Battlemaster Maneuvers

[paladinn]

Pondering the Battlemaster subclass, which has never been my favorite. Many have opined that BM is a partial cure for the "boring" vanilla fighter, especially for the Champion. While I like the simplicity of the Champion, I can definitely see the point of it being less-than-exciting and underpowered. I've actually come up with a merger of the Champion and UA Brute subclasses that addresses some up the UP issue.

One of the things I have disliked about the BM is the whole "superiority dice" mechanic. I personally think D&D has more than enough various dice mechanics, and I think the purpose of the BM can be achieved without it. With that in mind, here are my proposed mods to the BM:

1. BM's have and learn maneuvers at the same rate they currently do.

2. One maneuver can only be used once per round. Outside that limit, they are at-will abilities. No limit on the total number of times that maneuvers can be used per short/long rest. At L15, 2 maneuvers can be used in a round.

3. When a maneuver calls for rolling superiority dice, use the fighter's proficiency bonus instead

I think this will allow a lot of the flexibility and power of the BM without some of the complexity.

Thoughts?

[Dienekes]

That's one hell of a buff.

Unlimited uses but only once per round. That means every round, I'm going to save my maneuver until my last attack. If I miss, I use Precision Attack, if I don't I get essentially a free trip attempt, move an ally, frighten, or rally someone. Oh wow, yeah, give your allies 2-6 + Cha temp HP every single round. That's awesome. Say +3 Charisma, do that every turn at level 5 that's 8 hp a turn, that's 32 damage mitigated every combat. Actually since there's no limit, you could just do that to every ally during downtime, so everyone has 8 hp more, in addition to the 32 your mitigating in combat.

Not even gonna get into the out of combat maneuvers that provide bonuses to skill checks. Getting essentially Expertise on Intimidation, Persuasion, and Performance is pretty awesome.



Overall, I don't think this concept of yours is necessarily terrible. But you'd need to prune the Maneuver List, because some of them would be horribly overpowered this way. You'd probably need to add more to replace them.

Though I will note some amusement at trying to remove the complexity of the Battle Master, when it's only really complex when compared to the Champion. It's not really a complex class it just actually has options. And I thought part of the selling point of the class was that it requires more mental energy to play than some of the other Fighter subclasses. Even if it's not really all that much more.

[Pex]

At third level you've essentially given all Battlemasters +2 to their attacks via Precision Attack. If they were going to miss without it no other maneuver would be used anyway, so nothing it lost. They hit +10% more than before. If they would have hit without Precision Attack then they get free +2 damage plus whatever flavor they want. Might as well try to disarm for example. If it works, great. If it doesn't they don't lose anything for trying.

[NaughtyTiger]

Contrarian i guess.
Short rests are easy to come by.
My BM had 6 dice at level 4.

Your new rules say combat needs to be 6 rounds to break even.
Can't chain effects, disarm+push, trip+grapple.

[paladinn]

Well some folks are saying it's OP and some say it's UP. So maybe it's just right :P

Work in progress..

[MrStabby]

I would also throw in on the OP side.

A lot of people theorycrafting around things like spells and BM maneuvres are assuming they are used optimally - as if you started the day with a round by round breakdown of each enemy you would be swinging against and then you get to chose exactly how to allocate your short rests and maneuver uses for optimal effect.

In reality you might run out of dice. You might have dice you were holding back for that threat round the nex corner that never get used. You might be saving some dice for the BBEG but eat a hold person spell on the first round of combat and not get to use them.

By having an effect you use EVERY SINGLE TURN you miss out on the inefficiencies of poor allocation of resource due to imperfect information. You just always use it and nothing is ever wasted. It also lets you build around these a bit more as you will always have them available. Things like being the tankiest fighter you can and picking goading attack or evasive footwork. Grappling strike for a grappler (nvesting in things like a level of rogue or a feat for expertise in athletics is a dubous investment when you only get free graples half a dozen times per day per day - when you can do it every turn the synergy starts to look better). Maybe a pushing attack on a PAM fighter? It isn't just about the degree to which it is better than the standard BM bu rather the degree to which you can exploit it by making choices you otherwise wouldn't to be even better.

