I hope martials will get more options in DND One

[Psyren]

I'd argue that the actual issue is that the game piles all extra attacks on the Attack action. Which makes sense, of course — that's the action where you attack things, after all!

However, it leads to martial characters spamming the Attack action, because doing anything else means that you don't get to do Extra Attack + your PAM bonus action attack (or whatever). And you spent valuable build resources on getting those features, so you're committed.

Agreed but it's worse than that - some builds actually DO get to use their bonus action attacks without the Attack action (see pet classes like Beastmaster Ranger and Battlesmith Artificer.) So now you end up with those classes actually getting to do fun non-attack things without sacrificing all their DPR in a turn. There is notable action disparity even just among the martials.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rogue might be doing better, as I go through their list of exploits. It'll definitely end up being similar to BM fighter (not surprising, since maneuvers vs. exploits are similar in nature) but should still feel different.

Doing a quick survey of the rogue:

Class features:
- First Strike: Like a limited version of the Assassin 3rd level feature (combat advantage is smaller than 5e's advantage, but both enable sneak attack)
- Rogue Tactics: either +CHA to AC against OA or +STR to sneak attack damage.
- Rogue Weapon Talent: improves shuriken (+1 die size) and daggers (+1 to attack). Fairly small I think?
- Sneak Attack: scales way slower and is generally much smaller (5d6 at level 30 compared to 10d6 at 20). But that's hard to judge because all the numbers are different for all the things.

No support for TWF except via explicit talents.

General thoughts: Not sure how I feel about the limitations based on weapon type. I mean "light blade" covers a lot (daggers, short sword, rapier, plus some that 5e doesn't have), but no bow support at all (only crossbows and slings).

At Wills:
- Deft Strike lets you move 10' before the attack. Which is nice.
- Piercing Strike (LB only) targets Reflex (so a dex or int save, sort of)
- Riposte Strike (LB only) has a rider (free attack if they attack you before start of next turn, but it depends on STR, not Dex).
- Sly Flourish adds CHA to damage.

Heroic tier
Encounter powers:
- 6 have minor debuff rider
- 1 is aoe (at level 7)
- 1 allows you to move, 2 move the target
- 1 gives a minor buff to you
- 2 just deal extra damage (one straight up, 1 is "if you miss, attack again")

Daily powers
- 3 debuff
- 2 movement
- 2 buff
- 2 more damage

Utility powers
- Wow, an actual non-combat power! (reroll a bluff check if you don't like it as an encounter power)
- One is basically the Thief Rogue level 3 power (Theivery check as minor action)
- mostly movement/stealth related
- At level 6 another non-combat encounter power (+2 bonus to CHA checks until end of next turn for all allies within 50')
- Takes a daily power to do what 5e does with the (optional) Climb on Larger Creature, except works on Large and bigger instead of requiring 2 sizes bigger.

So definitely a bigger emphasis on adding combat conditions than the 4e fighter. Some of those could be done with improvised actions, and the various movement-related things are less valuable (but still have some value) in 5e with the flexibility of breaking up your movement instead of having an atomic Move Action.

Overall, probably more meaningful to convert than the 4e fighter.

Agreed but it's worse than that - some builds actually DO get to use their bonus action attacks without the Attack action (see pet classes like Beastmaster Ranger and Battlesmith Artificer.) So now you end up with those classes actually getting to do fun non-attack things without sacrificing all their DPR in a turn. There is notable action disparity even just among the martials.

TBQH, I'd be fine with giving classes just "make one attack as part of another action" features. Any other action. Dash? You still get to make one attack. Dodge? Yup. Interact with a bunch of objects or Use an Object? As long as you have a target, just go ahead and make an attack. TWF can be bigger if it's tied to the Attack action instead of being rolled into other actions. And go ahead and leave the bonus action free for things like activating powers with durations, etc.

