Probably unpopular take – we have large portions of Bo9S/ToB in 5e already

[Boci]

If at will teleport and greater invisibility are your standard you don't have cool, varied options at all in 5e.

Then it we appear a significant portion of Bo9S is missing from 5e.

[Tanarii]

(Self Scrubbed because off topic etc)

[Scarytincan]

No, it can't. The teleporting and invisibility are limited by light, and you get regular invis, not the greater version, only at level 11.

Not that much of a limitation, in my personal experience. And then all monks get even better than greater invis at level 18. But again, not trying to completely negate your point by any means, just tongue in cheek nitpicking XD

[Asisreo1]

Are you seriously comparing attempting to shove an enemy to grant your allies advantage to having reality bending magical powers?

Those two things aren't even in the same ballpark. Flying isn't good because "it's not damage". It's good because it's a straight up "i win" card against enemies that lack a ranged attack. It also helps immensely in the exploration department, being able to trivialize whole non-combat encounters.

Comparing the two is, at best, misconceived. At worst, disingenuous. Though I do believe you fall in the first group.

Those examples were comparing damaging options to nondamaging options. They were not comparing 3rd-level spells to at-will mechanics.

[Boci]

Those examples were comparing damaging options to nondamaging options. They were not comparing 3rd-level spells to at-will mechanics.

That's the problem. Your argument seems to be "of course a fighter should spend their turns mostly attacking", where as someone who has played ToB will likely, and correctly in the context, feel that "I do more than just attack" described 80% of how their turns looked.

[heavyfuel]

Eh, the "I win" only happens if the whole party is flying/kiting and the enemy has no way to retreat. A single Fly spell can't do that--you'd have to upcast to Fly VI to cover six PCs, and people don't generally do that. And any enemy who can be destroyed purely by Fly could probably have been destroyed just as easily by another kiting strategy like spending 60 gold per PC on horses.

As far as exploration, 5E makes climbing so ubiquitous and speedy (anyone can climb at half-speed), and the Fly spell's duration is so gimped (10 minutes, really? that's only 2.3 miles at top speed) that I actually can't imagine the scenario you're envisioning where Fly trivializes an encounter that couldn't be trivialized by nonmagical equipment. Can you elaborate?

The "I win" scenario certainly happens. It might be a ****-move, but if the Rogue spots an enemy with no ranged attacks, the wizard can fly in alone and cantrip the creature to the death without any combat aid from the party. If the enemy retreats, the wizard can follow.

I'm not saying it always happens, but the very possibility that it can happen is already enough to make it more worthwhile maybe (if you suceed) than giving maybe two allies (if you have 3 melee combatants) advantage (if they don't already have it) against a single enemy, for 1 round.

Climbing isn't as ubiquitous as you make it out to be. Anyone can climb somehting easy at half speed. Climbing something challenging requires a Str (Athletics) check. A check whose DC might as well be unbeatable if you're trying to climb a smooth wall.

The first example that pops into my head was when a DM had a tower and we had to reach the top to get the MacGuffin. According to his descriptions, the wall was made of polished metal which made climbing nearly impossible, and it was tall enough that grappling hooks didn't reach the top, so the only way up - or so he thought - would be from staircases inside.

So, when he asked what we'd do, I asked people from the party how many feet of rope we had combined, we tied all the rope together, and I cast Fly on the Fighter. He reached the top, and pulled us up. We then went down a floor, killed the boss (easy task when we skipped over his minions that were supposed to drain our resources), grabbed the MacGuffin, and went our merry way.

A single 3rd level spell overcame two whole encounters that were supposed to happen before the boss.

Saying "Fly" doesn't allow anything that can't be done with mundane equipment is only technically true. We could've spent a week putting pitons on the wall to climb it, but this would've drawn attention and take a lot of time. Same goes for spells like "Teleport". Yeah, you can buy a few horses and spend 3 months journeying to where you need to go, or the Wizard can use his Action to get you there this second.

[Asisreo1]

That's the problem. Your argument seems to be "of course a fighter should spend their turns mostly attacking", where as someone who has played ToB will likely, and correctly in the context, feel that "I do more than just attack" described 80% of how their turns looked.

