Martial Power!!! (Give the martials something to do other than "attack again")

[strangebloke]

So, one of the common complaints about martials is that they're too homogenous, too lacking in options (both in terms of build options and in terms of combat options). It's also been pointed out that as releases continue, the spellcasters tend to do better because of how many classes will get a buff just because a new good spell got added to their certain spell list. Rangers became top-notch healers overnight when healing spirit was initially released, for example.

The solution proposed is pretty frequently "ToB/4e style maneuvers! Yeah!" To which the usual rejoinder is "...didn't 4e kinda not do so well??" or alternately "yes I agree every class should have BM-style maneuvers."

Personally I'm torn. I think BM maneuvers work well for the fighter. But I also think giving every class access to the same list is going to lead to a high degree of homogenity as some options are clearly and obviously overpowered for certain classes. Something like brace for a melee rogue, for example. I'd also be opposed to giving rogues access to something like ambush when they're already so good at getting great stealth scores, whereas I'd really like for barbarians to have something like that.

It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

It's further been pointed out that the BM maneuvers are somewhat lacking in that all options are accessible from level 3 and every level thereafter is just "picking the ones that were bad last level."

[Hael]

I think at one point you have to simply accept the fact that martials evolve to something more than human in tier 3-4. Whether thats through magic items, superpowers, mutations or boons/curses etc. So far DnD has been reticent of that leap, even though it has no problem with eg Raistlin Majere challenging for godhood as a wizard.

But ultimately they do need some ability to do things that are only available to casters. In anime, ninja jump between trees and spawn mirror images. In comic bulks the hulk smashes the road and uses it for a shield.

You can mechanically do those things as casters, but you can't as a martial. Hence the disconnect.

[RandomPeasant]

I think at one point you have to simply accept the fact that martials evolve to something more than human in tier 3-4. Whether thats through magic items, superpowers, mutations or boons/curses etc. So far DnD has been reticent of that leap, even though it has no problem with eg Raistlin Majere challenging for godhood as a wizard.

Got it in one. If the Wizard is going to become Doctor Strange, the Barbarian needs to become Thor. Or whatever your choice of benchmarks for "powerful mage" and "comparably powerful non-mage" are. This, incidentally, is exactly what 4e did with Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, which means that no one will ever support it as a plan for D&D going forward, because the lesson people have learned from 4e is universally "4e failed because it did things I do not like" rather than "4e failed because it was poorly tested and marketed with outright insults to the existing playerbase".

Of course, that's only really tangentially related to the issue in the thread, which is more about how classes get abilities than how class power scales. "I hit it with my sword again" is boring even at levels where it represents an appropriate contribution to the success of the party in overcoming encounters they are presented with.

The answer to that question is to give classes powers that work in a way that are appropriate to their idiom, both at the level of the individual power ("you get really angry and turn into a bear" is an appropriate Barbarian power, but out of place for a Monk) and at the level of the ways those powers work ("your abilities power up as you deal and take damage" is a reasonable way for a Barbarian's abilities to work, but not flavorful for a Monk).

[Dr.Samurai]

Totally disagree with the previous posters.

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). Instead, we get a fighting style class feature that is a always-on minor passive feature, and maybe a feat if feats are allowed. And some stuff that is optional in the DMG.

Meanwhile, casters have 50 million options every encounter, and when they level up.

[quindraco]

So, one of the common complaints about martials is that they're too homogenous, too lacking in options (both in terms of build options and in terms of combat options). It's also been pointed out that as releases continue, the spellcasters tend to do better because of how many classes will get a buff just because a new good spell got added to their certain spell list. Rangers became top-notch healers overnight when healing spirit was initially released, for example.

Yes, this is accurate.

The solution proposed is pretty frequently "ToB/4e style maneuvers! Yeah!" To which the usual rejoinder is "...didn't 4e kinda not do so well??" or alternately "yes I agree every class should have BM-style maneuvers."

4E was garbage because it was an mmorpg simulator in ttrpg form, not because martial complexity is intrinsically bad. On the other hand, BM maneuvers aren't necessarily the most well-designed mechanic in the world, either.

Personally I'm torn. I think BM maneuvers work well for the fighter.[...] It's further been pointed out that the BM maneuvers are somewhat lacking in that all options are accessible from level 3 and every level thereafter is just "picking the ones that were bad last level."