But pick and choose which classes get them and bake it into the class instead of leaving things like that in feats. I feel similarly about most of the big combat feats--even if they exist as separate feats, bits and pieces should be rolled into the martial classes as features. So maybe barbarians get power attack and cleave with any weapon for free at level 7-8-ish. Save the feat slot for something else. Fighters could choose between bits of a bunch of them, for free, about the same level. They can spend a feat if they want a different one as well, but they don't have to. Rangers might get the choice between DW and SS (bits of them, really, and cleaned up). Rogues between DW and CBE and SS. Paladins? They can smite. They're fine as is.

[Amechra]

Agreed but it's worse than that - some builds actually DO get to use their bonus action attacks without the Attack action (see pet classes like Beastmaster Ranger and Battlesmith Artificer.) So now you end up with those classes actually getting to do fun non-attack things without sacrificing all their DPR in a turn. There is notable action disparity even just among the martials.

Yeah... that's part of why it's so frustrating.

I agree with the suggestion that classes should just get to make attacks as part of other actions. That also suggests a fun little alternative to Extra Attack — instead of basically just getting Attack + Attack as a single action, maybe your class gives you the ability to Disengage+Dodge as a single action¹, or whatever. And then the Fighter is the one who has a wild pile of specialized, pre-built actions they built from scratch — "OK, so I Attack+Dodge+Help — this boss is going down".

But I feel like 5e would need a more robust set of basic combat actions for that to be cool.

¹ This suggests a version of the Monk to me that's designed around spamming Disengage and Dodge every turn, much like how the Fighter is built around spamming the Attack action.

[Psyren]

Yeah... that's part of why it's so frustrating.

I agree with the suggestion that classes should just get to make attacks as part of other actions. That also suggests a fun little alternative to Extra Attack — instead of basically just getting Attack + Attack as a single action, maybe your class gives you the ability to Disengage+Dodge as a single action¹, or whatever. And then the Fighter is the one who has a wild pile of specialized, pre-built actions they built from scratch — "OK, so I Attack+Dodge+Help — this boss is going down".

But I feel like 5e would need a more robust set of basic combat actions for that to be cool.

¹ This suggests a version of the Monk to me that's designed around spamming Disengage and Dodge every turn, much like how the Fighter is built around spamming the Attack action.

I mean, I know I bang on this drum all the time but you can just use the skill system for a lot of this. For example, ask if you can use Acrobatics to move away from an opponent safely without Disengaging, my DM lets us try that all the time and it leaves your action free to Dodge too. Just because there's a button to do X one way doesn't mean that's the only way.

[Snowbluff]

Doing a quick survey of the rogue:
.

So something to note about the power for the rogue, is a lot of the movement centric ones are already sort of present with 5e's movement system, especially combined with Cunning Action.

Deft Strike? You could already do that.

Fleeting Ghost? Hiding is a bonus action for Rogues.
Tumble? Disengage is a bonus action for Rogues.
Adaptable Flanker? Sneak attack is already enabled if an ally is in this formation.

I think some stuff could be worth poaching, but I think much like with Fighter and Rain of Blows, Rogues already have a lot of this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So something to note about the power for the rogue, is a lot of the movement centric ones are already sort of present with 5e's movement system, especially combined with Cunning Action.

Deft Strike? You could already do that.

Fleeting Ghost? Hiding is a bonus action for Rogues.
Tumble? Disengage is a bonus action for Rogues.
Adaptable Flanker? Sneak attack is already enabled if an ally is in this formation.

I think some stuff could be worth poaching, but I think much like with Fighter and Rain of Blows, Rogues already have a lot of this.

Agreed. In general, I'm not so impressed with 4e's martials. Lots of surface complexity, but mostly to patch up the creaky, limiting action setup. All the scaling damage? Better done with more attacks per action (more flexible as well). The big thing is the atomic Move Action. Something that PF2e also chose to go with, despite that being a major step backward for martials compared to 5e's "split it up around attacks however you want" thing IMO.

