character prone, then unleash all your attacks does not make it a bad feat.

I don't know what criteria you're using to claim whether or not something's a "bad feat" but I didn't argue that it was one. I do however think that it is a more awkward feat than its previous iteration. And also one that might actually work better on casters than some martial characters now.

The feat gives you leeway to knock a character prone, then have all of your minions unleash all of their attacks. It's interesting that things like casters knocking people over to get slaughtered by swarms will barely feel the impact of this change at all.

[strangebloke]

I don't know what criteria you're using to claim whether or not something's a "bad feat" but I didn't argue that it was one. I do however think that it is a more awkward feat than its previous iteration. And also one that might actually work better on casters than some martial characters now.

More awkward, sure, and less powerful.

I mean without getting into it too much, think about how it interacts with action surge and haste. Haste attack action, bonus action shove, full attack action.

Also, while it used to be best on a fighter/paladin it is now (IMO) just as good on a barbarian if not better.

Advantage on strength checks + no use for your bonus action makes for pretty clear synergy. And you don't really need the ASI because you have advantage anyway.

[LudicSavant]

More awkward, sure, and less powerful.

I mean without getting into it too much, think about how it interacts with action surge and haste. Haste attack action, bonus action shove, full attack action.

Also, while it used to be best on a fighter/paladin it is now (IMO) just as good on a barbarian if not better.

Advantage on strength checks + no use for your bonus action makes for pretty clear synergy. And you don't really need the ASI because you have advantage anyway.

Indeed.

The benefit of New Shield Master (with the "you must finish all of your attacks then shove 'em" interpretation) scales based on:
- Your dexterity.
- The melee attack damage of your teammates.
- Access to the ability to make isolated attacks before doing all of your attacks (examples: Haste, minionmancy).

The end result is that the ability feels weirdly dissociative, and also that casters just got better relative to more conventional martials (again), and that the more conventional martial beneficiaries are having their self-sufficiency shot in the foot (again). So... yay balance patches?

[EvilAnagram]

There's that word again.

It's a great word. I don't know why people treat cheese like a bad thing. I think it's pretty gouda.

I don't know what criteria you're using to claim whether or not something's a "bad feat" but I didn't argue that it was one. I do however think that it is a more awkward feat than its previous iteration. And also one that might actually work better on casters than some martial characters now.

There's a lot to unpack here. For starters, this is not another iteration. There is no change to the text. The only thing that has happened is that a designer said, "You know, you should probably just stick to the text of the book or else it gets a little too powerful compared to other martial options." The text itself is unchanged.

I would define a bad feat quite narrowly, but in this case I don't see how it is awkward to use, either. If you use an action to attack, you can use a bonus action to shove. That's a very simple conditional statement. If you do X, you can do Y. It's very useful both offensively and defensively, and with specific regards to fighters (the topic of this guide) it gives them a use for their bonus action that can set up an action surge for tons of fun.

Further, I cannot imagine many casters other than tanky clerics benefitting from it. It would be very unusual for a wizard to invest in proficiency with a shield, a decent athletics, and Shield Master. That's a 12-level investment without any ASIs spent on ability scores. Certainly, a minionmancer would benefit from having someone else in the party use it, but I don't think it would be a reasonable investment for them. At all. Remotely.

[LudicSavant]

There's a lot to unpack here. For starters, this is not another iteration.

{{Scrubbed}} It is explicitly a change to Crawford's previous declaration of the rule's intent and function. It is entirely accurate to say that this is a new iteration of how the rule works according to the designer, and I think you already know that.

Further, I cannot imagine many casters other than tanky clerics benefitting from it. It would be very unusual for a wizard to invest in proficiency with a shield, a decent athletics, and Shield Master. That's a 12-level investment without any ASIs spent on ability scores. Certainly, a minionmancer would benefit from having someone else in the party use it, but I don't think it would be a reasonable investment for them. At all. Remotely.

{{Scrubbed}} You straight up named a caster that could do it in the very first sentence. Nobody even mentioned Wizards. At all. Remotely.

[EvilAnagram]

{{Scrubbed}} It is explicitly a change to Crawford's previous declaration of the rule's intent and function. It is entirely accurate to say that this is a new iteration of how the rule works according to the designer, and I think you already know that.

{{Scrubbed}}

Second, while I'm sure Jeremy's change of heart carries weight at his table, it is not errata. It is not a change to the rules, nor should it be treated as such. If your table obeys the word of Crawford, that's your prerogative, but I doubt this will affect most people.

{{Scrubbed}} You straight up named a caster that could do it in the very first sentence. Nobody even mentioned Wizards. At all. Remotely.

Did I miss the cleric build that's effective at minionmancy?

[LudicSavant]

Second, while I'm sure Jeremy's change of heart carries weight at his table, it is not errata. It is not a change to the rules, nor should it be treated as such. If your table obeys the word of Crawford, that's your prerogative, but I doubt this will affect most people.

Which of course has nothing to do with anything I said, just like your comment about Wizards.

I said it was a new iteration (of Crawford's ruling). Which, you know, it is.