The latter is correct - BM maneuvers have terrible internal balance. Some are bad enough to be traps - Goading Attack is Menacing Attack but worse.

But I also think giving every class access to the same list is going to lead to a high degree of homogenity as some options are clearly and obviously overpowered for certain classes. Something like brace for a melee rogue, for example. I'd also be opposed to giving rogues access to something like ambush when they're already so good at getting great stealth scores, whereas I'd really like for barbarians to have something like that.

Class spell lists exist. You could have class maneuver lists.

[quote]It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

You could choose to view all non-magical abilities in the game as maneuvers if you wanted to. Go far enough down this path and you end up dropping classes as an idea entirely and just letting players make the character they want to play.

[RandomPeasant]

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

And that is a reasonable thing to want. But it is not a reasonable thing to want when the rest of the party is comprised of anime characters and comic book superheroes. There needs to be some answer for what the Fighter does when the Wizard is calling down meteors, and it can't simply be "hit it with my sword, but, like, really good, way better than I did at 1st level".

[Dr.Samurai]

And that is a reasonable thing to want. But it is not a reasonable thing to want when the rest of the party is comprised of anime characters and comic book superheroes. There needs to be some answer for what the Fighter does when the Wizard is calling down meteors, and it can't simply be "hit it with my sword, but, like, really good, way better than I did at 1st level".

Right, "the rest of the party" lol.

As I said, the melee and ranged combat system in D&D is bare minimum. They can easily make it more complex and interesting without transforming non-casters into casters-by-another-name.

And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

[LudicSavant]

A character doesn't have to be the Hulk or Goku to scale up to very high power levels; you can also do it with characters along the lines of Link or Batman or Hawkeye (in their most capable incarnations).

And yet characters like Link or even Hawkeye are often beyond the reach of D&D martials. These characters are masters of entire arsenals, sometimes with more tricks in a single tool than a D&D martial has in their one, overspecialized tool choice.

[OldTrees1]

Totally disagree with the previous posters.

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). Instead, we get a fighting style class feature that is a always-on minor passive feature, and maybe a feat if feats are allowed. And some stuff that is optional in the DMG.

Meanwhile, casters have 50 million options every encounter, and when they level up.

A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

My expectation of a T4 character is one that can get to the Great Red Wyrm and fight it. I like it if the T4 character has the exploration capabilities to make it there themselves. I like it if the T4 character can engage the dragon without additional assistance but is expected to have a party if they expect to win the engagement.

Does your imagined T4 knight have the ability to reach this threshold?

If yes, could you elaborate a tiny bit on how?

If no, is reaching this threshold a failure state in your eyes?

I think this might help to calibrate expectations.

[Dienekes]

I have actually done a homebrewed game where all martials had some form of the Battlemaster maneuvers. Went from levels 1-12. Here's what I learned:

-Players enjoyed using them. That was the big one for me. When asked, all of them said they preferred having the maneuvers to not having the maneuvers. Admittedly, this was 4 people, so not the biggest sample size.

-What I did was divide up the Battlemaster maneuvers so each class could only have a portion of them. While the Fighter got access to all of them. Especially for those who had less than the full range of maneuvers it became painfully obvious which ones were the most useful and those got spammed. Battlemaster maneuvers are not particularly well balanced, and the lack of scaling is definitely a problem.

-While by definition there was more diversity in play with the maneuvers than without, fights using them still generally fell into a predictable pattern of when they were used, and which maneuver would see play. Definitely by the level 12 mark, this made them a bit stale from where we were at with the earlier levels.

-Having the Fighter just be the best at maneuvers wasn't really enough. I had them as the only class with the full list, and their Superiority Die was always at least a step higher than everyone else. It didn't really come across as a mechanical identity for the class.

My ending thoughts about all this was, I do think the martial classes need something. I am less convinced if just granting everyone maneuvers is the right path. It's probably the most efficient one though. As strangebloke pointed out, if maneuvers were for everyone then adding new maneuvers becomes the tide that rises all martial classes together much like spells and mage classes.

In my perfect world, each class would get something special to make their play on a round by round basis unique to them. Some kind of maneuver system would work well for Fighters, but say, for Barbarians I'd probably look for a bunch of passive boosts that keep them feeling simple to play for those who just want to walk up and hit things. Which, isn't my style of play but there are some who value it. Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Monks they'd all get something else that would enforce the fantasy that each class is trying to go for. These options would preferably be leveled and to avoid the spam issue, have some sort of limitation on doing the same thing every round.