[Pex]

I mean, I know I bang on this drum all the time but you can just use the skill system for a lot of this. For example, ask if you can use Acrobatics to move away from an opponent safely without Disengaging, my DM lets us try that all the time and it leaves your action free to Dodge too. Just because there's a button to do X one way doesn't mean that's the only way.

I've seen that request too even from people who have not played 3E/Pathfinder. It's fine to use Acrobatics, but it might be better as a class feature for permission to use Acrobatics this way to avoid everyone doing it. It also gives a handy excuse as to why there would be game mechanics math defined specifics of how it works rather than DM make it up.

[Goobahfish]

I've come around to the realization that bonus action attacks, in particular, are a problem. Not because getting an extra attack is a problem.

I'd argue that the actual issue is that the game piles all extra attacks on the Attack action. Which makes sense, of course — that's the action where you attack things, after all!

So, putting on my optimizers hat. It seems that in 5E, as a Martial the 'strategy' is populate Reaction and Bonus Action with an attack of some kind. For Paladin/Ranger/Barbs this amounts to ~50% increase in baseline damage. For fighters, this is less obvious at higher levels where you already get a lot of attacks. For high level fighters, the incentives are closer to 'Bonus Actions/Reactions which buff existing attacks'. While the rogue is pretty interesting (ala Cunning Action) and thus there are cases where dashing/hiding/disengaging are more useful than an extra attack, in many cases 'Bonus Action = extra attack' is still going to be the most useful way of engaging.

The issue here is that no matter what 'interesting' abilities you try to give to a Martial, doing it through the window of 'Bonus Action/Reaction' is likely to not work unless it is better than an extra attack. Battlemaster/Barbarian/Paladin only really works because they augments existing attacks. Ranger has a problem because 'Hunter's Mark' which is a spell (<ignores separate rant>) interferes with the Bonus Action economy.

So, effectively, Martials have a 'leverage Bonus Action/Reaction' tax baked in.

Moreover, I find it baffling that Spellcasters have stacking spell slots (i.e. their bread and butter) but Martials don't have stacking 'Extra Attack' or anything else for that matter. Seems like a pointless kick in the teeth. It is nice, that Tripping and Grappling etc. are baked into 'Extra Attack' well in this edition.

So basically, we have a situation where spellcasters feel better because there is more MC potential available. They don't really have any feat-taxes baked in? There isn't much in the Feat space to seriously stuff up Casters. Imagine if there was a feat which let you use your bonus action to add a dice of damage to a cantrip for example... the balance would shift obviously but now casters would feel kind of hamstrung because obviously doing an extra D10 with a Firebolt would be the obvious Bonus Action thing.

Thus, if you were redesigning Martials, you'd probably want to:
A) Give them a common power source like Ki, Spell Slots etc. They can't use their higher level abilities with them if they multiclass etc etc but Ranger/Fighter might feel better if there was some explicit synergy.
B) Fix Extra Attack to synergize in some way...
C) Get rid of Bonus Action = Attack. Bake all of those abilities into 'Attack' as PhoenixFire suggests, but limit them to prevent shenanigans.
D) Make sure every Martial has Bonus Action options but not Bonus Action baked into their play-style (cunning action is a good example, Hunters mark/TWF is not).

OR... you could just revamp the whole system

[Witty Username]

Not martials. Rogues and to some small extent, Rangers (only if your game includes wilderness survival and orientation). Fighters, Barbarians, Monks and even Paladins are not explicitly better than any spellcaster at ability checks. They do not get Expertise at all, they do not get advantage handed to them easily, they do not get additional proficiencies, they do not get anything at all that would make them better at skills. They just tend to focus on stats that synergize with certain checks better - but then again, casters are great at either social skills, WIS skills, or knowledges, so it isn't martial-facing anyway.

And even Rogues don't get that great at skills before level 10.

First, Str, Dex and Con tend to be the most useful abilities for checks during gameplay, so martials tend to have better ability scores for it.