You're comparing two different systems. Let me ask: Do you believe the fighter is weak because it has a default or do you believe the fighter is just too simple for your taste.

If it's the latter, understand that that's purely a matter of taste. There's systems that handle martials where they have just as many options as a spellcaster. That's fine but it's another type of game than 5e where simplicity is key regardless.

If you think they're weak because they can't cast meteor swarm, understand that a fighter or the majority of martials have a good chance to survive a meteor from meteor swarm at the appropriate level. This isn't about PvP, this is about the fact that an NPC has the right to wield meteor swarm and if it goes off, the casters are more likely dead. The point of martials are their high defenses and survivability.

[Boci]

You're comparing two different systems.

So is the thread. If the argument is "5e incorporated Bo9S, just not the best parts", then sure, I guess that's an accurate argument to make. but it strikes me as kinda pointless.

For the record though, yes it is more about options than power. In 3.5 fighters were the more power-gamer class, ToB had a higher floor but a lower cieling.

[DeadMech]

If 5e ToB was published tomorrow I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I have never had as much fun playing a martial character as I did when I played a 3.5 crusader. I haven't bought a single 5e book yet

[Asisreo1]

The "I win" scenario certainly happens. It might be a ****-move, but if the Rogue spots an enemy with no ranged attacks, the wizard can fly in alone and cantrip the creature to the death without any combat aid from the party. If the enemy retreats, the wizard can follow.

I'm not saying it always happens, but the very possibility that it can happen is already enough to make it more worthwhile maybe (if you suceed) than giving maybe two allies (if you have 3 melee combatants) advantage (if they don't already have it) against a single enemy, for 1 round.

Climbing isn't as ubiquitous as you make it out to be. Anyone can climb somehting easy at half speed. Climbing something challenging requires a Str (Athletics) check. A check whose DC might as well be unbeatable if you're trying to climb a smooth wall.

The first example that pops into my head was when a DM had a tower and we had to reach the top to get the MacGuffin. According to his descriptions, the wall was made of polished metal which made climbing nearly impossible, and it was tall enough that grappling hooks didn't reach the top, so the only way up - or so he thought - would be from staircases inside.

So, when he asked what we'd do, I asked people from the party how many feet of rope we had combined, we tied all the rope together, and I cast Fly on the Fighter. He reached the top, and pulled us up. We then went down a floor, killed the boss (easy task when we skipped over his minions that were supposed to drain our resources), grabbed the MacGuffin, and went our merry way.

A single 3rd level spell overcame two whole encounters that were supposed to happen before the boss.

Saying "Fly" doesn't allow anything that can't be done with mundane equipment is only technically true. We could've spent a week putting pitons on the wall to climb it, but this would've drawn attention and take a lot of time. Same goes for spells like "Teleport". Yeah, you can buy a few horses and spend 3 months journeying to where you need to go, or the Wizard can use his Action to get you there this second.

Wait, you're basing this off of the possibility that something like this can happen despite the fact that they'd need to have 3rd level spells and the DM set up 2 fights in a row within 10 minutes where the enemy had no ranged options and the area they fought was in an open enough area while also being the two fights before a boss?

I mean, yeah sure. But what if the DM makes a solo boss encounter with a mage at that same level and the fighter goes up to him, grapples him, and the bard casts silence or darkness? The martial trivialized the encounter and it's a concern because of the possibility of it happening?

[Warwick]

I don't understand this mentality. You're part of a team. Is chess (or XCOM: UFO Defense) tactically boring just because there's only one thing to do with a knight/bishop/rook/king (or Heavy Plasma)? No!

These games give you a number of pieces to act with. Even though each individual piece is simple, the player has an enormous range of options. If a fighter had a squad of subordinates to control, it would indeed gain tactical depth even if each individual soldier was pretty basic. Individual chess pieces are even simpler than the simplest of D&D characters, but you get 16 of them and a very restrictive action economy that forces you to very carefully consider your choices.

(Of course, there are additional complications with the comparison, like it's okay if a turn of chess or X-Com takes 20-30 minutes, but that's not the case in D&D).