[strangebloke]

Man, way to suck all the fun out of the class.

[Dienekes]

Contrarian i guess.
Short rests are easy to come by.
My BM had 6 dice at level 4.

Your new rules say combat needs to be 6 rounds to break even.
Can't chain effects, disarm+push, trip+grapple.

It's not about what can be done in combat, it's what is possible without.

Wake up, use Rally on all allies. Do so again after every fight. Expertise on Stealth, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion*, proficiency to initiative rolls. All of that at level 3 is good. That's more expertise than a Rogue has, and more effective health given out than a cleric using all their slots on Cure Wounds after 4 fights (assuming a party of 4).

I'd say it could be fixed by just saying you can only use maneuvers in combat, but the skill maneuvers are clearly not meant to be used in combat and that ruins them.

*Actually, better than expertise. It could actually stack with it, couldn't it? Yeah. Rogue 1, Fighter 1 for the Maneuver Fighting style pick one of the skill maneuvers, bam, triple proficiency bonus to skills.

[paladinn]

It's not about what can be done in combat, it's what is possible without.

Wake up, use Rally on all allies. Do so again after every fight. Expertise on Stealth, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion*, proficiency to initiative rolls. All of that at level 3 is good. That's more expertise than a Rogue has, and more effective health given out than a cleric using all their slots on Cure Wounds after 4 fights (assuming a party of 4).

I'd say it could be fixed by just saying you can only use maneuvers in combat, but the skill maneuvers are clearly not meant to be used in combat and that ruins them.

*Actually, better than expertise. It could actually stack with it, couldn't it? Yeah. Rogue 1, Fighter 1 for the Maneuver Fighting style pick one of the skill maneuvers, bam, triple proficiency bonus to skills.

I think limiting to combat is a definite.

[Xihirli]

I dunno, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. If I had to list the top 7,000 problems with D&D, I don’t think Battlemasters’ maneuvers and dice would make that list.

[AdAstra]

If this were a proposal to merge Battlemaster abilities into the core Fighter class without overcomplicating it, I'd be all for this. But yeah, as is this is a pretty boring substitute for the original. It also doesn't affect things like dipping BM, since in this version, if you're not planning to go to level 15 there's very little incentive to stick with it past 5-6 or so.

Precision Attack becomes more consistent than before. Where an OG Battlemaster is taking a risk if you need a reasonably high roll, here you have a much easier time guessing when it will help and when it won't (If you know the target's AC then you can be certain). The bonus starts significantly lower than the average of a d8, which compensates, but later on it really outclasses the original since it progresses faster (to the point where at +6 it's barely below the average of a d12, and the consistency far outweighs that).

Quick Toss lets you throw a net every round for a bonus action if you have a hand free (it's one of the few ways to do this since it has so few restrictions). Commander's Strike every round is a really reliable way of giving Rogues extra Sneak Attacks if you can provide suitable targets. Brace and Riposte also become excellent sources of reaction attacks. Honestly, since it makes non PAM/Crossbow Expert characters more viable, this isn't too egregious. Definitely a boost in power though to have the potential for reaction/bonus action attacks every round as opposed to needing to spend resources.

Rally is free temp HP for everyone every time you get a breather. Not too bad with how many sources of that are around these days, but still far stronger than the original.

Ambush, Commanding Presence, and Tactical Assessment basically let you get +prof to their associated skills outside of combat (well, unless you need to make multiple checks in 6 seconds I guess) in a way that stacks with actual proficiency and Expertise. The latter two are basically like getting Expertise in 3 skills, while the first has additional use for boosting Initiative to make up for only affecting one skill.

I think those last ones especially make this an unwise change as it stands. When a Battlemaster starts with 3 maneuvers and just one can replicate/exceed things like Expertise, it's probably a good idea to adjust those abilities.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I think a tuned down version of this would actually be quite interesting as an addition to the core Fighter class, or even to martials in general. It's less complicated than Battlemaster while still giving choices in combat. Have some reliable standbys to use if you don't feel like analyzing things, with trickier options to provide variety to those who want it. Perhaps with its own scaling system that's compatible with multiclassing while not overincentivizing dips. Fold things like a Monk's Deflect Missiles into an overarching system.

