Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui

WotC's Mike Mearls has reported on the latest D&D survey results. "In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics." Additionally, there's a new survey up asking about DMs Guld as well as the last Unearthed Arcana (which featured the Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, and Revenant).

Find the survey results here. The most requested extra content is more feats, followed by classes, spells and races, in that order.

 

[Imaro]

Well, I can't speak for everyone. It was a hypothetical point that started the whole conversation, I do believe. At the very least, I'd like to see the battle master expanded--combat superiority dice are not a bad mechanic, they just need more maneuvers and more scaling. I'd like a more tactical fighter, one that is better at various quasi-improvised combat maneuvers than other people simply because he or she is a fighter and thus the best at combat.

Well the maneuvers do scale, the DC and number/size of dice goes up as you level up and because you get multiple attacks you get more chances to use them in a round...or is there a different type of scaling you are speaking too?

As for more maneuvers... I could see that but then there's always someone who wants more and there's dev time/page count/etc. to consider (I certainly don't want us anywhere near the glut of powers that 4e created for fighters I prefer them to be broad based and widely applicable as opposed to narrow and numerous.) but I wouldn't be adverse to a limited expansion of maneuvers... so what would be a reasonable amount of maneuvers ti have and what areas of combat, that aren't covered now, would these maneuvers fill? Finally what do you mean by "quasi-improvised"... I'm unclear on whether you are talking to pre-packaged maneuvers or some kind of improvisational system.... or maybe something entirely different.

What I'd consider the best they can do with the current rules implementation (as in a pie-in-the-sky, overly optimistic goal) is something like a full spell list for a fighter, but instead of spells, call them "maneuvers" or "blade magic", as stated earlier.

Is there enough design space to create this many maneuvers for combat? Again I'll ask what areas of tactical combat are not covered by maneuvers, feats or optional DMG rules? Once you've given me an idea of what you're looking too I think we can discuss this further...

As has been stated, those mechanics already exist within the existing rules structure. Forced movement is in the rules, see the humble Shove action, Repelling Blast, or various spells like Thorn Whip. Reactions are within the rules, from opportunity attacks to the Shield spell (among others, like Absorb Elements).

The BM already uses every one of the mechanics stated above... again what design space for combat are we looking to fill here that isn't actually covered?

 

[Maxperson]

It's still a d20 game. +/-1 (or 2 or 3) is the same thing it's always been.

Sort of.......at least with regard to +X from weapons, armor or feats. What that sort of +X gives to the PC remains the same. +1 is +1 is +1. However, in 5e it's very often unnecessary to have that +X due to bounded accuracy, so what it means to the PC is not the same. In prior editions it meant keeping pace with the monsters. In 5e it just means the PC is getting better and has no effect on the monster math.

Since it has no effect on the monster math, there is no reason to feel like you are forced to pick feats that have +X, or use +X weapons/armor/save items in order to do well against monsters. Instead you should feel equally free to choose a feat that has no combat effect at all if you want.

 

[Maxperson]

The 3e system was pretty bad. EL and LA as implemented were rather abysmal. Frequently, characters would be too fragile because their HD didn't adequately relate to their EL. You could easily see this even in races like the Tiefling: if the rest of the party started at second level so the entire group had the same EL, you'd have half the HPs of the rest of the group while being expected to deal with foes as if you were a level 2 character. You also had the fact that flight jacked up your EL far more than it really should have given how situational the benefits of flight actually are. And there were certainly BAB issues because of differences in monster and class BABs. And other issues as well.

This is why I just tossed out EL/LA completely. The abilities that EL/LA races had made them more powerful than PCs that were PHB races, but not in such a way that they earned phantom levels. What I told my players is that they are free to pick any +1 or normal race when they make a character, but anything +2 or higher had to be approved by me. If I approved a +2 or higher race, I just kept the extra abilities in mind when creating encounters.

 

[Magil]

Well the maneuvers do scale, the DC and number/size of dice goes up as you level up and because you get multiple attacks you get more chances to use them in a round...or is there a different type of scaling you are speaking too?

I feel as though the number of dice needs to scale better, or be set on a different "refresh" rate than short rest-based, as the current small number of dice you get strongly stifles the flexibility you can have. I find myself gravitating towards a very short list of maneuvers because there's simply -not enough dice- to waste them on very situationally useful effects. That'd be a start.

As for more maneuvers... I could see that but then there's always someone who wants more and there's dev time/page count/etc. to consider (I certainly don't want us anywhere near the glut of powers that 4e created for fighters I prefer them to be broad based and widely applicable as opposed to narrow and numerous.) but I wouldn't be adverse to a limited expansion of maneuvers... so what would be a reasonable amount of maneuvers ti have and what areas of combat, that aren't covered now, would these maneuvers fill? Finally what do you mean by "quasi-improvised"... I'm unclear on whether you are talking to pre-packaged maneuvers or some kind of improvisational system.... or maybe something entirely different.