If damage was always so important all of the time, why would a spellcaster grab a spell like Fly, Invisibility, Shield, Bane, etc. The answer is obvious, some things are worth more than damage.

Martial characters don't get access to effects that dramatic, for the most part. The problem is not that damage > everything (if anything, the opposite is more often true, with damage being overrated), but that your option to forgo additional damage as a fighter are rarely worth it.

Even attacks, as I've said before, comes with interesting decision making. Let's say you attack nothing but minions, and the spellcaster eventually casts fireballs centered on your wizard uncontested. Now, let's go in a different direction. What if the fighter targets the spellcaster? Now the spellcaster has a huge threat staring it in the face. But then again, who's protecting your wizard from the minions you'd be ignoring?

TBH this does not sound like interesting decision making. I've seen this sort of scenario presented on multiple occasions, and the correct course of action is almost always obvious. Precisely because you have so little to do with your action(s), you're not dealing with a complicated decision tree. Even more sophisticated martial characters than a champion or barbarian don't have a particularly deep well to draw on and 5e doesn't strongly reward positioning.

[Boci]

Wait, you're basing this off of the possibility that something like this can happen despite the fact that they'd need to have 3rd level spells and the DM set up 2 fights in a row within 10 minutes where the enemy had no ranged options and the area they fought was in an open enough area while also being the two fights before a boss?

Doesn't "The first example that pops into my head was when a DM had a tower and we had to reach the top to get the MacGuffin." read as something that did happen, not something that could? That and "We could've spent a week putting pitons on the wall to climb it, but this would've drawn attention and take a lot of time."

What makes you read this being a hypothetical scenario?

[Asisreo1]

So is the thread. If the argument is "5e incorporated Bo9S, just not the best parts", then sure, I guess that's an accurate argument to make. but it strikes me as kinda pointless.

For the record though, yes it is more about options than power. In 3.5 fighters were the more power-gamer class, ToB had a higher floor but a lower cieling.

I said that because action economy and combat is balanced differently. Bo9S needed fighters to have all of those options at their disposal because it was assumed they had them. 5e doesn't need a fighter to trip an enemy or disarm a foe for everything to work out.

You're not even restricted for disarming an enemy. SA says anyone can disarm an enemy, the DM just adjudicates how it happens, giving the DMG optional action as a reference. There is nothing in the book restricting someone from disarming an enemy, people just think they can't because they feel they need the book's permission instead of the DM.

Improvise is a valid action and it gives more options than one can list. It doesn't have specific rules, but are you surprised? Combat isn't nearly as neat as people think it is, they just remain bounded by what the book explicitly tells them and assume it's supposed to tell you everything you can do.

You can throw sand, throw fabric over heads, choke, force poison down someone's throat, etc. You have options, people just want all of them to be so incredibly good they compete with "attack" for free.

[MaxWilson]

The "I win" scenario certainly happens. It might be a ****-move, but if the Rogue spots an enemy with no ranged attacks, the wizard can fly in alone and cantrip the creature to the death without any combat aid from the party. If the enemy retreats, the wizard can follow.

Why couldn't the Rogue kite the enemy to death himself? Was the creature much faster than the normal 30' to 40' speed of nonflying MM monsters?

The first example that pops into my head was when a DM had a tower and we had to reach the top to get the MacGuffin. According to his descriptions, the wall was made of polished metal which made climbing nearly impossible, and it was tall enough that grappling hooks didn't reach the top, so the only way up - or so he thought - would be from staircases inside.

So, when he asked what we'd do, I asked people from the party how many feet of rope we had combined, we tied all the rope together, and I cast Fly on the Fighter. He reached the top, and pulled us up. We then went down a floor, killed the boss (easy task when we skipped over his minions that were supposed to drain our resources), grabbed the MacGuffin, and went our merry way.

A single 3rd level spell overcame two whole encounters that were supposed to happen before the boss.

Saying "Fly" doesn't allow anything that can't be done with mundane equipment is only technically true. We could've spent a week putting pitons on the wall to climb it, but this would've drawn attention and take a lot of time. Same goes for spells like "Teleport". Yeah, you can buy a few horses and spend 3 months journeying to where you need to go, or the Wizard can use his Action to get you there this second.