[EvilAnagram]

Which of course has nothing to do with anything I said, just like your comment about Wizards.

His tweet is not the official position of Wizards of the Coast. It is therefore not a second iteration of the ability.

My comment about wizards was in reference to the comment about casters using minions. Minion summoning is an area of spellcasting dominated by wizards and druids, so I used one of those classes to illustrate my point.

Druids would also be pretty terrible as frontliners who need to stay in person form to use shields, but I was following a different path of argument from the, "sticking them on the frontline to use their actions to not cast spells is a bad tactic," track.

Caught up?

[LudicSavant]

His tweet is not the official position of Wizards of the Coast. It is therefore not a second iteration of the ability.

Caught up?

I didn't say it was a change to the text of the ability. I said it was a change to his stated stance on the matter.

It is explicitly a change to Crawford's previous declaration of the rule's intent and function.

I said it was a new iteration (of Crawford's ruling)

I have no idea how I can clarify this for you any further.

[strangebloke]

Which of course has nothing to do with anything I said, just like your comment about Wizards.

I said it was a new iteration (of Crawford's ruling). Which, you know, it is.

Iteration implies that there's some kind of version control in play. You know, like you'd be able to say, "We're ignoring errata #374." or "Our game is consistent with Version 1.2.4 of the game." Yes, he changed his statement, but only in a non-official, non-annotated way. It's only obsessive guys online who are aware either of his ruling, or of the 'change' in his ruling, and even then, rulings are whatever. I've reversed plenty of my own rulings. It's a bit of a pedantic point but it does matter.

Erratta goes through QA. Crawford's tweets are just his musings while he's sitting on the John.

And regards motive-criticizing, you very blatantly started it.

And regards to shield master being good for clerics (and no other casters except maybe certain bards) is the opposite of a problem. It's only better for them with the newer ruling in the sense that it's less overpowering good for other classes.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, he changed his statement, but only in a non-official, non-annotated way.

This does not disagree with my stated stance at all. You are preaching to the choir.

Iteration implies that there's some kind of version control in play.

Yes. The version control where Crawford says that the newer tweet is his Sage Advice position, and the older tweet is not. Nothing has to be super duper official for the word iteration to be appropriate.

My goodness. Is the position clear yet and can we move on?

[EvilAnagram]

This is not a thread about Jeremy Crawford tweets or explaining how iterations work.

It's about fighters. Please ensure further posts are about fighters.

[quark12000]

Sorry for the derail.

[EvilAnagram]

Sorry for the derail.

It happens.

[Mist_Wave]

Hoy Evilanagram,

so since tome of foes is out, what do you think of Yankees (Gith) as Eldritch Knights?

[EvilAnagram]

Hoy Evilanagram,

so since tome of foes is out, what do you think of Yankees (Gith) as Eldritch Knights?

The stat increases are perfect, and the extra spells and defenses take some pressure off of your spells known. It's pretty damn nice.

[Sno]

I like the guide. It is really helpful. Just got a few questions/remarks.

For two-weapon-fighting you say under feats:

Dual Wielder: Perfect for Two Weapon Fighting, which has been looking much better after recent mathematical analysis.

It is ranked blue which is good.

For fighting style you say:

Two Weapon Fighting is much better than early impressions suggested. The more difficult a creature is to hit, the more useful Two Weapon Fighting is. With Dual Wielder, it's even better.


I wonder where the recent mathematical analysis is :-)

Also. For shield users you rank shield master really high:

Shield Master: If you use a shield, this provides a nice blend of offensive and defensive boosts.

It is ranked sky blue.

Do you still think this still is the case after the changes where you can only use the shove after you've finished your attack action? I mean, you rarely get the benefit of knocking someone prone (one being action surge), and it can even be a hinderence for your party, especially with ranged members. You could also have potential situation where the enemy goes right after you, meaning your other melees don't even get any benefit. In which case, you have only reduced the speed of the enemy by half. As for the dex bonus, it only apply to dex saves that target only you, which means it almost never get used. Finally, in most cases, your dexterity save aren't that good, and resilient (dex), competes with resilient (wis). You can't have both. Personally I think shield master sucks.

[werescythe]

Would a Feral Tiefling be good for a Pirate Samurai fighter? Or would one of the other Tiefling subraces from MToF that offers DEX or STR be better?

Also I could be wrong but Rapid Strike works off of Fighting Spirit, correct?

Also what kind of weapon in the equipment list would count as a Katana? Could a Scimitar be "reskinned" for such a weapon?

[EvilAnagram]

I like the guide. It is really helpful. Just got a few questions/remarks.

For two-weapon-fighting you say under feats:

Dual Wielder: Perfect for Two Weapon Fighting, which has been looking much better after recent mathematical analysis.

It is ranked blue which is good.

For fighting style you say:

Two Weapon Fighting is much better than early impressions suggested. The more difficult a creature is to hit, the more useful Two Weapon Fighting is. With Dual Wielder, it's even better.