By "quasi-improved" I'm kinda poking fun at people who say "the fighter can do all of that, you just need to improvise your actions, I prefer that to powers system!" See, for me, it's not enough that the fighter -can- do it--they need to be better at it, because they are supposed to be the best at fighting. And it must be in the rules, if you have to make it up on your own, it's not a part of the class, it's something everyone can do, and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

I'd prefer a long laundry list of pre-packaged maneuvers, yes. If the 4E analogy doesn't work for you, how about the Tome of Battle? Good supplement. Would a "warblade" subclass for the fighter be too hard to do? But again, that kind of thing is an "ideal" situation for me. I'd vastly prefer it to the current, "broad" (aka actually very limited) implementation. I almost regret the optional DMG rules because it seems to me like those kinds of things could be things the fighter should be better at than others, like Cleaving, climbing on larger monsters, etc., but it's hard to really approach them now that they're strictly optional rules found in the DMG.

...Except if done via a spell list, because nobody has a problem if it's a spell that breaks the rules. Seriously, Tome of Battle again comes to mind.

Is there enough design space to create this many maneuvers for combat? Again I'll ask what areas of tactical combat are not covered by maneuvers, feats or optional DMG rules? Once you've given me an idea of what you're looking too I think we can discuss this further... The BM already uses every one of the mechanics stated above... again what design space for combat are we looking to fill here that isn't actually covered?

Let's say, for example, you want to make a fighter that specializes in grappling. There's honestly not much there in the fighter package. The Grappler feat is garbage, and Tavern Brawler is okay-ish at best (fun, but mechanically doesn't have enough going for it).

The fighter class has almost no tools for this. If you want to be a grappler in this edition, you're better off with the barbarian package, or rogue... or bard! That I don't get.

What if we stuck passive benefits onto some maneuvers too? For example, a maneuver that allowed you to double your proficiency bonus to the Athletics check made to grapple/perform combat stunts as a passive benefit, but also allowed you to actively add a superiority die to the check? Just an example off the top of my head, it'd also be a huge help for "improvised", outside-the-rules options that involved Strength (Athletics) checks. A maneuver that allowed you to attack defensively and add superiority dice to AC/str-dex saves for a turn would be sweet. How about improving that piss-poor maneuver that increases your reach for an attack by adding on an effect where it pulled the enemy 5 feet towards you if you hit?

I don't want to fill up the page with suggestions, and again, personally? Yes, I want that long, "narrow" list of exploits/maneuvers/whatever. I want a 4E-style power list, or the Tome of Battle blade magic spell list. I want the fighter to have the option of being (almost) as varied and versatile as a spell caster, but in a different area. Not saying delete the champion. If we can't have that though, at least help out the poor battle master. It has serious issues (limited scope of maneuvers combined with far too few dice leads to very limited options). I'm simply never going to spend dice on allowing an ally to move a bit or as a bonus to AC against opportunity attacks when it means giving up the opportunity to Riposte/Precision Strike/Trip Attack, not when I'm getting less than half a dozen dice every ~2 encounters. And by that I mean the situations in which I'd do so are so narrow I'm never going to pick those maneuvers to add to my very short list.

 

[Ahglock]

Would you give up additional attacks for these advanced maneuvers? IMO the 4 attacks fighters get really limited their sub classes range. I'd love a enhanced maneuver class but I can't see better maneuvers or a different system on the current fighter. Maybe if the maneuvers were once a turn for a new subclass they could have a bit more ooomph or more uses but not much.

I'm all for a nine levels of known maneuvers like a bards list hell prep them like a wizard through meditation/getting pumped up whatever or small cast list and level limited maneuvers more like warlock evocations and casting but then the class should look like a caster in other respects as well. It's a action not a attack, bonus action maneuvers mean you can only use your cantrip maneuver etc.

Petsonally I love the idea of multiple tiers of this. Current battle master first level the 2nd level might be a just with stunning blows, death strikes, grappling strikes, throws or shoves for proficiency bonus x5 feet distance. The heroically improbable but not full on supernatural Demi God warrior. But still look more fighter like in at will dps, AC, hp etc. and a 3rd level where blows wreck the landscape making areas difficult terrain or adding a pit, striking everyone within a 20 foot radius, teleporting etc but with weak at will and crap hp and AC. For the full supernatural warrior. If it doesn't work for a campaign it's easy to just say these classes are not in. Just like you can say it's a low magic campaign no classes with 9 spell levels allowed.

 

[Imaro]

I feel as though the number of dice needs to scale better, or be set on a different "refresh" rate than short rest-based, as the current small number of dice you get strongly stifles the flexibility you can have. I find myself gravitating towards a very short list of maneuvers because there's simply -not enough dice- to waste them on very situationally useful effects. That'd be a start.

Okay 6 encounters... with 2 short rests, let's assume 3-4 rounds of combat in each encounter... so 18-24 rounds of combat

level 3: 4 Superiority Dice/3 maneuvers... 2 rests means a total of 12 superiority dice... so in 18-24 rounds of combat you will be performing 12 maneuvers. That doesn't seem like a bad refresh, the worst is that you are using a maneuver on average...every other round, the worst is that you are using a maneuver 2/3rds of the time. What rate do you think would be better?