But this is a lot more work. And would require discipline from WotC to keep them all growing in power consistently through future publications. Which, I doubt would every happen.

So, some other method to make each class play differently then. Of this I think Tome of Battle actually did it the best. Certainly, every class used Maneuvers and Stances. Often having a lot of overlap between what maneuvers each class could take. But their refresh system made each feel unique. Crusader had to depend on luck/what their gods saw fit to grant them. Warblades had to take a moment of normal fighting to reorient themselves for another burst of maneuvers. And Swordsage essentially turned theirs into a bunch of single use encounter powers unless they meditate to get them back. All fairly flavorful and gave each a distinct playstyle.

But that depends on removing them from the 5e framework of At-Will, Short Rest, Long Rest dependency. Which for the most part I don't see WotC doing either.

[LudicSavant]

This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:

Concept: So, there's often a big divide between what we're told Fighters and Fighter-types can do and what they actually do. Here's an example:

Spoiler: image

Show

Awesome, right? But... that picture is from Complete Warrior, and it's supposed to be a picture of what the "Divine Resistance" feat does. And that's totally not what it does.

In fact, we get an awful lot of pictures of things like warriors using shields to block dragon breath (and shielding people behind them from the cone!) but the mechanics don't let us do that! Why?

Fighters can't even block lasers with shields unless they take a special feat. Why? Heck, why can't they straight up deflect and redirect a ray with a shield like we see a lot of fantasy fighters in media do?

I see occasional arguments on fighter threads about how Fighters will never catch up to mages unless they throw Kamehameha waves or something, followed by people arguing about whether that would still even be a Fighter, but... no, that's not even it. There's tons of design space to explore that fits the idea we're presented with already of what Fighters should be that simply isn't tapped.

Heck, a Kamehameha wave wouldn't even add much to the fighter's conceptual space to explore. What is that? It's just a ranged attack! Fighters already have ranged attacks, we can just make them better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc).

There's a big difference between this sort of depth and spells-and-maneuvers depth-- in fact, you could say they're polar opposites.

Think of an action as an equation--you do this, and something happens. The steps you the player go through are the input, and the effects on the world are the output.

Martial combat is a very simple function. Your input is "roll to hit," and your output is "roll hp damage.". There are abilities that tinker with both sides, but they're simple--one conditional clause, one extra output, that sort of thing. For good or for ill, you're putting in pretty much the same input and getting pretty much the same output.

Spells are much more complex, but the complexity is all on the output side. Casting a spell, the part where you the player interact with the mechanics, is easy--take an action, mark off a spell slot, boom. You're still doing the same sort of thing every turn, but you get wildly different output.

A system like you're proposing is adding complexity to the input side of the equation. Weapon speed charts, fighting styles, armor types... You can get the input almost arbitrarily complicated, but the output is still the same "the target is hurt." You get tactical depth, but it's all in weighting the numbers ahead of time.

Put it like this: if a melee attack is "x+y=z," and a spell is "m=n, p, q, or r," then your system would be "3x³/6a+b(a+(c/3))= y+z." A lot more work goes into calculating what, exactly, the end result is... but the end result is still the same.

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.

[Ralanr]

This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:

Man, shield master can't even block line attacks for people behind you, and I have yet to meet a DM let it.

[Dr.Samurai]

A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

My expectation of a T4 character is one that can get to the Great Red Wyrm and fight it. I like it if the T4 character has the exploration capabilities to make it there themselves. I like it if the T4 character can engage the dragon without additional assistance but is expected to have a party if they expect to win the engagement.

Does your imagined T4 knight have the ability to reach this threshold?

If yes, could you elaborate a tiny bit on how?

If no, is reaching this threshold a failure state in your eyes?

I think this might help to calibrate expectations.

I don't think this is a failure if a PC can't reach the dragon. I mean just imagine, you can construct any number of scenarios that bar someone from being able to engage a monster.

If the story is constructed as such that the dragon never leaves the lair, but must also be defeated there, then I expect the party to prepare for the encounter, which would include a method to infiltrate its lair.

But no, I don't expect any single PC to be able to overcome whatever obstacles are in the way, and gauge it as failure if they can't.