Ah, I see--the DM built this tower specifically to resist mundane climbing but forgot about magic (Fly, Levitate, Find Greater Steed, Conjure Animals). You're lucky it didn't have a Glyph of Dispel Magic up top.

I (as DM) would never use such a scenario. Casting Glyph (Dispel Magic) is considerably easier than building a perfectly smooth wizard's tower high enough that grappling hooks cannot work even from a specialized crossbow (thirty stories? Fifty? Not sure). If I (as NPC wizard) am going to do the latter I'm certainly going to do the former as well.

Agreed that Teleport is much more powerful.

[heavyfuel]

Wait, you're basing this off of the possibility that something like this can happen despite the fact that they'd need to have 3rd level spells and the DM set up 2 fights in a row within 10 minutes where the enemy had no ranged options and the area they fought was in an open enough area while also being the two fights before a boss?

I mean, yeah sure. But what if the DM makes a solo boss encounter with a mage at that same level and the fighter goes up to him, grapples him, and the bard casts silence or darkness? The martial trivialized the encounter and it's a concern because of the possibility of it happening?

You misread me. We skipped the fights because they were inside the tower, and we skipped the entire inside of the tower by flying to the top. We did not skip the fights because of the reasons you listed.

[Boci]

I said that because action economy and combat is balanced differently. Bo9S needed fighters to have all of those options at their disposal because it was assumed they had them. 5e doesn't need a fighter to trip an enemy or disarm a foe for everything to work out.

Neither did 3.5. There were players who didn't like Bo9S and were perfectly happy with a fighter, attacking on most of their turns, but others liked the new option the book game them for martials.

[heavyfuel]

Ah, I see--the DM built this tower specifically to resist mundane climbing but forgot about magic (Fly, Levitate, Find Greater Steed, Conjure Animals). You're lucky it didn't have a Glyph of Dispel Magic up top.

I (as DM) would never use such a scenario. Casting Glyph (Dispel Magic) is considerably easier than building a perfectly smooth wizard's tower high enough that grappling hooks cannot work even from a specialized crossbow (thirty stories? Fifty? Not sure). If I (as NPC wizard) am going to do the latter I'm certainly going to do the former as well.

Who said the NPC was a Wizard? Or even a spellcaster of any sort for that matter?

Also, just because you wouldn't do something, it doesn't make it a universal truth.

[MaxWilson]

These games give you a number of pieces to act with. Even though each individual piece is simple, the player has an enormous range of options. If a fighter had a squad of subordinates to control, it would indeed gain tactical depth even if each individual soldier was pretty basic. Individual chess pieces are even simpler than the simplest of D&D characters, but you get 16 of them and a very restrictive action economy that forces you to very carefully consider your choices.

(Of course, there are additional complications with the comparison, like it's okay if a turn of chess or X-Com takes 20-30 minutes, but that's not the case in D&D).

And in 5E you have a whole party of PCs working as a team. Even if, for example, they are all Champion Fighters, there's still a lot of tactical depth to explore.

Who said the NPC was a Wizard? Or even a spellcaster of any sort for that matter?

Also, just because you wouldn't do something, it doesn't make it a universal truth.

I agree! That was an aside. Clearly your DM has a different philosophy and that's fine.

Out of curiosity, who was the NPC that built the unclimbable tower and were they a spellcaster?

[Kane0]

Blistering Flourish: Dazzle creatures around you
Burning Blade: Deal extra fire damage
Distracting Ember: summon small fire elemental
Wind Stride: Speed increase
Crusader's Strike: Attack heals you
Iron Guard Glare: Penalty to enemies attacking allies
Vanguard Strike: Bonus to allies attacking your target
Moment of Perfect Mind: Replace save with skill check
Sapphire Nightmare Blade: Flat-footed attack with extra damage
Steel Wind: Attack two enemies
Steely Strike: Bonus to attack enemy, who get bonus to attack you
Counter Charge: Redirect charge
Mighty Throw: Toss enemy 10'
Clinging Shadow: Foe suffers miss chance
Shadow Blade: Attack at disadvantage to add Cold damage
Charging Minotaur: Attack + maneuver
Stone Bones: Gain damage reduction
Sudden Leap: big jump
Wolf Fang Strike: Dual weapon attack
Douse the Flames: Target cannot make opp attacks
Leading the Attack: Allies gain bonus against enemy