[paladinn]

I dunno, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. If I had to list the top 7,000 problems with D&D, I don’t think Battlemasters’ maneuvers and dice would make that list.

People gripe about fighters not having anything besides just hitting. But then I know players who appreciate the simpliicity of something like the Champion. Just trying for the best of both worlds, or at least a happy medium.

[Dienekes]

People gripe about fighters not having anything besides just hitting. But then I know players who appreciate the simpliicity of something like the Champion. Just trying for the best of both worlds, or at least a happy medium.

I think man, at some point you gotta understand you’re creating a medium, but it’s never going to be a happy one.

Like I think over the months it’s pretty clear that what you want out of a fighter class and what I want out of a fighter class are just diametrically opposed. Like the Battlemaster is my favorite fighter subclass, and I still think after having played them for awhile as far as being mechanically interesting goes, they’re only passable. They get a C.

Trying to make it less complex will just drop it down for me. And I don’t think you actually want to look over a bunch of small mechanical options to judge the best one in a specific situation either (though correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t wish to speak for you). So in effect you’re making it less interesting for me and less fun for you.

[paladinn]

I think man, at some point you gotta understand you’re creating a medium, but it’s never going to be a happy one.

Like I think over the months it’s pretty clear that what you want out of a fighter class and what I want out of a fighter class are just diametrically opposed. Like the Battlemaster is my favorite fighter subclass, and I still think after having played them for awhile as far as being mechanically interesting goes, they’re only passable. They get a C.

Trying to make it less complex will just drop it down for me. And I don’t think you actually want to look over a bunch of small mechanical options to judge the best one in a specific situation either (though correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t wish to speak for you). So in effect you’re making it less interesting for me and less fun for you.

Well I think some people won't be truly happy until they get something like the Tomb of Battle for 5e. But not everyone wants to play a Warblade.

I took a step back and thought, "Why doesn't the Battlemaster appeal to me?" And it hit me that it was the superiority dice mechanic. A lot of the maneuvers are actually cool (I might have called them tactics). But combat is complex enough as it is; I haven't liked throwing another mechanic on top of it.

[Dienekes]

Well I think some people won't be truly happy until they get something like the Tomb of Battle for 5e. But not everyone wants to play a Warblade.

I took a step back and thought, "Why doesn't the Battlemaster appeal to me?" And it hit me that it was the superiority dice mechanic. A lot of the maneuvers are actually cool (I might have called them tactics). But combat is complex enough as it is; I haven't liked throwing another mechanic on top of it.

Well there you go, then I’m wrong, you do enjoy the choosing of smaller mechanical effects.

In that case, yeah you have a start.

I’d reiterate that you’ll need to go through the current maneuvers with a fine-tooth comb for what you’ll allow. I’d suggest removing Rally, Ambush, Commanding Presence, and Tactical Assessment.

And a part of me thinks removing Precision Attack would make the system play better/be more interesting, even if technically I don’t think it actually breaks things. Don’t get me wrong, +Prof to attack rolls is actually incredibly strong, but you’re just doing and taking damage. It’s not gonna break a game, but will probably overshadow Barbarians.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's not about what can be done in combat, it's what is possible without. snip

really good point.

[Hytheter]

I'd say ditch Precision Attack and the skill maneuvers and you're pretty much fine.

[paladinn]

And a part of me thinks removing Precision Attack would make the system play better/be more interesting, even if technically I don’t think it actually breaks things. Don’t get me wrong, +Prof to attack rolls is actually incredibly strong, but you’re just doing and taking damage. It’s not gonna break a game, but will probably overshadow Barbarians.

I know the prevailing theory is that Any bonus to hit violates bounded accuracy. But Precision Attack is an existing maneuver. If you roll a superiority die, isn't that at least potentially as "breaking" as using one's prof bonus? Should it be changed to use 1/2 prof bonus?

Edit: Being an old grognard, I'm not used to thinking in "action economy" terms. Each maneuver take either one's reaction (if that's in the description) or bonus action (if not)

[MrStabby]

Hmm. You could just change the die size to zero. That would solve a lot of these issues - things like trip attack and menacing atack would still force a save but no further benefit from the dice. The problem maneuvers like the skills and precison would add nothing and would cease to be a problem. It would be a much more limited class in some ways but might be a simple way of both speeding up play and keeping things broadly balanced with maneuvers at will.

