Martials remastered - VERY WIP

[Heavenblade]

So, after a prolonged discussion about the nature of martials in 5e, I started considering what an alternate system of martial character would look like. In this alternate system, every martial gets superiority dice (Barb, Ftr, Mnk, Rng, Pld, Rog) - Barb and Fighter at level 1, the others at level 2. Each class gets a specialized maneuver that is unique to it at the first level it gets maneuvers. In addition, various combat related class features would be replaced with more maneuver options. Archetypes for these classes would also grant maneuvers related to the specific archetype abilities . Battlemaster will probably get more superiority dice, more general maneuvers, and the ability to get some from other classes lists.


What do we gain from this? Besides giving all martial more stuff to do and more fun abilities/choices, which is always great, it gives all martial classes a shared language. Just like spellcasters you the same format for spells, and have a good basis for balancing their spells and abilities against one another, now martials will have it too. The shared design mechanic will make it easier to create new material without breaking things, since we have a flexible mechanic that can go in many directions.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, if it works itll make martials much cooler (:

So here are my general thoughts, and I'd be glad to hear your ideas/criticisms about what I have and the blank spaces I need to fill!

Spoiler: Martial, remastered - first draft

Show

Premise:
Giving all martial characters (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue) Superiroity dice and martial maneuvers. Each class will have many of its features (And subclass features) replaced with the specialized maneuvers (which will advance with levels).

The Basics
Superiority dice advancments:
Regualr - you get 2d4 superiority dice, increasing the number of dice by 1 each non-even level, and get a bump to the dice size every X levels (Maybe 5/9/13/17 progression).
Battlemaster advancment: You get 2d6 superiority dice, increasing every level instead of every non-even level, same tier increase (with a special capstone at 17).

Barbarian

Features replaced:
-Reckless attack
Replace it with a maneuver that lets you add the dice and add the result to attack AND damage, but you get the same penalty to your AC.

Fighter
Features replaced: None

Monk
Features replaced:
-Ki
Instead of ki, the monk gains advancment similar to that of the battlemaster instead of a regular progression, letting you use superiority dice to make more attacks, attack and disengage as a bonus, or attack and dash as a bonus. Things requiring you to spend ki will instead require you to spend superiority dice with an added appropriate roll

Paladin
Features replaced:
-Smite (And greater)
Intead of spending spell slots, you can spend superiority dice.

Ranger (revised)
Features replaced:
-Favored enemy (and greater)
You can spend a superiority dice in order to get a static bonus to damage against the enemy you chose to focus on - and probably advantage on ceratin checks against them until you choose to stop using the bonus

Rogue
Features replaced:
-Sneak attack - adds a static 1 dice for free to damage rolls (gets more with levels) and can add even more dice to damage from the regular pool, maybe gaining the ability to impose conditions by spending superiority die on a sneak attack as the levels advance?

Things that I haven't though of yet -
Unique signature abilities if they are needed, archetype abilities.

[Steampunkette]

Alternative idea:

Leave Maneuvers and their Dice in the hands of Fighters.

Re-structure "Fighting Styles" into a baseline ability and 3-4 'pseudo maneuvers' or triggered-maneuvers for weapon-categories more granular than 'Great Weapon'.

So we could -have- Great Weapon fighting where you reroll 1s and 2s. But it would also give you Cleave.

Cleave
Requisites: Great Weapon Fighting Style, Two Handed weapon or Versatile weapon wielded in two hands
Action: Reaction
Trigger: Enemy reduced to 0hp by your attack
When you reduce a target to 0hp with your attack you may expend your reaction to take an immediate attack against another target within reach.

And maybe Follow Through.

Follow Through
Requisites: Great Weapon Fighting Style, Two Handed weapon or Versatile weapon wielded in two hands, Level 5
Action: Bonus
Trigger: You have finished an action in which you attacked.
After spending your action to attack, you step forward with the weight of your weapon. As a bonus action move the last enemy you attacked 5ft directly away from you, and move into the space they left. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

And also Weighted Blow

Weighted Blow
Requisites: Great Weapon Fighting Style, Two Handed weapon or Versatile weapon wielded in two hands
Action: Reaction
Trigger: You land a Critical Hit
Using your weapon's weight and placing your own weight behind it, you hurl your target onto the flat of their back. The target of your critical hit becomes prone.

That way it's a series of minor improvements to an ability that Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers already get. Barbarians -need- Reckless Attack as a way to fish for Crits so their Brutal Criticals come into play more often.

It would also make Fighters SUPER COOL as they whip out multiple fighting styles after level 10, giving them a lot of uses for their bonus actions and reactions.

[Yakk]

I get the draw to create one system to rule them all.

May I suggest: Don't.

Barbarian:
* I'd look to the 4e berzerker. It transitioned from a defender to a damage dealer over a fight.
* That gave it some tactical complexity without having to bolt on fighter-type stuff.