Barbarians - advantage on all strength checks while raging & cannot fail a strength check of DC 20 or less.

Fighters - have subclass abilities like remarkable athlete that grant bonuses to ability checks, and additional ASIs for a broader range of abilities Also, Rune knights get an equivalent to expertise with all tools and advantage with a number of social checks

Paladins get the least, probably because they have some of the best combat features and saving throws in the game.

I agree that monks suck.

But this is more identifying the problem. The issue is they are two few, like remarkable athlete being the only real gain for champion, or too late like barbarian getting indomitable might at 18th level, not that these gameplay elements don't exist.


If things like remarkable athlete were full proficiency instead of half. Indomitable Might was a level 9 feature. And if martials got more than 2 features past level 11. The problem would disappear completely, and those aren't big changes.

[Snowbluff]

Agreed. In general, I'm not so impressed with 4e's martials. Lots of surface complexity, but mostly to patch up the creaky, limiting action setup. All the scaling damage? Better done with more attacks per action (more flexible as well). The big thing is the atomic Move Action. Something that PF2e also chose to go with, despite that being a major step backward for martials compared to 5e's "split it up around attacks however you want" thing IMO.

Oh yeah, I agree emphatically. It's a pretty big weakness of those systems, especially when attacks are competing with movement so much, be it Minor Taps/Buffs or Action Attacks. This was a pain point for melees for like 2 decades. It's a bit of an odd choice for PF2 in particular, since it came out afterwards.

[Ignimortis]

Oh yeah, I agree emphatically. It's a pretty big weakness of those systems, especially when attacks are competing with movement so much, be it Minor Taps/Buffs or Action Attacks. This was a pain point for melees for like 2 decades. It's a bit of an odd choice for PF2 in particular, since it came out afterwards.

It's a way to make movement matter. In 5e, movement does not matter outside of very binary "does this put me in range of an enemy to hit?" or "does this put me out of enemy move+strike range?". Knocking someone down is rarely meaningful, because they just get up by using half their movement next turn and hit you back at full force. PF2, while encouraging a meta I highly dislike (sit and wait for the enemy to come to you so they don't have as many actions to attack you), does put more tactical decision-making into moving, not moving, tripping, and so on.

I would love a system that also encouraged movement-based tactics, but instead of rewarding passivity, it should encourage active action and constant movement, even if it's something as simple as "move 10 feet away from your starting position and get +2 to-hit and AC until the start of your next turn". It's why I liked 3.5 Scout as much as I did - it had incentives to move and attack instead of sitting around and doing full attack after full attack.

[Amnestic]

So something to note about the power for the rogue, is a lot of the movement centric ones are already sort of present with 5e's movement system, especially combined with Cunning Action.

Deft Strike? You could already do that.

Fleeting Ghost? Hiding is a bonus action for Rogues.
Tumble? Disengage is a bonus action for Rogues.
Adaptable Flanker? Sneak attack is already enabled if an ally is in this formation.

I think some stuff could be worth poaching, but I think much like with Fighter and Rain of Blows, Rogues already have a lot of this.

Indeed, some of the utility powers are already baked in - yet another inheritance from 4e.

I think they've got enough there to offer as a subclass even if you strip out the things they already get baseline either on the rogue chassis or due to 5e being 5e and once I get some time, maybe at the weekend, I could probably finish off the writeup/conversion.

It's a way to make movement matter. In 5e, movement does not matter outside of very binary "does this put me in range of an enemy to hit?" or "does this put me out of enemy move+strike range?". Knocking someone down is rarely meaningful, because they just get up by using half their movement next turn and hit you back at full force. PF2, while encouraging a meta I highly dislike (sit and wait for the enemy to come to you so they don't have as many actions to attack you), does put more tactical decision-making into moving, not moving, tripping, and so on.