[Jerrykhor]

One of the things I have disliked about the BM is the whole "superiority dice" mechanic. I personally think D&D has more than enough various dice mechanics, and I think the purpose of the BM can be achieved without it.

I think you might be alone in this one, maybe post it in the hot take thread?

[Mastikator]

A straight battlemaster doesn't have too many resources to keep track of, action surge, second wind and superiority dice. I see no reason to simplify this class. However I do see short rest resources coming to an end on the horizon so battlemaster may have to be reworked anyway.
IMO just do proficiency bonus superiority dice per initiative.

[Yakk]

The Battlemaster is intended to have resource management because it is a fighter subclass for players who want resource management.

The Champion is intended to have none, because it is a fighter subclass for players who don't want resource management.

It is sad that the Champion is also a weak (and I'd even say poor) subclass in T1 and T2.

As others have noted, piles of Battlemaster abilities are designed with that resource management in place.

If you have played 3e, the "I trip" or "I disarm" every... single... round gets tiring, outside of anything else. When you have something like BM maneuvers at-will this is what happens; there is one optimal maneuver in most situations, so you spam it as often as you can. Resource management was intended to make this spamming a bit tactical, as you are giving up something for each attempt.

A faithful attempt to model how a character sees opening would need some kind of random number generation, but you don't like dice mechanics, so that is out.

...

If you don't mind the spamming, you could just give your character 1/round ability to force a save to avoid being disarmed, pushed, tripped, grappled, etc. Have a board of abilities.

If you want to make this more chaotic, I'd add a table, where the BM rolls to see what they can do this round. At higher levels, they roll more than once and pick.

...

If you look at the Brute, it had a 1d4 damage per hit ability. It was solid at dealing damage, and it wasn't weak like the Champion.

Hooking that into maneuvers might work like this; you'd assign each maneuver a number from 1 to 4. When you hit, 1/round you can use that maneuver based on the damage die value.

This would emulate the chaos of combat, and as the number of hits went up, the number of choices would also go up.

[paladinn]

If you look at the Brute, it had a 1d4 damage per hit ability. It was solid at dealing damage, and it wasn't weak like the Champion..

I mentioned in my first post that I'd merged the Champion and the Brute. The end result is pretty cool.

It seems when it comes to 5e, even more than other editions, that there's a strong, "Don't change the status quo" mentality. Sorry to think outside the box. It must be a very comfy box

[Yakk]

I mean, you can write a "trick fighter" that isn't the BM. But you don't save work by saying "it is BM except".

The things that work are short enough of a list that you should just write those up, because the list of exceptions is long enough and subtle enough.

...

Combat Tactics: Once per turn you can attempt a combat tactic. If a combat tactic calls for a saving throw, use the best of (strength+proficiency+8) or (dexterity+proficiency+8) as the DC. This saving throw is at disadvantage if the attack was a critical hit.

Trip: When you hit a creature with a melee weapon, they must make a dexterity saving throw or fall prone. If the weapon is a reach weapon this saving throw is at disadvantage.
Pin: When you hit a creature with a weapon, they must make a strength saving throw or become grabbed. The creature can attempt to escape the grab with a strength(athletics) check against combat tactics DC. The weapon or ammo used in the attack pins the creature; if it attacks a different target, the grab ends. It has advantage attacking the grabbed creature while it is grabbed. If the attack is a thrown or ammo attack, escape checks are at advantage. If your weapon is a whip or deals piercing damage, the saving throw is at disadvantage.
Disarm: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, they must make a strength saving throw or drop an weapon or similar item they are holding. If they are holding the item or weapon in two hands, this saving throw is at advantage.
Feint: When you miss a creature with a weapon attack, they must make a wisdom saving throw or grant advantage on the next attack on them. If you have a melee weapon in both hands, this save is at disadvantage.
Protect: When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, they must make a wisdom saving throw or suffer disadvantage on attacks made on one ally of your choice until the end of your next turn. You cannot use this to protect yourself. If you have a shield equipped, the saving throw is at disadvantage.