Flame's Blessing: Fire resistance
Martial Spirit: Attacks heal you passively
Stance of Clarity: Extra AC against 1 enemy, penalty against others
Punishing Stance: extra damage for lower AC
Step of the Wind: Ignore difficult terrain with bonuses against enemies in it
Child of Shadow: Concealment while you move
Island of Blades: You and allies flank better
Stonefoot stance: Bonus against checks and AC vs larger enemies
Blood in the Water: Bonus to attacks and damage when you crit
Hunter's Scent: Gain Scent
Bolstering Voice: Allies get bonuses on Will saves and Fear especially
Leading the Charge: Allies deal extra damage with charges

And this is just at level 1. They aren't locked behind subclass (level 3), costly feats (levels 4+ and optional), class features or multiclassing (beyond their access/known/available resource system). The vast majority isn't built into the core of 5e, it's added as bits and pieces that a lot of the time you don't get to choose, and when you do get a choice it's a once off like Fighting Style, severely limited in scope like BM manoeuvres or are actually spells.

[Warwick]

And in 5E you have a whole party of PCs working as a team. Even if, for example, they are all Champion Fighters, there's still a lot of tactical depth to explore.

Most games of D&D have one player per character. Consoling a player that wants a martial character with greater tactical and mechanical depth by reminding them that three other people are also controlling mechanically unsophisticated characters has unclear benefits.

[Luccan]

Much as I appreciate what ToB did for martials in the meta sense, my actual favorite thing about it was the reusable supernatural abilities. Things like acquiring scent or breaking through most anything at lower levels up to walking on air at higher levels. The martial arts film/legendary warrior abilities were the cool part, not dealing extra damage (except when that extra damage let you summon fire on your sword out of nowhere).

[Asisreo1]

Blistering Flourish: Dazzle creatures around you
Burning Blade: Deal extra fire damage
Distracting Ember: summon small fire elemental
Wind Stride: Speed increase
Crusader's Strike: Attack heals you
Iron Guard Glare: Penalty to enemies attacking allies
Vanguard Strike: Bonus to allies attacking your target
Moment of Perfect Mind: Replace save with skill check
Sapphire Nightmare Blade: Flat-footed attack with extra damage
Steel Wind: Attack two enemies
Steely Strike: Bonus to attack enemy, who get bonus to attack you
Counter Charge: Redirect charge
Mighty Throw: Toss enemy 10'
Clinging Shadow: Foe suffers miss chance
Shadow Blade: Attack at disadvantage to add Cold damage
Charging Minotaur: Attack + maneuver
Stone Bones: Gain damage reduction
Sudden Leap: big jump
Wolf Fang Strike: Dual weapon attack
Douse the Flames: Target cannot make opp attacks
Leading the Attack: Allies gain bonus against enemy

Flame's Blessing: Fire resistance
Martial Spirit: Attacks heal you passively
Stance of Clarity: Extra AC against 1 enemy, penalty against others
Punishing Stance: extra damage for lower AC
Step of the Wind: Ignore difficult terrain with bonuses against enemies in it
Child of Shadow: Concealment while you move
Island of Blades: You and allies flank better
Stonefoot stance: Bonus against checks and AC vs larger enemies
Blood in the Water: Bonus to attacks and damage when you crit
Hunter's Scent: Gain Scent
Bolstering Voice: Allies get bonuses on Will saves and Fear especially
Leading the Charge: Allies deal extra damage with charges

And this is just at level 1. They aren't locked behind subclass (level 3), costly feats (levels 4+ and optional), class features or multiclassing (beyond their access/known/available resource system). The vast majority isn't built into the core of 5e, it's added as bits and pieces that a lot of the time you don't get to choose, and when you do get a choice it's a once off like Fighting Style, severely limited in scope like BM manoeuvres or are actually spells.

