D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit

[Maxperson]

First, we're not talking about a "DM" rules change here. We're talking about changes we think the designers should make.

As I've said, they aren't going to do an about face on this.

Second, i believe I've seen you argue that DM changes to rules they don't like is RAW (e.g. centaurs shouldn't climb..even if the rules say they can).

You haven't. I've never in my life argued that DM changes to rules are RAW. I did say that centaurs shouldn't be able to climb, but I never said that a DM disallowing the climbing would be making new RAW.

Third, a bestiary book is about the most ludicrous place I can think of for a person to draw the conclusions for a RAI argument. It's content that is DM-facing where DMs are free to use some, all, or none of it completely at their discretion. The only "intent" at work here is to provide a tool to make DM encounter-building easier.

Cool. Cool. Never used only the MM. You keep ignoring the other elements of the argument. I wonder why?

 

[Weiley31]

There's a perfectly good reason why Come and Get It affects enemies the way it does, regardless if they are intelligent or not: The Fighter tells such a hardcore "Yo Mama" joke that hits so hard that opponents suddenly find themselves filled with intense rage.

Case in point: this clip accurately showcases when the 4E Fighter uses it against the Mindflayer and it succeeds.

 

[Gammadoodler]

As I've said, they aren't going to do an about face on this.

You haven't. I've never in my life argued that DM changes to rules are RAW. I did say that centaurs shouldn't be able to climb, but I never said that a DM disallowing the climbing would be making new RAW.

Cool. Cool. Never used only the MM. You keep ignoring the other elements of the argument. I wonder why?

And you're right. It is unlikely that they would do an "about face" on a topic they've never actually discussed or addressed. But even if they had, it's irrelevant to a discussion of what people think they should do/should have done.

What you said it is RAW that a DM may choose to use MM attributes at the expense of the RAW player-facing ones (amongst other things). It's almost like you think anyone can just change rules they don't agree with..or..maybe that's something only you can do?

Probably didn't address other elements due to a near complete absence of citation on your part...which is strange considering how conscientious you are about that kind of thing.

And lastly, you only addressed 3 of the 4 points in th post you replied to. As a refresher..I also asked:

what do you think the actual "rule" is that you are taking credit for?

Simple oversight I assume.

 

[Maxperson]

What you said it is RAW that a DM may choose to use MM attributes at the expense of the RAW player-facing ones (amongst other things).

If I said something like that, I certainly didn't say it like that. I'm really not sure what you think I said, but I do know that I have never in my life said that the DM changing the rules makes those rules RAW.

It's almost like you think anyone can just change rules they don't agree with

Only the DM. It's a fact that he can just change any rule he doesn't agree with. That doesn't make it RAW.

..or..maybe that's something only you can do?

When I DM.

Probably didn't address other elements due to a near complete absence of citation on your part...which is strange considering how conscientious you are about that kind of thing.

I still don't know what you are talking about.

And lastly, you only addressed 3 of the 4 points in th post you replied to. As a refresher..I also asked:


Simple oversight I assume.

I ignored it because I never claimed it was a rule. If it was a rule, it would be RAW and not RAI.

 

[Minigiant]

My vote is for a lot of very specific capabilities.

@Minigiant I like the direction you're thinking is going!

Finally before I head out, something I thought of the other day when it comes to WotC and the apparent focus of D&D:
View attachment 149003View attachment 149004
View attachment 149005View attachment 149006View attachment 149007
Each of these highlighted sections focuses on spellcasters for the most part. Very little is commented on as to what other classes are capable of.

It's a pity, really, IMO.

Just to go back to this post.

I think D&D missed a good opportunity when it didn't keep maneuvers core in martials back in the playtest.

By making it tied to a subclass, maneuvers wouldn't have the justification to scale.

So all maneuvers are Tier 1. Having 4, 5, or 6 levels of maneuvers would have helped determine the Mundane Limit.

If EPIC BOONS are equal to high martial, that's a mid level maneuver?

Roll a Superiority die and add 10 times the result to your speed?
Expend a sup die and add it to hit roll, damage roll, and AC?
Add your superiority dice result to your all your ability checks?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just to go back to this post.

I think D&D missed a good opportunity when it didn't keep maneuvers core in martials back in the playtest.

By making it tied to a subclass, maneuvers wouldn't have the justification to scale.

So all maneuvers are Tier 1. Having 4, 5, or 6 levels of maneuvers would have helped determine the Mundane Limit.

If EPIC BOONS are equal to high martial, that's a mid level maneuver?

Roll a Superiority die and add 10 times the result to your speed?
Expend a sup die and add it to hit roll, damage roll, and AC?
Add your superiority dice result to your all your ability checks?

Yeah, I have never really liked the BM as a subclass and wish maneuvers (in some fashion) were core to martials, particularly fighters.

Keeping them as Martial Maneuvers for any class even. The "martials" could learn more, and you could scale them by using the proficiency bonus.

FWIW, I revamped the BM Maneuvers to remove superior dice and use proficiency bonus instead. I don't like the idea of something you are "capable of", like a parry, being limited in use instead of at-will.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, I have never really liked the BM as a subclass and wish maneuvers (in some fashion) were core to martials, particularly fighters.

Keeping them as Martial Maneuvers for any class even. The "martials" could learn more, and you could scale them by using the proficiency bonus.

FWIW, I revamped the BM Maneuvers to remove superior dice and use proficiency bonus instead. I don't like the idea of something you are "capable of", like a parry, being limited in use instead of at-will.

When I was still trying to make 5E what I wanted, I was redoing the Fighter class to basically have both At-Will maneuvers similar to 4E which had minor effects, but also larger maneuvers which worked off the "Grit" resource Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You'd gain grit back from killing people and getting crits, allowing you to regain resources while fighting. I thought it was a cool idea, but I never finished it up.

 

[Stalker0]

When I was still trying to make 5E what I wanted, I was redoing the Fighter class to basically have both At-Will maneuvers similar to 4E which had minor effects, but also larger maneuvers which worked off the "Grit" resource Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You'd gain grit back from killing people and getting crits, allowing you to regain resources while fighting. I thought it was a cool idea, but I never finished it up.

If you want the "simple" version of this. When the battlemaster gets to d10 on their superiority dice, have it where they can use manuevers "at-will" with a 1d4 die. So they now can do a weak but at-will version of the maneuvers.

 

[Minigiant]

If you want the "simple" version of this. When the battlemaster gets to d10 on their superiority dice, have it where they can use manuevers "at-will" with a 1d4 die. So they now can do a weak but at-will version of the maneuvers.

I'd start with least dice and hand 1d2 at will

Level	At Will Dice	Short Rest Dice	# of Short Rest dice
3rd	1d2	1d8	3
7th	1d3	1d8	4
10th	1d4	1d10	4
15th	1d4	1d12	5
20th	1d6	1d20	5

 

[Stalker0]

I'd start with least dice and hand 1d2 at will

Level	At Will Dice	Short Rest Dice	# of Short Rest dice
3rd	1d2	1d8	3
7th	1d3	1d8	4
10th	1d4	1d10	4
15th	1d4	1d12	5
20th	1d6	1d20	5

The main issue with that, is that many maneuvers don't really need the superiority dice....there power lies in the core maneuver and not the die. Commander's strike is one example, grappling strike is another. So giving the BM at-will maneuvers at 3rd level is quite a big change, whereas by 10th level having such at-will powers is not that big a deal.

Now it may be your goal to give the BM a big power up at 3rd, but if your looking for something simple that focuses the power change at higher levels, I wouldn't go with a new suite of at-will powers at 3rd.