Superior Fighting Style:
You gain a superior fighting style. If you already have a fighting style with the same name, replace it with the superior and learn a different fighting style as well. (You cannot know both the basic and superior fighting style with the same name).
Archery: You gain +2 bonus to hit with attack rolls with ranged weapons, and attacks on creatures you have already hit this turn with a ranged attack have advantage. As a bonus action you can make an attack with a weapon with the ammunition property that does not add your attribute bonus to damage.
Defence: You gain a +1 bonus to AC. Whenever you take damage, you may halve it by expending your reaction.
Dueling: You gain a +2 bonus to damage with weapons you hold in one hand. If you have a free hand, you also get a +2 bonus to hit with melee weapons you hold in one hand. If you are wielding a shield, you gain a +2 bonus to AC against creatures you hit until the end of your next turn.
Two Weapon Fighting: When you are missed by an attack, you can expend a reaction to attack once with up to two one-handed weapons you are wielding. The two weapon fighting action deals your attribute bonus in damage, and if you have the extra attack feature the two weapon fighting bonus action makes additional attacks like it was the attack action.
Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll an odd value on a weapon damage die on a heavy or versatile melee weapon you are using in 2 hands, replace it with the maximum value on the die. Once per turn when you miss a creature with a melee weapon, you can make melee weapon attack on a different creature within reach.
Interception and Protection: When a creature you can see hits a target other than you within 5' of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll the attack roll and use the worst result. If the attack hits, reduce the damage by 1d10+your proficiency bonus. You must be using a shield or a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.
Blind Fighting: You have blindsight within 30'. Within that range, you can see anything that isn't behind total cover. Invisible creatures can only hide from you within that range if they have total cover. Creatures you cannot see do not have advantage on attacks on you, and you do not suffer disadvantage attacking creatures you cannot see, regardless of range (you may have to guess where they are, however).
Unarmed Fighting: Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you deal the damage, the d6 becomes a d8. You can grapple or shove as a bonus action. When you successfully grapple or shove a creature, or at the start of your your turn if you have a creature grappled, you deal your unarmed attack damage to the creature.
Thrown Weapon Fighting: You can draw a weapon as part of the action of throwing a weapon. Your ranged attacks with thrown weapons deal +2 damage. When you make a thrown weapon attack that adds your attribute bonus to damage, you may choose to replace it with making 2 thrown weapon attacks that do not add your attribute bonus to damage. If you throw a magic weapon with the thrown property, it returns to your hands or sheath at the end of the turn.

[Dienekes]

I know the prevailing theory is that Any bonus to hit violates bounded accuracy. But Precision Attack is an existing maneuver. If you roll a superiority die, isn't that at least potentially as "breaking" as using one's prof bonus? Should it be changed to use 1/2 prof bonus?

Edit: Being an old grognard, I'm not used to thinking in "action economy" terms. Each maneuver take either one's reaction (if that's in the description) or bonus action (if not)

It’s not about numbers, exactly, it’s about optimizing play and not stepping on others toes. Barbarians as presented get an accuracy boost, but to use it they take a penalty. This is an accuracy boost for essentially free.

There’s also optimizing play patterns. Like it or not a Fighters job is to take and deal damage. Turning a miss into a hit is damage-wise the single biggest increase of their effectiveness they can get.

It also creates the following optimal play pattern: don’t use your maneuver until your last attack. If you miss in prof range use precision, if you hit, use an actually interesting maneuver, if you miss by over your proficiency save and use maneuver for your opportunity attack.

Removing Precision attack removes the consistency and breaks the optimal play pattern. It is one of those instances where decreasing options actually increases potential choice.

[paladinn]

Thanks for all the input guys! I think my big takeaway is to stick with my champion/brute mashup (I need a better name for it)

Gratzi!

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think you might be alone in this one, maybe post it in the hot take thread?

Agreed. We've had more BMs (including 3-4 level dips) than every other fighter subclass combined, so I'm having a tough time seeing the problem. If I was to buff the BM, I'd probably include a list of slightly stronger maneuvers that are gated by level as per the Rune Knight. It does feel like for full class BMs your later level picks are less good than your initial ones, which is not a good feeling.