I wonder where the recent mathematical analysis is :-)

I don't remember precisely what happened to that post, but essentially the more difficult something is to hit, the more effective TWF is compared to other options. This is especially true before you get your third attack and in featless game.

I should probably update that in light of the fact that I no longer have access to that math.

Also. For shield users you rank shield master really high:

Shield Master: If you use a shield, this provides a nice blend of offensive and defensive boosts.

It is ranked sky blue.

Do you still think this still is the case after the changes where you can only use the shove after you've finished your attack action? I mean, you rarely get the benefit of knocking someone prone (one being action surge), and it can even be a hinderence for your party, especially with ranged members. You could also have potential situation where the enemy goes right after you, meaning your other melees don't even get any benefit. In which case, you have only reduced the speed of the enemy by half. As for the dex bonus, it only apply to dex saves that target only you, which means it almost never get used. Finally, in most cases, your dexterity save aren't that good, and resilient (dex), competes with resilient (wis). You can't have both. Personally I think shield master sucks.

I was making that assumption before the tweet went out. Because you can split up your attacks during a turn and don't have to make them all at once, I continue to read it as allowing "attack, push, attack."

Also, forced movement is nice. Pushing an enemy off a cliff or into a spell effect is always useful.

"Dexterity saves that target only you" includes many traps, monster abilities, and a few spells.

Also, the competition between Resilient Wis and Dex is a point in SM's favor. You can only take Resilience once, so take Wis and SM to cover both saves.

[EvilAnagram]

Would a Feral Tiefling be good for a Pirate Samurai fighter? Or would one of the other Tiefling subraces from MToF that offers DEX or STR be better?

Feral would work perfectly well. I have not perused MToF, personally, but if something offers STR or a decent defensive ability, it's fine.

[QUOTE=werescythe;23388480Also I could be wrong but Rapid Strike works off of Fighting Spirit, correct?[/QUOTE]
Yes.

[QUOTE=werescythe;23388480Also what kind of weapon in the equipment list would count as a Katana? Could a Scimitar be "reskinned" for such a weapon?[/QUOTE]
Longsword. The katana is just a longsword that was specialized for use as a quick-and-dirty sidearm against moderately-armored foes. Later, during the Edo period, it was extremely useful as a gentleman's sword because no one was ever armored at all, and it had such a long and agile cutting edge.

For D&D purposes, it's a longsword. An odachi would be a great sword, and a wakizashi would be a scimitar.

[werescythe]

Feral would work perfectly well. I have not perused MToF, personally, but if something offers STR or a decent defensive ability, it's fine.

Longsword. The katana is just a longsword that was specialized for use as a quick-and-dirty sidearm against moderately-armored foes. Later, during the Edo period, it was extremely useful as a gentleman's sword because no one was ever armored at all, and it had such a long and agile cutting edge.

For D&D purposes, it's a longsword. An odachi would be a great sword, and a wakizashi would be a scimitar.

Yeah, I kind of thought that might be the case when I looked over the equipment list, still it was worth asking.

The Glasya subrace could be very useful I think. Sure it still gives +2 to CHR (which could be handy with Elegant Courtier) it also gives +1 DEX. It then swaps out the Tiefling's standard spells for: Minor Illusion, Disguise Self, and Invisibility.

I suppose I could also go with the Zariel subrace, which is +2 CHR, +1 STR, while giving the spells: Thaumaturgy, a second level Searing Smite and Branding Smite. Though I'm kind of tempted to just stick with DEX for the extra AC (and Defensive Duelist).

[Yunru]

While I won't disagree with the overall rating for Monks, I feel Kensei in particular should be slightly higher for archers (maybe black?), given that you've very little use for your bonus action and getting +1d4 to your attack damage isn't a bad boost given it's costless (other than the level investment). You also get a minor boost to speed, which is always useful for staying out of your opponent's engagement range (plus your Ki uses also help for escaping tricky situations).

It still only deals slightly more damage than a Crossbow Expert who took three levels of Rogue instead (~42 DPR vs ~41 DPR), but it uses less feats and has better nova potential. Of course, if you get extra sources of attacks from the likes of Haste the Monk dip pulls ahead to a notable amount. (And on the other hand, if you get extra sources of damage, it starts to lag behind.)

[TakeitVillain]

I’m just quoting this:

[CENTER]An Illustrated Manual for Inflicting Violence
Fantastic Fighters
[*]Tiefling: Not really Fighter material. Okay for an Eldritch Knight, I guess.

Do you think you’ll add Mordenkainen’s races to your guides. Because there are some awesome races, not to mention Zariel Tiefling for fighters.

[mcabel]

Hi, I'm trying to optimize a Barb3/FighterX...HalfOrc with pointbuy.

From what I hear champion brings on the crits while battlemaster brings more raw power and versatility. I'm not that into making a crit build unless the other features make it the top choice anyway. But I do not know if Battlemaster has sinergy with barb 3. I'm considering Totem:wolf for the 3 levels of barb, and will probably go with GWF (and I'm undecided if I should go polearm master or focus on GreatSword)but please let me know if there are better choices.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: what about the violence done to our poor Forum Rules?