And I totally agree with LudicSavant's example of a shield. Let's make our way around the entire wheel of melee/ranged combat before we try to reinvent it.

[OldTrees1]

It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

Cunning Action is one of my favorite 5E abilities because it is an At Will ability the Rogue can use in or out of combat and it provides a qualitative benefit.

Having different classes treat "gain level appropriate martial abilities" in different ways is ideal. Some might have different manuevers they use and deal with some kind of endurance recharge mechanic. Others might have several passive, triggered, or at will modifications that they can do to existing actions. Maybe with a complexity limit that scales rather than having separate abilities.*


*I really like the idea of a warrior that knows plenty of ways to modify attacks / actions / movement. They would know more modifications than they could handle combining at the same time (some complexity limit to limit power and allow level appropriate scaling). As they get to higher level they learn more modifications and can use more complex combinations.

I don't think this is a failure if a PC can't reach the dragon. I mean just imagine, you can construct any number of scenarios that bar someone from being able to engage a monster.

If the story is constructed as such that the dragon never leaves the lair, but must also be defeated there, then I expect the party to prepare for the encounter, which would include a method to infiltrate its lair.

But no, I don't expect any single PC to be able to overcome whatever obstacles are in the way, and gauge it as failure if they can't.

It sounds like you do not expect the character to improve on this axis. However you did not answer if it would be a failure state if they did improve on this axis. Are you objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles in their path to engage enemies? Do you want enabling that engagement to be relegated to mcguffins? Should mages lose those abilities too? If you are not objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles, then what CR should this obstacle (mountain lair with some rooms only having lava filled tunnel exits) be moved to if you feel T4 is too low?

And I totally agree with LudicSavant's example of a shield. Let's make our way around the entire wheel of melee/ranged combat before we try to reinvent it.

Yup. That is one reason my 5E Fighter is a Paladin of Ancients instead of a Fighter. I get a limited number of Shield abilities. I wish I had more, even if I had to sacrifice my other abilities.

[Carlobrand]

...I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). ...

D&D did this ... and then they started a new edition. And then they did it again for the new edition ... and then they started another new edition. And then they did it again for that edition ... and then they started ... you get the point.

Really, if I want something like that, I just go mining the old editions. There's some really great stuff back there. I half expected them to go mining those sources themselves and publish a new book for this edition, but now I understand ...

... wait for it ...

... that they plan to start another new edition.

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.

No disagreement here. But the OP is asking what can we give the martials to do other than "attack again", so changing the input makes sense. Obviously changing the output is desirable as well. And fleshing out the combat system should change the output.

But as I have mentioned in other threads, the game grinds to a halt when the wizard in my party takes his turn, because he has so many choices and considerations to make. This just simply isn't the case when I take my turn or even the ranger really. And his outputs are varied, as you point out, whereas ours aren't.

It sounds like you do not expect the character to improve on this axis.

Why would I expect all T4 fighters to be immune to lava, or be able to teleport past it or ignore it or something?

However you did not answer if it would be a failure state if they did improve on this axis.

I missed that part of the quote. But... why would I consider it a failure state? I'm not even sure what you're proposing. Are you suggesting that all knights become immune to fire damage at a certain level? Why would they? If yes, then I wouldn't agree with that.

Are you objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles in their path to engage enemies?

I think I was clear on what I'm objecting to; the idea that mundane warriors need to become anime gods or superheroes to remain playable at high levels.

The knight is no different than a sorcerer or warlock or bard that doesn't have a spell to make the party immune to fire or teleport them multiple times through the entire lair. If you assume the wizard will have the right spell prepared for every scenario, then I can see where this seems like a failure to you.

Do you want enabling that engagement to be relegated to mcguffins?

Do you think the game is designed to be solo'ed by a fighter?

Should mages lose those abilities too?

The more questions you ask the less confident I am that I understand the point you're making.

If you are not objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles, then what CR should this obstacle (mountain lair with some rooms only having lava filled tunnel exits) be moved to?

I'm not concerned about this particular encounter. If the party needs to get into this lair, the DM will provide a way in game to do it. If the party has no way to bypass these tunnels, why create the encounter in the first place?

[strangebloke]

I feel like there are separate discussions going on here.

