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

[Mistwell]

To me, where they failed is in not making the rest of the classes as minimal. The D&D I'm waiting for has the player of a wizard tell the DM he's making an illusion, roll an illusion check, wait for the outcome from the DM, and move on. Endless lists of discrete, specific, and detailed spells are not what I'm playing D&D for. Nor powers. Nor maneuvers.

No offense intended by this, and I almost never say this, but that wouldn't be D&D. D&D is never going to have spells work that way, nor should it. That's a generic fantasy game, not a specific fantasy game like D&D. In fact, you could do that game with Mutants & Masterminds (a generic superheros game).

 

[Chaltab]

I'm going to agree with Mistwell on that one. There are plenty of games that work as you say, or much closer to what you describe. Tri-Stat, GURPS, M&M, FATE--there are plenty of popular and versatile skill-based systems out there you can use to run generic fantasy games, but that's definitely not what I think of when I want specifically to buy/play Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

but that's definitely not what I think of when I want specifically to buy/play Dungeons and Dragons.

When I specifically think of Dungeons and Dragons, fighter maneuvers certainly don't cross my mind.

You're not wrong to say that skill-based magic would be a large departure, but certainly no larger than the one we're discussing. In D&D, fighters say "I attack" and roll a d20, and spellcasters of various types select from a menu of limited-use spells. The direction WotC is pushing is to make everyone more like the latter. I'm suggesting making everyone more like the former. If not that, at least leave the poor fighter be.

 

[Hussar]

When I specifically think of Dungeons and Dragons, fighter maneuvers certainly don't cross my mind.

You're not wrong to say that skill-based magic would be a large departure, but certainly no larger than the one we're discussing. In D&D, fighters say "I attack" and roll a d20, and spellcasters of various types select from a menu of limited-use spells. The direction WotC is pushing is to make everyone more like the latter. I'm suggesting making everyone more like the former. If not that, at least leave the poor fighter be.

But, I've been told over and over again that that's not how fighters work in earlier editions. Fighters are supposed to detail out all sorts of manoeuvres and whatnot, gaining advantages by using tactics and strategies.

The only difference is that we're doing it within a framework instead of free forming.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, I've been told over and over again that that's not how fighters work in earlier editions. Fighters are supposed to detail out all sorts of manoeuvres and whatnot, gaining advantages by using tactics and strategies.

You've been told over and over again many things, I imagine. I'd be surprised if that was one of them. There are certainly strategic and tactical elements there, but I don't see a need to do all that.

After all, if we can just track hit points and not bother with the difference between a puncture wound and an acid burn, surely we can just roll attacks and not bother with differentiating one "maneuver" from another?

 

[Hussar]

You've been told over and over again many things, I imagine. I'd be surprised if that was one of them. There are certainly strategic and tactical elements there, but I don't see a need to do all that.

After all, if we can just track hit points and not bother with the difference between a puncture wound and an acid burn, surely we can just roll attacks and not bother with differentiating one "maneuver" from another?

Oh, hey, i totally agree with you. But, when I talk about how in earlier editions, fighters basically had one thing they could do - pelt targets with dice until the bad mens fall down, I get told in glowing terms how earlier editions totally support tactical play and whatnot. About how a fighter player has a plethora of decision points to make every round which is just as tactically rich as later editions like 3e or 4e.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Oh, hey, i totally agree with you. But, when I talk about how in earlier editions, fighters basically had one thing they could do - pelt targets with dice until the bad mens fall down, I get told in glowing terms how earlier editions totally support tactical play and whatnot. About how a fighter player has a plethora of decision points to make every round which is just as tactically rich as later editions like 3e or 4e.

There are decision points. Simply using your movement and choosing which targets to attack can create a fairly sophisticated set of decisions (even moreso with AoOs added to the mix). A variety of other things can get sprinkled in there (weapon selection, magic item usage, trying to defend or aid other party members, etc.), and sometimes the nondamaging attacks (trip/disarm/etc.), but even just the basic idea of moving in 5 ft increments and choosing where to go and who to attack is already a lot of detail, and an area where making one choice over the other can have significant consequences.

 

[Hussar]

There are decision points. Simply using your movement and choosing which targets to attack can create a fairly sophisticated set of decisions (even moreso with AoOs added to the mix). A variety of other things can get sprinkled in there (weapon selection, magic item usage, trying to defend or aid other party members, etc.), and sometimes the nondamaging attacks (trip/disarm/etc.), but even just the basic idea of moving in 5 ft increments and choosing where to go and who to attack is already a lot of detail, and an area where making one choice over the other can have significant consequences.

You realise that none of that appears in pre-WOTC editions of D&D right?

 

[Mistwell]

When I specifically think of Dungeons and Dragons, fighter maneuvers certainly don't cross my mind.

You're not wrong to say that skill-based magic would be a large departure, but certainly no larger than the one we're discussing.

Yes, it would be.

Maneuvers, in one way or another, are in many versions of the game (though often not called that). They're also a minor option - one subclass of one class.

Skill based magic is a MASSIVE departure. It's never been a common option for the game, and changes an iconic element of the game. It was never iconic for the fighter to just swing their sword - they were always mixing in things like knocking people down, somehow, in all versions of the game, in some way. Skill based magic? Not so much,

 

[Ahnehnois]

You realise that none of that appears in pre-WOTC editions of D&D right?

None of what? The maneuver stuff? That said, I recall that in earlier versions, some of the other factors (say, weapon selection) were much more consequential.

The point is that choosing that you were going to attack was usually pretty much the choice; the manner in which you're going to attack is not a big thing.