I've seen these but surely you can understand how this can be overwhelming. It's overwhelming for people to just go through the options of the spell list in this game, much less the spell list options of the others. The first question would be: how do I use these manuevers? With the second being: are they even worth using?

Some just aren't as strong as others and some just aren't worth using. When do we use them? Where do we use them? How do we use them? Is there anything else I can play? Which one should I spam? What do I do when I run out?

Introducing a new game will cause the newer players to ask these questions and the more intimidating the answers, the less likely they'll even want to play. They need an entry point and martials are really good.

I'll also say at-will cantrips are also very good because spellcasters have a default that can usually get the job done without a huge micromanagement headache.

So the question isn't how many options can we cram into every martial. It's how many does each martial need.

I'm not sure if things could be better but look at this from both a design and gameplay perspective. Who should be the most complex of martial with the most choices? Probably monks or rogues, and they have a good amount of choices. Who should have the least? Probably barbarians. These hold true and they fit with expectations that monks have high mobility and can do crazy stuff to their opponents while barbarians smash hard and fast without needing tactics or plans.

So where does the fighter sit? Well, the fighter is unique in that he needs to have a good amount of options, but he also needs to be the poster child for martial simplicity over spellcaster complexity. They gave him action surge and second wind to always give him time to think about his BA and potential second action but you aren't choosing between a list. At 3rd level, you're given a chance to split. If you're comfortable with the system, you can go battlemaster to spice the game up. If you're still struggling using dex for both attack rolls and danage rolls, you can move to champion to keep learning the basics with good passive boosts to keep level-up rewards. If you want to stay fighter but want to try your hand at a big list of effects, you can go eldritch knight.

Essentially, you get to split how simple or complex you want your fighter to be and you have time before you commit.

The champion also gets to be DM's first player and he can focus on basic rules and not on how maneuver dice works and when they come back and whatever. That's why champion is the only fighter in the basic rules.

[Boci]

I've seen these but surely you can understand how this can be overwhelming. It's overwhelming for people to just go through the options of the spell list in this game, much less the spell list options of the others. The first question would be: how do I use these manuevers? With the second being: are they even worth using?

Some just aren't as strong as others and some just aren't worth using. When do we use them? Where do we use them? How do we use them? Is there anything else I can play? Which one should I spam? What do I do when I run out?

If new players can handle a spell caster, I think they can handle a martial adept. The list of 1st level spells is way longer than the list of 1st level maneuvres, and learning spells is harder. There should be a simple options for new players certainly, but I think you're overestimating how difficult this would be for a new player to pilot.

[Telok]

There is nothing in the book restricting someone from disarming an enemy, people just think they can't because they feel they need the book's permission instead of the DM.

Improvise is a valid action and it gives more options than one can list. It doesn't have specific rules, but are you surprised? Combat isn't nearly as neat as people think it is, they just remain bounded by what the book explicitly tells them and assume it's supposed to tell you everything you can do.

The DMs I've played with in 5e wouldn't let you. The reasons were generally given as:
A) There's no rules for it in the book, the dm doesn't feel comfortable making new rules on the fly, and they don't think any proficiencies cover it. So it's either "no", or make a 15+ attribute check without proficiency to be allowed to attempt the attack roll at disadvantage to do no damage and hope they fail their choice of a strength or dexterity save.
B) That's a Battle Master/monk subclass/something else move and you aren't so no.
C) That would "break the fight" so it is not allowed.

I'm also recalling the dex based warblade I played. Ran past a 12x12 phalanx of hobgoblin fighters with 15' pikes, jumped over a calvary line, to one-shot an enemy mage. I think we were 13th level or so, that was a xeph with a speed boost using pearl of black doubt vs. 36+ AoOs followed by the swift jump move and greater insightful strike. Or the time running around jumping 30 feet up to keep trying to stab a flying improved invisiblity wizard with an arrow of dispelling. Did get him after 6 or so rounds and kept him focused on something other than repeatedly casting monster summons. We did not have our own wizard, just a semi-incompetent dread necromancer.