One is the old, well-trodden "high level martials can't be good for thematic reasons" debate which is eye-rolling at this point. It's pretty obvious to me that arguing that to be high level effective and have big powers a barbarian needs to be the hulk or goku seems deeply lacking in imagination... and also a knowledge of mythology. People are aware of the abilities of mythical characters like Samson or Cu Chulainn, right? A lot of times these characters will have magic weapons, sure, but most of what they're doing is not directly resulting from that.

The other more important discussion is "how should a maneuver system feel? Should it be different for different classes? That's more what I want to focus on.

This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:

Exactly correct. And I think the thing to point out here is that in the shift from 3.5 to 5e, all that really changed is that martials were made able to perform in the niche of direct single target damage AND that direct single target damage was made relevant again. All this was done by just literally giving them bigger numbers and giving the casters smaller ones. (and giving monsters a few good anti-caster defenses.)

[OldTrees1]

Why would I expect all T4 fighters to be immune to lava, or be able to teleport past it or ignore it or something?

Or be able to mine a new tunnel or some other thematically appropriate alternative I did not think of yet.

I missed that part of the quote. But... why would I consider it a failure state? I'm not even sure what you're proposing. Are you suggesting that all knights become immune to fire damage at a certain level? Why would they? If yes, then I wouldn't agree with that.

I am suggesting all knights gain the ability to overcome greater and greater engagement obstacles as they get to higher and higher tiers and thus face greater and greater engagement obstacles.

I wanted to know if this is included in what you are objecting to. Do you want progression on overcoming engagement obstacles to be flat?* Or is your objection about the means?

* I am presuming you don't want dramatically asymmetric growth so I am assuming if you have an objection and want knights to have flat growth, then you want mages to also be flat here too.

I think I was clear on what I'm objecting to; the idea that mundane warriors need to become anime gods or superheroes to remain playable at high levels.

The knight is no different than a sorcerer or warlock or bard that doesn't have a spell to make the party immune to fire or teleport them multiple times through the entire lair. If you assume the wizard will have the right spell prepared for every scenario, then I can see where this seems like a failure to you.

Do you think the game is designed to be solo'ed by a fighter?

The more questions you ask the less confident I am that I understand the point you're making.

I'm not concerned about this particular encounter. If the party needs to get into this lair, the DM will provide a way in game to do it. If the party has no way to bypass these tunnels, why create the encounter in the first place?

I don't want the game to have some character types (mages) greatly improve in their ability to overcome engagement obstacles but other character types (knights) have no improvement in that area. Personally I would prefer if both had thematically appropriate level appropriate growth in those areas. Yes this does mean I expect a party of Fighters to be able to play the game from 1-20 against the same level of challenges that a mixed party or an all mages party can.

I don't want some classes to come with a GM postscript that reads "Hey GM, you need to add McGuffins for this class if you want to have high level campaigns. This class does not work for some areas of high level play."

[Pex]

. . .

And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

But D&D is not that type of game of normal medieval heroes, not completely. It is (can be) at low level. At high level the design intent is to be fantastical. If you don't want that end the campaign before reaching that level or play another game system. There are fantastical warrior ideas. The issue is getting D&D to embrace them. A warrior can block and take no damage from a dragon's breath, if he takes Shield Master feat. Make that a class feature and let the shield bonus add to all his DX saves for damage, not just single target. Let the warrior purposely jump down into a 30 ft pit and take no damage. Let the warrior do a called shot, represented by sneak attack renamed. Rogue could be subsumed into the warrior chassis. Then you can add rider effects like blindness or impaired vision for attacking the eye, reduce movement for attacking the leg, etc. The warrior can't swim in heavy armor, but he sure can hold his breath for a long time to walk along the river bottom that's 60 ft across to get to the other side.

[RandomPeasant]

As I said, the melee and ranged combat system in D&D is bare minimum. They can easily make it more complex and interesting without transforming non-casters into casters-by-another-name.

Define "casters-by-another-name". I've seen this argument made countless times. I've never seen that defined in a way that did what the person making the argument wanted it to.

And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

I agree. That thing is called "be low level". There are plenty of levels where you can play a character who his not an anime protagonist or a superhero. But there are also levels where you can cast spells with names like storm of vengeance and meteor swarm.