I would love a system that also encouraged movement-based tactics, but instead of rewarding passivity, it should encourage active action and constant movement, even if it's something as simple as "move 10 feet away from your starting position and get +2 to-hit and AC until the start of your next turn". It's why I liked 3.5 Scout as much as I did - it had incentives to move and attack instead of sitting around and doing full attack after full attack.

Yeah the only real way to do this I've found is a lot of environmental hazards that change position on the regular but are still telegraphed, which can be contrived in some/a lot of instances.

[GloatingSwine]

It's a way to make movement matter. In 5e, movement does not matter outside of very binary "does this put me in range of an enemy to hit?" or "does this put me out of enemy move+strike range?". Knocking someone down is rarely meaningful, because they just get up by using half their movement next turn and hit you back at full force. PF2, while encouraging a meta I highly dislike (sit and wait for the enemy to come to you so they don't have as many actions to attack you), does put more tactical decision-making into moving, not moving, tripping, and so on.

I would love a system that also encouraged movement-based tactics, but instead of rewarding passivity, it should encourage active action and constant movement, even if it's something as simple as "move 10 feet away from your starting position and get +2 to-hit and AC until the start of your next turn". It's why I liked 3.5 Scout as much as I did - it had incentives to move and attack instead of sitting around and doing full attack after full attack.

I think if you want to encourage movement, you want to have good reasons to be standing somewhere else, not moving in general. The structure and nature of most combats, where the objective is "defeat this bunch of guys", doesn't really lend itself to giving reasons to move. If you're standing in a place where you can whack a guy, you're standing in the right place (and sure there might be a better guy to whack, but once you're standing next to that guy you want to stand there until you've finished the whacking).

"Bonus to attack if you moved" will make people move, but not naturalistically, it'll make them play pinball with enemies if they're standing close enough to do it every turn and not bother if they aren't (because the bonus isn't replacing halving your damage by not attacking every round unless you can dynamically switch between ranged and melee options every turn).

Unless the enemies are an obstacle and the actual objective is "go over there", movement tends to be a distraction at best and a detriment at worst to achieving the objective.

The other alternative is to make the TTKs when you reach melee super short for everyone so that the whole game is positioning and circling and getting the right engagement so that it's them that go down not you. But that's kinda incompatible with D&D's overall design.

[Sneak Dog]

First, Str, Dex and Con tend to be the most useful abilities for checks during gameplay, so martials tend to have better ability scores for it.

Going to disagree here. In my experience, perception and insight are huge along with diplomacy. After that, we get thieves' tools. Followed by stealth, knowledges and athleticism / general strength. Meanwhile I cannot remember the last time I've had a constitution check.
This is subjective to GM style. It all depends on how often which scores come up, what their DCs are and what the impact is of the roll. I've experienced lots of low-impact strength checks that just cost time or a spell to solve, stealth checks which were doomed to fail and perception/thievery checks changing the scene drastically.

The ability check system is not a good tool to use against balancing spells. It has bounded accuracy: The results don't scale much as you level, and casters get to do just fine as well. (Unless of course you both break bounded accuracy and set up expectations about what DCs achieve roughly what results.)

The ability check system works fine as long as every class depends on it roughly equally. As long as not too much weight is put on it, it'll hold up.

I think if you want to encourage movement, you want to have good reasons to be standing somewhere else, not moving in general.

So more environmental interactions? More automatic knockback on attacks, and getting knocked into terrain hurts. Flanking. Areas on fire. High ground / low ground. Ley lines. Favoured terrain / squares.
Though then you run the risk of characters flying up into the big empty sky to avoid all this nonsense. You also need to teach GMs how to set up terrain?

Oh, and in 5e movement is very forgiving. You get a lot of it, don't provoke unless you leave someones entire threatened area and even then it costs the one reaction someone has to attack. Making movement more rewarding and more annoying can make it more interesting.

[GloatingSwine]

So more environmental interactions? More automatic knockback on attacks, and getting knocked into terrain hurts. Flanking. Areas on fire. High ground / low ground. Ley lines. Favoured terrain / squares.
Though then you run the risk of characters flying up into the big empty sky to avoid all this nonsense. You also need to teach GMs how to set up terrain?