[heavyfuel]

Out of curiosity, who was the NPC that built the unclimbable tower and were they a spellcaster?

I honestly don't know who built it. It was never exposed to us and we didn't bother investigating it. The people that were inhabiting at the time was a war lord and his lackeys. The tower was somewhat ancient, so it might have been a wizard who build it at some point. Perhaps they found it and decided it would make a decent stronghold?

[Asisreo1]

You misread me. We skipped the fights because they were inside the tower, and we skipped the entire inside of the tower by flying to the top. We did not skip the fights because of the reasons you listed.

I don't see how that's a problem. Did the DM seem upset? Either way, spells allow people to bypass problems, that's how they work. Why didn't the DM put a roof up? Why didn't the DM have the tower too high for the ropes? Why didn't the DM just have ranged attackers from the inside?

If he made the encounter and promised himself that he wasn't going to change things just to counter an idea, then things should just work out. It was kinda clever what you've done, most would see big unclimbable tower and walk in but you're probably smarter than you give yourself credit if you came up with that.

And hopefully the DM learned that a tower isn't fully secured from the outside until is has a roof and locked doors. Otherwise, he should probably invest in making dungeons.

But this type of stuff is what DM'ing is for. You aren't trying to funnel the game with as many anti-measures as possible just because you want a railroad. You're making a world and facilitating the story through the world's reactions. Even if you have a designated plot, you should allow the players to have choose their own solutions. You fought and beat the BBEG, so all's well that ended well.

If it was me, I might've even given the exp for avoiding the encounters anyways. Trust me, it's not going to happen again.

[MaxWilson]

Most games of D&D have one player per character. Consoling a player that wants a martial character with greater tactical and mechanical depth by reminding them that three other people are also controlling mechanically unsophisticated characters has unclear benefits.

Don't you plan tactics with the other PCs? (Plans are useless but planning is indispensable.) Since you're talking about "most games" I will set aside the Champions-only scenario, in which case you have things like:

Shadow Monk casts Silence on enemy wizard and threatens Stunning Strike opportunity attack while fighter grapple/prones the wizard and they both kill him at advantage.

Fighter advances toward the enemy while shooting arrows, stopping 45' away in hopes that the enemy will Dash toward him and surround him. Then he Dodges to give them even more time to surround him, then whistles for the Evoker to pop out of hiding and drop a Fireball on him.

Fighter disarms several of the enemy humanoids (githyanki, drow, etc.) and the druid's conjured apes pick up those weapons and flee with them, then the bard Suggests to their leader that their position is now hopeless and they should surrender.

Wizard Polymorphs Fighter into Giant Ape so the Fighter can throw rocks at a Behir while the Warlock Eldritch Blasts from horseback, and the wizard stays safely hidden to maintain concentration.

Fighter charges and attacks the biggest enemy (Fire Giant) to draw its attention, using Disarming attacks and Menacing Strike from the right angle to pin it mostly in place while the rest of the party kills the small guys with AoEs.

In an all-fighter party the tactics you'd discuss would be different, more about Athletics and distances and terrain geometry, but most people don't play all-fighter parties. In no case however is it boring to be the fighter, unless your party is uninterested in teamwork. (That last scenario could be boring for the wizard during execution because all he does is hide, but if he's a believer in teamwork it shouldn't be. And the DM can always let the wizard player run the Behir while the wizard is hiding, if the player does get bored.)

It's a team game. Plan as a team.

[Dienekes]

I've seen these but surely you can understand how this can be overwhelming. It's overwhelming for people to just go through the options of the spell list in this game, much less the spell list options of the others. The first question would be: how do I use these manuevers? With the second being: are they even worth using?

I just walked through 6 new players on how to play. 4 are casters. They’ve learned. It really wasn’t that bad. Sure some picked less than optimal choices, but the great thing with spells and maneuvers is you can just prepare different spells.

So where does the fighter sit? Well, the fighter is unique in that he needs to have a good amount of options, but he also needs to be the poster child for martial simplicity over spellcaster complexity.