A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

I think this is generally the wrong tack to take. It's true that a martial can't solo a 20th level adventure, but it's also true that they shouldn't be able to. You may eventually be able to reach a point where you demonstrate the EV of the Fighter is lower than that of the Wizard, but it's better to come at it from a different angle. Specifically: consider an adventure you could have at 1st level that it would take the whole party to beat. Pretty much any 10th level character could beat that adventure. Now consider a 10th level adventure and a 20th level character. The Wizard can probably beat the adventure, but the Fighter is going to have trouble measuring up to the utility a Wizard half his level provided. That's the issue.

It's pretty obvious to me that arguing that to be high level effective and have big powers a barbarian needs to be the hulk or goku seems deeply lacking in imagination... and also a knowledge of mythology. People are aware of the abilities of mythical characters like Samson or Cu Chulainn, right?

Yes, I am aware that there are examples from mythology I could use, but using them on this forum would get me banned. So I use the examples I am actually allowed to talk about, which are generally not substantively different than the ones I am not. If someone objects to the Barbarian leveling up into Thor, I'm rather skeptical they would not also object to him leveling up into a fully realized Cu Chulainn.

[Ralanr]

But D&D is not that type of game of normal medieval heroes, not completely. It is (can be) at low level. At high level the design intent is to be fantastical. If you don't want that end the campaign before reaching that level or play another game system. There are fantastical warrior ideas. The issue is getting D&D to embrace them. A warrior can block and take no damage from a dragon's breath, if he takes Shield Master feat. Make that a class feature and let the shield bonus add to all his DX saves for damage, not just single target. Let the warrior purposely jump down into a 30 ft pit and take no damage. Let the warrior do a called shot, represented by sneak attack renamed. Rogue could be subsumed into the warrior chassis. Then you can add rider effects like blindness or impaired vision for attacking the eye, reduce movement for attacking the leg, etc. The warrior can't swim in heavy armor, but he sure can hold his breath for a long time to walk along the river bottom that's 60 ft across to get to the other side.

Hell, even Pathfinder is getting better at this by letting max level barbarians basically use the earthquake spell through sheer strength.

At tier 1 you're starting out, by tier 2-3 you're more likely a knight. Tier 4? Well martial character's don't seem to really compare at tier 4.

[OldTrees1]

I think this is generally the wrong tack to take. It's true that a martial can't solo a 20th level adventure, but it's also true that they shouldn't be able to. You may eventually be able to reach a point where you demonstrate the EV of the Fighter is lower than that of the Wizard, but it's better to come at it from a different angle. Specifically: consider an adventure you could have at 1st level that it would take the whole party to beat. Pretty much any 10th level character could beat that adventure. Now consider a 10th level adventure and a 20th level character. The Wizard can probably beat the adventure, but the Fighter is going to have trouble measuring up to the utility a Wizard half his level provided. That's the issue.

I did not expect them to solo the 20th level adventure. Just that they could engage with the obstacles and eventually engage with the dragon (and then lose). I expect a party to beat the adventure. However I don't expect the adventure to have a class quota requirement. That is why I picked Great Red Wyrm rather than Young Red Dragon. The same adventure scaled down to a younger dragon might have a class quota requirement or the engagement obstacles might set the adventure level higher than the Dragon's CR would.

[Hael]

A character doesn't have to be the Hulk or Goku to scale up to very high power levels; you can also do it with characters along the lines of Link or Batman or Hawkeye (in their most capable incarnations).

And yet characters like Link or even Hawkeye are often beyond the reach of D&D martials. These characters are masters of entire arsenals, sometimes with more tricks in a single tool than a D&D martial has in their one, overspecialized tool choice.

I agree, but on that subject I played a couple superhero TTRPGS back in the day, like the Marvel and DC games from the 90s. And in all of them, there is always a separation of scales for different adventure types. Like you had the new mutants at one lvl, followed by the Captain America/Batman/Hawkeye types (who are usually given a lot of skill proficiency like abilities not unlike a 5e rogue), followed by the Avengers (well beyond mortal ken), and then you got into the truly extra planetary godlike powers (Silver Surfer, Superman, Thanos etc).. Even in that setting the way the game design treated those characters was very different and for the most part you didn't want them interacting too much, b/c its no fun for people to have Thanos snap his finger and have your entire new mutant party come to an end..

Its why Batman vs Superman is always a bit of a ridiculous comic book, and why it never quite felt authentic, b/c Batman basically has to be 'given' superhuman items.