Oh, and in 5e movement is very forgiving. You get a lot of it, don't provoke unless you leave someones entire threatened area and even then it costs the one reaction someone has to attack. Making movement more rewarding and more annoying can make it more interesting.

Much of that doesn't really provoke movement other than knockback. They're the sort of thing that shouldn't really change often enough to make people reassess where they're standing and want to be somewhere else.

Good and bad terrain can impact where you want to stand, but when you're standing where you want to stand there's still no reason to move until you can't do anything else without moving (and possibly even less, if doing action A from favourable terrain is as useful as action B from less favourable terrain).

Whatever it is needs to be something that changes often enough to make people regularly think that somewhere else is the best place to be standing.

[rel]

Spellcasters can teleport across the world, see into the future and raise the dead. multiple times per day.
Or wait a day and swap all that out for the ability to fly, breathe water and travel to other planes of existence.

I just don't see the rogues ability to make ability checks really well or the monks ability to mimic the tongues spell as on the same playing field.

Yeah, and the way to fix that is to take that big campaign affecting stuff out of the spell lists and put it into rituals and artifacts that anyone can use. Want to visit another plane of existence? You don't need a spell you need a keystone for that plane and once you have it anyone can use it.

Spell lists can be the immediate effects (because that's what tends to go in other class features, immediate effects with immediate outcomes), and all the far reaching stuff comes out of spells and into other systems that are equally accessible to all.

Hmm, that could work. So the changes would be:

1) leave muggles unchanged. Their only mechanical interactions with the non-combat portion of the game are being better at making ability checks and a few minor tricks

2) remove all the utility spells and anything long lasting and potent from the spell lists

3) replace the necessary utility spells with analogous effects coming from some of utility powers system that everyone gets access to.

Yeah, that has some advantages; You don't have to modify all the classes (or any of the new classes) or races since the spell list and utility power system they all refer to is doing the heavy lifting.
And everyone can be fundamentally on the same scale in terms of utility since they would all use the same system.
Sure, you lose class based niches, but under the current system there's no balance there anyway.
And as long as you limit how much a single character can access you can still have utility niches within members of a party.

I'm going to have a think on this.

[GloatingSwine]

It also sells the world as an inherently magical place.

The effect of training as a wizard isn't access to magic, magic's everywhere, it's access to magic quickly enough that you can do stuff with it at the drop of a hat where everyone else has to take the long way around.

[Snowbluff]

It's a way to make movement matter. In 5e, movement does not matter outside of very binary "does this put me in range of an enemy to hit?" or "does this put me out of enemy move+strike range?". Knocking someone down is rarely meaningful, because they just get up by using half their movement next turn and hit you back at full force. PF2, while encouraging a meta I highly dislike (sit and wait for the enemy to come to you so they don't have as many actions to attack you), does put more tactical decision-making into moving, not moving, tripping, and so on.

I would love a system that also encouraged movement-based tactics, but instead of rewarding passivity, it should encourage active action and constant movement, even if it's something as simple as "move 10 feet away from your starting position and get +2 to-hit and AC until the start of your next turn". It's why I liked 3.5 Scout as much as I did - it had incentives to move and attack instead of sitting around and doing full attack after full attack.

Eating half of a targets movement isn't worthwhile? Not even close. Sometimes half movement is what is needed to keep someone from slapping they shouldn't. You can do a lot to manipulate movement in 5e, and it's movement system does not preclude that. What it does do is allow people not to suffer from Full Attack Problems. Proning, Grappling, push, pulls, slides, prones and an innumerable amount of other abilities all play into this, and if there's a lack of movement manipulation and tactics in your games, that's very much a table problem. Heck, PF2's Ray of Frost doesn't even slow without a crit grumble grumble...