[/quote]

Here’s the thing. The two pure martial classes are Barbarian and Fighter. And somehow both of them have gotten propped up as the simple classes for noobies. And that’s the issue. They could easily have just picked one to be the simple big numbers class, and the other the complex class. I definitely prefer the Fighter for the complex role. But as long as there’s one, it’d be great.

It’s only the designers of 5e decided that just about all complexity would be fit into the spell casting system. And I think that’s a mistake. And the fans of ToB mostly agree.

Whether the solution is to rework Fighters or just release 3 new maneuver classes, I don’t really care. I just want to play a mechanically complex entirely martial character.

[Asisreo1]

The DMs I've played with in 5e wouldn't let you. The reasons were generally given as:
A) There's no rules for it in the book, the dm doesn't feel comfortable making new rules on the fly, and they don't think any proficiencies cover it. So it's either "no", or make a 15+ attribute check without proficiency to be allowed to attempt the attack roll at disadvantage to do no damage and hope they fail their choice of a strength or dexterity save.
B) That's a Battle Master/monk subclass/something else move and you aren't so no.
C) That would "break the fight" so it is not allowed.

I won't say that's bad DM'ing but it certainly restricts characters far beyond what they can do. I mean, are you saying a commoner can't disarm another commoner just because they never went to PC level up bootcamp?

As far as A is concerned, yeah, that's fair. If you had high strength, you might be able to do it somewhat reliably. It's not like disarming a spellcaster isn't one of the most debilitating things you can do to them with little chance for them to fight back.

With B, the book literally gives four examples of improvisation. You can even intimidate your enemies or sense weaknesses in magical defenses. It's not really up for interpretation that a player can attempt whatever action on their turn. The blurb explicitly says you can without any swingy language. It's a straight "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter."

With C, combat is meant to be broken. A level 20 encounter can literally be 4 stunning strikes that chewed up LR, a divine wizard polymorph, and whatever they want to do with the joke of a BBEG. Is it likely? Probably not, but it's possible and it's definitely happened before.

I'm also recalling the dex based warblade I played. Ran past a 12x12 phalanx of hobgoblin fighters with 15' pikes, jumped over a calvary line, to one-shot an enemy mage. I think we were 13th level or so, that was a xeph with a speed boost using pearl of black doubt vs. 36+ AoOs followed by the swift jump move and greater insightful strike. Or the time running around jumping 30 feet up to keep trying to stab a flying improved invisiblity wizard with an arrow of dispelling. Did get him after 6 or so rounds and kept him focused on something other than repeatedly casting monster summons. We did not have our own wizard, just a semi-incompetent dread necromancer.

There's no 15' pikes in D&D but it sounds like the rest can be fulfilled with a Kensei monk if he bought a mount. An eldritch knight could probably jump 30ft after casting jump and still make their melee weapon attack (improvised weapon in this case, translated to 5e.)

[Asisreo1]

I just walked through 6 new players on how to play. 4 are casters. They’ve learned. It really wasn’t that bad. Sure some picked less than optimal choices, but the great thing with spells and maneuvers is you can just prepare different spells.

Here’s the thing. The two pure martial classes are Barbarian and Fighter. And somehow both of them have gotten propped up as the simple classes for noobies. And that’s the issue. They could easily have just picked one to be the simple big numbers class, and the other the complex class. I definitely prefer the Fighter for the complex role. But as long as there’s one, it’d be great.

It’s only the designers of 5e decided that just about all complexity would be fit into the spell casting system. And I think that’s a mistake. And the fans of ToB mostly agree.

Whether the solution is to rework Fighters or just release 3 new maneuver classes, I don’t really care. I just want to play a mechanically complex entirely martial character.[/QUOTE]

Is battlemaster not enough or do you want more from them? Or do you not want more battlemasters. I'm still not sure what people exactly want that isn't provided.

Is it the fact that an eldritch knight can cast spells that make it gross to people? Like, does being a pure martial vs being a third-caster matter so much that you can't take it? Is this still limiting?

I'm not sure what more you could want besides changing the system to be like ToB. Who says third-casters are any less of a valid option? Since when is being a monk too mystical?

In the end, talk to your DM. Reference the type of stuff you want to play like and he can prepare it and accommodate or just simply play ToB with you all instead.