In DnD, the part that feels good to most people is that end of tier2 stage where mages are super powerful, but still vulnerable to crafty martials who are able to block the dragon breath with their shield (like in your picture). Where it starts getting stupid is when the martials are not fighting wizards anymore, but rather their summoned army, while the real mage watches on from a different plane through their crystal ball.

So yes at one point there is a disconnect of expectations.. If you want the godlike tier4 wizard, Batman starts needing to be scaled up (and martials in 5e aren't anywhere close to Batman).

[Slider Eclipse]

When I think of Maneuvers and how a Martial class SHOULD function. I personally tend to think along the lines of Tome of Battle or more specifically the Path of War series in Pathfinder 1e that was a recreation of that book's systems. Those systems weren't Hulk or Superman or Goku or anything of that nature (unless you used some of the more Gish themed Disciplines of course) but instead were taking the concept of a Fighting Style and actually having you do the thing's you'd expect from a master of that particular art.

The idea of a Barbarian fully enveloped in his sheer rage as he Brutally charges head first into combat, shrugging off all attempts to stop him as he throws his full weight behind his axe with no regard for anything but tearing his foe limb from limb.

Or what about a Swordsman who casually keeps his blade sheaved at his side, waiting for the perfect moment to swiftly and elegantly make a quick, precise slash that cleaves the very air into a blade of razor winds that shred the unfortunate person in front of him.

Perhaps a Bard or Paladin who's talents depend not on how mightily he swings his blade, but on his ability to effortlessly boost his allies moral and guide them tactically into battle, exposing weaknesses in his opponents that one may not catch while in the heat of battle.

a Graceful Duelist who's stance leaves few openings and exposes even less of his body to harm as he weaves his rapier precisely where he needs it for both offense and defense.

A Marksman who can calculate trajectories, bouncing his arrows off of walls to strike foes from unexpected angles or accurately shoot as he moves across a room.

A Spellsword who fights not by singing fireballs but by weaving his blade in the raw elements as he strikes, truly blending the arcane and the martial instead of merely being trained in both.

and that's just the stuff that Path of War has as examples, I can see plenty of other styles out there such as a Rogue who sneaks around and specializes in hit and run tactics from the shadows or a Ranger who prefers to train his pet wolf and provide back up for them. There's plenty of ways to implement a Maneuver system into D&D without going into Comic Book or Dragonball tiers of madness. After all even in real life there's a lot of difference between fighting styles, each having there own pros and cons. an overhead slash with a Longsword isn't the same thing as a Low Sweep with a Polearm after all.

[SharkForce]

[snip]

Its why Batman vs Superman is always a bit of a ridiculous comic book, and why it never quite felt authentic, b/c Batman basically has to be 'given' superhuman items.

[snip]

So yes at one point there is a disconnect of expectations.. If you want the godlike tier4 wizard, Batman starts needing to be scaled up (and martials in 5e aren't anywhere close to Batman).

Batman vs. Superman is basically Lex Luthor vs Superman, which is practically a staple of Superman's story.

the only question is whether it is done well, or poorly.

[Composer99]

Some thoughts responding somewhat abstractly to some earlier posts, more concretely to others:

(1) In 5e, the design aesthetic strongly discourages too much fiddliness. Some combination of abilities resembling warlock invocations (mechanically at least), fighting styles (perhaps revised to take some of the tactical abilities from current feats instead of just boosting numbers), and battlemaster manoeuvres, would probably be as fiddly as you want to get.

(2) IMO it would be for the best if characters have comparable degrees of capability at the same tier. The time for barely-better-than-ordinary folk who would be medieval-style heroes is tier 1 and 2. In tiers 3 and 4, martials ought to be obviously fantastical, in the way that many mythical and genre fiction martials are (much less characters from fiction outside the genre, video games, and even other RPGs). That doesn't mean they have to be slinging spells, but getting up to stuff such as some of the epic skill uses from the old 3.X Epic Level Handbook - balancing on a cloud, squeezing through a wall of force or forecage, that sort of thing - would be a good start.

(3) If you absolutely must play a barely-better-than-ordinary-folk kind of character across levels 1 through 20, and won't countenance playing someone who is capable of being epically fantastic, then there should be an optional class (or even set of 3 or 4 classes covering the martial-guile-mage (+ healer?) group) for that. But it should be made explicitly clear that you are not keeping up with the game's standard classes in terms of the kinds of challenges that can be set for you if you're not playing in a party with members of those classes.