While I can see movement getting some bonuses assigned to it like 3.5 scout, overwhelmingly did builds end up building ways to move and full attack anyway. I do think it's pretty easy to fall into artificial pitfalls like PF2's 3 Action system or 4e Warlock's Curse + Prime Shot.

[GloatingSwine]

Eating half of a targets movement isn't worthwhile?

Not if it doesn't want to go anywhere. You can do a lot to manipulate movement, but you don't get a lot of reasons to move if you're already next to something to thump.

[Snowbluff]

Not if it doesn't want to go anywhere. You can do a lot to manipulate movement, but you don't get a lot of reasons to move if you're already next to something to thump.

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can manipulate (guarantee) having them attack something you would rather have them hit, or force them to attack nothing at all. A 20 feet away and prone will be successfully kited the same way someone 5 feet away and prone in 4e would be. Or it could be as simple as making sure the guy is attacking the meat of the party instead of the lettuce.

Do other people just not do this? I've seen whole builds in AL and at tables that mess with enemies like this. Even if it's not immediately obvious, you can save a lot of resources this way.

[GloatingSwine]

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can manipulate (guarantee) having them attack something you would rather have them hit, or force them to attack nothing at all. A 20 feet away and prone will be successfully kited the same way someone 5 feet away and prone in 4e would be. Or it could be as simple as making sure the guy is attacking the meat of the party instead of the lettuce.

Do other people just not do this? I've seen whole builds in AL and at tables that mess with enemies like this. Even if it's not immediately obvious, you can save a lot of resources this way.

Yeah, though the martials tend to be the meat and they tend to be the ones who have the least incentive to move in between clobbering targets.

The stuff about movement was about PCs moving more, not controlling the movement of enemies, but if you're already next to something you want to hit why would you move?

And ultimately the relatively long TTKs of D&D tend to produce this, if it takes two turns to kill something that's how long you're standing next to it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm, that could work. So the changes would be:

1) leave muggles unchanged. Their only mechanical interactions with the non-combat portion of the game are being better at making ability checks and a few minor tricks

2) remove all the utility spells and anything long lasting and potent from the spell lists

3) replace the necessary utility spells with analogous effects coming from some of utility powers system that everyone gets access to.

Yeah, that has some advantages; You don't have to modify all the classes (or any of the new classes) or races since the spell list and utility power system they all refer to is doing the heavy lifting.
And everyone can be fundamentally on the same scale in terms of utility since they would all use the same system.
Sure, you lose class based niches, but under the current system there's no balance there anyway.
And as long as you limit how much a single character can access you can still have utility niches within members of a party.

I'm going to have a think on this.

It also sells the world as an inherently magical place.

The effect of training as a wizard isn't access to magic, magic's everywhere, it's access to magic quickly enough that you can do stuff with it at the drop of a hat where everyone else has to take the long way around.

Going to put forward my (WIP) proposal along these lines:

Incantations (Google Doc)

High points --
* 81 PHB spells (well...78 since there are 2 completely new effects and 1 spell ended up as 2 incantations) removed in whole or in part (some spells got split into an Incantation for the long-duration stuff and a spell for a more "prompt" effect)
* Tiered by character level (basically grouped according to "is this acceptable for a Tier X person to do"
* Access via quest reward, finding written records, boons, or whatever.
* Balanced by a variety of possible costs including
** Cast time
** Having a "one of these active at once" limit (like the light spell)
** Having an expensive component (consumed or not)
** Having an explicit cooldown
** Imposing stacking penalties (usually exhaustion) for [first and subsequent|only second+] use in a day.
** requiring special circumstances (such as Planar Ally requiring a pre-existing serious relationship with the entity you're pleading for help from) or some things needing sanctified ground or a group of casters each with the feat such as True Resurrection.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, though the martials tend to be the meat and they tend to be the ones who have the least incentive to move in between clobbering targets.

The stuff about movement was about PCs moving more, not controlling the movement of enemies, but if you're already next to something you want to hit why would you move?