Fighter
* This is a good place for maneuvers.

Monk
* Already has a Ki subsystem. Enrich it.

Rogue
* Give it a way to spend sneak attack dice on tricks or something.
* 2nd best place for maneuvers.

Paladin
* Already has spells, lay on hands, and smite
* Enrich those options.

Ranger
* Enhance HM/quarry mechanics

[Old Harry MTX]

I literally love the 5e maneuvers system, and I'm a fan of the old ToB, but what you wantto do could be really complex ...

Perhaps the best approach would be to create maneuvers-based subclasses for each martial class, maybe introducing different mechanics for each of them to trade their iconic features (ki points, spell slots, rage uses, sneak attacks...) with superiority dice, without replacing them.

You must also consider that the maneuvers of the 5e, as they are now, are limited by the fact that they are not divided into tiers like spells, and they evolve only because it is the superiority die that evolves with the level of the character. While this serves to keep the system as simple as possible and to give it a unique identity in comparison to spellcasting, it also greatly limits the development of homebrewd maneuvers. That's probably why, until now, it's used only in a fighter's subclass.

[SandyAndy]

I actually have a different approach. I don't believe the problem is that martials are too weak. I think the problem is that casters are too powerful. The thing is, people play casters to be powerful; so we can't just nerf them to heck. Solution, make magic cost more.

People don't really keep track of components, and even if they did the would find a way to carry a bag of holding with more magical ingredients than Hogwarts. Instead, I do 2 things: Insanity Score and Critical Success.

Bending the laws of reality requires you to think outside the bounds of reality. You should be careful to keep yourself grounded and find ways to realign yourself after playing god. And we all have critical fails. Roll a 1 and your fireball goes horribly wrong blows up in your face. I also add that if you roll a 20 then your fireball goes horribly right and blows up WAY more than you expected. After all, you are breaking the predictable laws of physics so unpredictable things might happen.

This doesn't work for every game at every table. But I find that it makes the party really think about when and how they use magic. It makes magic a bit more mysterious and feel more dangerous and powerful but gives the martials more of an opportunity to hit things with their pointy sticks.

[Steampunkette]

If we're going the "Nerf Spellcasters" route... I have a couple really solid options:

1) Less Damage Spells. Literally take Fireball and Lightning Bolt out of your campaign setting's magical options. Keep Cantrips as a source of baseline damage, give them a few upgrades that a spellcaster can apply by sacrificing spell slots, and go from there. Make magic more centered around battlefield control, utility, buffs, and the like.

2) More involved Casting. Make spells require additional actions. You don't "Cast a Spell" as an action. You "Perform Somatic Components" as an action and "Recite Verbal Components" as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, have players cast a spell at it's normal level as an action, but expend a bonus action in addition if they want to cast it at a higher level. So you can cast a 3rd level Fireball with no issue, but to boost it to 5th requires a bonus action.

Bonus points if you apply these traits to different classes to increase variety.

Druids/Clerics: Less Damage, more Cantrip-Centric spell-damage.

Wizards: Performing Somatic, Reciting Verbal Components.

Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock: Expend bonus action to cast a spell at higher level.

[SandyAndy]

I haven't tried making magic a more action-intensive process. That's an interesting idea and achieves the same thing I was trying to do with my adjustments. I'll have to try that. I have tried reducing damage from spells and removing damage spells but I found that my caster players felt a bit left out. They wanted to feel like they were playing god and manipulating the laws of nature. Making them less powerful made them feel like they got short-changed. The changes I made to casters make them feel too powerful and they started really thinking things through before spending that spellslot. I really like the idea of making spellcasting a multi-turn process though. It sounds really fun.

[MoiMagnus]

What is the end goal?

From my reading of countless subjects of martial vs caster, the current situation is:
(1) Only pure martial really have a problem. Paladin is fine (or possibly OP), same for Hexblade. Ranger might not be fine, but that's a problem orthogonal to the martial vs caster.
(2) Both martial and caster are roughly equivalent in power during combat. Martial tend to have higher DPR, in exchange of being more boring and less polyvalent. (Some peoples even argue that martial are already significantly stronger in combat than casters, but I don't personally agree).
(3) Out-of-combat, martial have to rely on skill only (while casters also have spells), which make them impotent if the DM gate interesting actions with high DC, and comparable but less polyvalent than casters if the DM is generous with what can be done with skills.

Which one is the goal here?
(a) To give more polyvalence/cool effects to martial during combat, without increasing their power-level.
(b) To give more polyvalence/cool effects AND more power to martial, making them the king of battles, and leaving spellcaster dominate out-of-combat.

My personal opinion :
There are already a lot of cool effects martial can get, they are called "feats". The problem is that (1) feats specialise your combat style instead of diversifying it as it is more interesting to take feats that "stack up" than to take feats that cover multiples situations, and (3) having to take combat feats to have an interesting combat gameplay means you cannot take RP-oriented feats.