D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[Plaguescarred]

Mike Mearls revealed on twitter that the fighter can restore hit points though not through the use of healing per se;

@redcometcasval Glad to see the 4e style Fighter is somewhat present in Next. Will they have the ability to restore hit points or grant actions?
@mikemearls Yes to both, though they don't use healing per se.

@WarlordLaen Will the Battle Master maneuver "Rally" be a healing power? I hope so! To be a good Warlord stand-in it will need some healing.
@mikemearls It definitely affects hit points, but isn't exactly healing.

 

[The Human Target]

It made me more likely to give 5e a try.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I frequent RPG net as well as here.

I love seeing the threads on each board on L&L. Here we get a Next fighter is too 4E, and over at RPGnet, we get that the Next figther isn't 4E enough. Part of the problem Next faces in trying to reach all the fans.

Personally I think this works - we have an approach to a fighter that could appeal to 4E fans and Warlord Fans, but other version of the fighter aren't of the same stripe.

I really can't wait until we see the end result.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Seems simple enough to me...

The game will include flavor and mechanics reminiscent of each of the editions. If you can't stand any particular one, and having 1/6th of the game show flashes of it makes you go all squirrely... then just stop. You're not going to be happy... you NEVER WERE going to be happy... and why are you bothering to even still follow along? Seems like you're basically a masochist at this point, and I see no reason why WotC should be doing anything to stop you from continually slapping yourself in the face. Enjoy whatever edition you're currently playing. Best of luck to you. We'll all be over here playing 5E.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't care for it myself. I prefer the combat maneuvers to be in the combat chapter, available to anyone (a la 3rd edition, but without the need for feat investment to make them work semi-reliably), and then have the fighter, probably through the advantage of having the highest attack bonus, be the best at them. But I've lost this battle a long time ago, so I guess this looks as good as anything.

 

[oxybe]

for that mechanic? i'm in the wait and see.

i'll openly state that i don't care for the fighter's thing being "can do the same thing in combat everyone else can, but maybe at a small bonus" but that's just me. it's not bad, just not something that interests me.

my biggest gripe is about the fighter is that he's a very much a mundane man in a supernatural world and is not given any inherent tools to help him navigate that world... i find the fighter just too limited in scope, when compared to the whole of what D&D offers.

 

[Minigiant]

Gotta see the implementation but I like it.

Reduces the amount of DM adjudication skill needed for combat actions outside of basic attacks and allows players who like complex play to not be forced to run a caster.

Widens the market and options for D&D fans who might be discouraged and seconds away from another game just... snatching them up.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't care for it myself. I prefer the combat maneuvers to be in the combat chapter, available to anyone

Agreed. Regardless of how much complexity you want, none of it should be in the class description itself. For any class. Fighters are the basic class and make a good litmus test though.

Building things into the class rules rather than as system rules essentially tells me that all that stuff about modularity and customization they promised is never going to happen.

But I've lost this battle a long time ago, so I guess this looks as good as anything.

Only if you count Mearls & Co not getting it as "lost".

 

[fjw70]

Since fighters primary function is combat then what should be in the fighter section of the book?

Non-fighters won't need to refer to the fighter section to trip, bull rush, etc. that stuff will be in the combat section.

These fighter maneuvers look like they will be special ways that fighters can do this stuff and other stuff that others can't do (like give allies bonuses). Seems to me its stuff that should be in the fighter section of the PH.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Since fighters primary function is combat then what should be in the fighter section of the book?

Virtually nothing.

As is the case with most versions of the fighter across editions and with many of the other classes (particularly spellcasters) as well. There should be a complete and working game independent of the classes, and the classes are just a handy means of disseminating who gets how much of what. Burying game design in character-specific class abilities is quite antithetical to the "omni-D&D" we're supposed to be getting.