For movement manipulation to matter, moving has to matter. This shows how both can be the case. Move your melees (not martials, there is only one in the game) to things that are able to get people. Leave the ones who can't on the ground.

[Pex]

It's a way to make movement matter. In 5e, movement does not matter outside of very binary "does this put me in range of an enemy to hit?" or "does this put me out of enemy move+strike range?". Knocking someone down is rarely meaningful, because they just get up by using half their movement next turn and hit you back at full force. PF2, while encouraging a meta I highly dislike (sit and wait for the enemy to come to you so they don't have as many actions to attack you), does put more tactical decision-making into moving, not moving, tripping, and so on.

I would love a system that also encouraged movement-based tactics, but instead of rewarding passivity, it should encourage active action and constant movement, even if it's something as simple as "move 10 feet away from your starting position and get +2 to-hit and AC until the start of your next turn". It's why I liked 3.5 Scout as much as I did - it had incentives to move and attack instead of sitting around and doing full attack after full attack.

Knocking someone down isn't about slowing them. It's to get advantage to attack in melee - hence the controversy over Shield Master feat. For teamwork play even if you don't fully benefit from the advantage it does help for a party member or two to get the advantage. Maybe you're counting that as "rarely", but I find it a more significant value if you are.

[GloatingSwine]

For movement manipulation to matter, moving has to matter. This shows how both can be the case. Move your melees (not martials, there is only one in the game) to things that are able to get people. Leave the ones who can't on the ground.

Yeah, but that just kinda restates the problem.

The melees move to the things that can get to people and then lock down the encounter by controlling enemy movement. They generally don't keep moving because they have everyone where they want them.

The identified problem is giving them reasons to continue moving after that. But they don't because TTKs are kinda long and they want to sit on enemies until they are deaded.

It's a conceptual outgrowth of the MMO tank role. As a tank in most MMOs a big part of your job is to anchor the fight, keep everything still so everyone else can smash it better. Which is fun and interesting as a full time activity in a realtime environment but not so much in a turn based one

[Amnestic]

Well as promised, the 4e Rogue turned into a 5e subclass - here.

Plenty of bells and whistles to pull on, though I wouldn't be surprised of arcane trickster is still stronger depending on combat/rest frequency due to SCAGtrips and spells - I kept encounter exploits as encounter instead of rest based*, so Fourth Rogues will work better if there's a lot of combats between long rests I expect.

*Yes it's a departure from 5e standard but the move towards PB/LR by WotC instead of 1/SR tells me that's fine, and I expect 1/encounter to not be that different to PB/LR anyway. In some ways it'll be better, in some ways it'll be worse. It's not unheard of for classes in 5e to regain features on rolling initiative (see monk/bard capstones) so, again, there is precedence.

If the mood takes me I'll probably review monk next to see if it's worth it.

[JackPhoenix]

If the latest UA is any indication, martials will get LESS options. Except maybe feats... not that they'll get any extras, but there'll be more to pick from.

[The Clark Side]

If nothing else, Maneuvers and Superiority Dice should be a little more prevalent. As for scaling them up to be on par with spellcasters, maybe we should have some more powerful maneuvers that cost more dice to use? I'm sure there's some way to do it.

Maybe look at Way of the Four Elements or Sunsoul as a starting point? Both Ki Points and Superiority Dice come back on a Short Rest, so we look at how many Ki Points equals a spell and then we estimate how many Ki Points equals a Superiority Die. Then we start making maneuvers that cost that many dice. It's not a perfect solution, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Also, what if the new Weapon Master feat was 1st-level and we replace the Ability Score bonus with a Maneuver and Superiority Die? It won't exactly turn you into a top tier warrior, but it'd help none-warriors feel that way.

[Witty Username]

I think spellcasters should be able to do things beyond dealing damage and having HP.
At best we just solidify the superiority of spellcasters by removing any capacity to interface with the game in a way different than a martial.
At worst we neglect the social and exploration pillars of the game even further.