(4) Suffice to say I am unmoved by the argument that giving martials fantastic capabilities makes them "casters-by-another-name". What matters is not the mechanics of the abilities they possess (especially in a game such as 5e, which will surely eschew too much mechanical complexity), but how the abilities function in the fiction. A druid creates an earthquake by casting a spell. An epic barbarian creates one (perhaps at a smaller scale than is possible with the spell) by smashing into the ground. A sorcerer flies by casting a spell. An epic monk doesn't fly, but steps lightly across tree branches and even the clouds. But each of these pairings would be represented in the game mechanics in very similar (perhaps identical) ways - for instance, both the sorcerer and monk would have a flying speed.

[Kane0]

This can't really be a 'just give them maneuvers' solution, entire classes are going to have to be rewritten if you're committing to this.

- Barbarians and Rogues don't get a martial power progression, keep them as 'simple' classes (if people don't want to engage with the system that's fine! Champion fighter exists for a reason, we want to keep that sort of option available)
- Monks and Fighters get 'half' progression, retooling the former's current resource pool into the Martial Power system. Personally I'd rework Fighters to be more focused around a sticky, armored knight class but thats another discussion.
- Make a new class for 'full' progression, Warlord seems a good fit so they aren't a one-note class.
- Rangers, Paladins and other gishy casters (Bladelock, War Cleric, Valor Bard, etc) get none or at best 1/3 progression mimicking EK/AT spellcasting

So we have a tanky and mobile class for each progression category, except for Warlord which can be one or the other, neither or a bit of both depending on their 'Martial Power' (or whatever you're going to call it) selection.

- Fighting Styles, Maneuvers/Superiority dice, some feats and so on are stolen and incorporated into 'Martial Power'.

Martial Power breaks down into three primary parts:
- Styles/Stances are the at-wills, primarily passive benefits or lesser maneuvers that don't use up resources (like Fighting Styles and Cantrips now) but they will scale with level (5, 11 and 17 matches cantrips and is convenient in terms of tracking by Tier as well)
- Maneuvers, which make up the bulk of the system. By expending your resources you can add riders to your attacks or perform various amazing feats (which is where the best bits of all this will be, otherwise this is all for naught)
- Counters, which are reaction abilities that also expend your resources and largely follow the same pattern as Maneuvers.

- There will be some level-gating of 'Martial Powers' corresponding to tiers of play so you can't just dip for the best cherrypicks and there is reason to want higher level stances/maneuvers/counters
- Most classes will have a way to get back at least some of these resources during a combat (such as by spending their bonus action, felling a creature, succeeding on a saving throw, etc), otherwise the majority of 'Martial Power' resources will replenish on a short rest with some exceptions. Styles/stances generally won't use concentration but you will only be able to benefit from one at a time, again with some exceptions (makes for a solid high level class feature)
- The bulk of 'Martial Powers' to choose from will be universal, but each class/subclass will get a handful of their own unique ones as well. Say for example everyone could get the 'attack + shove attempt' maneuver but Monks couldn't choose any maneuvers that rely on using a shield.

There are plenty of great features already present that can be assimilated: Most of the Battlemaster's maneuvers, Monk's Ki abilities, plenty of subclass stuff, a good handful of feats, even some martially minded spells like Zephyr Strike and Steel Wind Strike. Recycling what we already have could cut our work in half, then for the other half we just go gravedigging from previous editions.

Just don't call them Initiators or Martial Adepts.

[Waazraath]

...then for the other half we just go gravedigging from previous editions

Bloody necromancers...

[Ignimortis]

This can't really be a 'just give them maneuvers' solution, entire classes are going to have to be rewritten if you're committing to this.

*snip*

I agree with most of this, although I feel like Warlord should have something to complement it as the "mobile" maneuver class, maybe call it Stalker or Slayer?

I am also not sure about "universal" powersets. I very much like what ToB/PoW Disciplines do, and by restricting certain classes access to certain Disciplines (as well as giving them a chance to pick up new ones with subclasses) we can both provide a bit of flavour and preserve class diversity. Stuff that BM Fighter does can be easily split into two Disciplines at best — support/tactical maneuvers like Menacing Attack, Rally and Commanding strike can go to the "White Raven" analogue, while basic "attack+rider" and Parry/Lunge/Riposte are clearly something simple, like "Iron Heart", and that might be available to everyone.