As for your second point... choosing a maneuver doesn't waste a die since you don't commit dice to maneuvers until you actually use them. Maneuvers grant versatility.

By "quasi-improved" I'm kinda poking fun at people who say "the fighter can do all of that, you just need to improvise your actions, I prefer that to powers system!" See, for me, it's not enough that the fighter -can- do it--they need to be better at it, because they are supposed to be the best at fighting. And it must be in the rules, if you have to make it up on your own, it's not a part of the class, it's something everyone can do, and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Hmmm... but depending on attribute scores, skills, prof w/certain weapons & armors, etc... everyone may not be able to do it, or at least not as well as you can. For example in most cases a 20 strength fighter is going to be able to pull off feats of strength that an eight strength fighter

I'd prefer a long laundry list of pre-packaged maneuvers, yes. If the 4E analogy doesn't work for you, how about the Tome of Battle? Good supplement. Would a "warblade" subclass for the fighter be too hard to do? But again, that kind of thing is an "ideal" situation for me. I'd vastly prefer it to the current, "broad" (aka actually very limited) implementation. I almost regret the optional DMG rules because it seems to me like those kinds of things could be things the fighter should be better at than others, like Cleaving, climbing on larger monsters, etc., but it's hard to really approach them now that they're strictly optional rules found in the DMG.


...Except if done via a spell list, because nobody has a problem if it's a spell that breaks the rules. Seriously, Tome of Battle again comes to mind

You didn't really answer my question though... what space are we looking to fill here? What things specifically are we trying to give the fighter that...

1. Are not covered by a current maneuver
2. Are not narrower or weaker than the current maneuvers
3. Are within the realm of doing martial things (as opposed to spells disguised as maneuvers since that's what the EK is for)

As for the optional rules in the DMG... I disagree. If the group wants that level of granularity in combat then it will be included... otherwise forcing it into the game just limits your audience since those who don't want it as part of the game will have a harder time removing it if it's core.

Let's say, for example, you want to make a fighter that specializes in grappling. There's honestly not much there in the fighter package. The Grappler feat is garbage, and Tavern Brawler is okay-ish at best (fun, but mechanically doesn't have enough going for it).

The fighter class has almost no tools for this. If you want to be a grappler in this edition, you're better off with the barbarian package, or rogue... or bard! That I don't get.

What "tools" are you looking for? What exactly in grappling (within the 5e rules for grappling) are you trying to accomplish? What tools do the barb, rogue and bard have that make them better grapplers? As long as you have a weapon in one hand all of the BM maneuvers are useful during a grapple and even without a weapon there are some that can be used... but I'd have to know more about what you can achieve from those other classes that you can't with the fighter first.

What if we stuck passive benefits onto some maneuvers too? For example, a maneuver that allowed you to double your proficiency bonus to the Athletics check made to grapple/perform combat stunts as a passive benefit, but also allowed you to actively add a superiority die to the check? Just an example off the top of my head, it'd also be a huge help for "improvised", outside-the-rules options that involved Strength (Athletics) checks. A maneuver that allowed you to attack defensively and add superiority dice to AC/str-dex saves for a turn would be sweet. How about improving that piss-poor maneuver that increases your reach for an attack by adding on an effect where it pulled the enemy 5 feet towards you if you hit?

This seems at a glance, on top of the fighter's other abilities over powered... Only one is new design space and it gives the fighter a gigantic boost in the other pillars while letting him keep his already formidable combat prowess as well... The others just seem like better versions of what exists but then my question is at what point is it too good. Combat wise I have 2 BM's in my current game and nether one seems to need better abilities in combat.

I don't want to fill up the page with suggestions, and again, personally? Yes, I want that long, "narrow" list of exploits/maneuvers/whatever. I want a 4E-style power list, or the Tome of Battle blade magic spell list. I want the fighter to have the option of being (almost) as varied and versatile as a spell caster, but in a different area. Not saying delete the champion. If we can't have that though, at least help out the poor battle master. It has serious issues (limited scope of maneuvers combined with far too few dice leads to very limited options). I'm simply never going to spend dice on allowing an ally to move a bit or as a bonus to AC against opportunity attacks when it means giving up the opportunity to Riposte/Precision Strike/Trip Attack, not when I'm getting less than half a dozen dice every ~2 encounters. And by that I mean the situations in which I'd do so are so narrow I'm never going to pick those maneuvers to add to my very short list.

Okay so at what point are we intruding on the niche of the monk as the "mystical warrior"? Or the EK which seems to be the fighter for those who want to do what magic does? It seems you want a different design ethos encapsulated by 3e and 4e moreso than 5e... a bunch of fiddly narrow options as opposed to fewer broad options... not sure I want to see 5e go down that path... at least not in core.

Again having the maneuver does not commit dice to it. I would definitely use my dice to move an ally or give myself a bonus to AC vs. OA in the right situation... The whole point is which maneuver is best is very dependent on the party makeup, situation, etc. So while you may not use those maneuvers others probably will.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sort of.......at least with regard to +X from weapons, armor or feats. What that sort of +X gives to the PC remains the same. +1 is +1 is +1. However, in 5e it's very often unnecessary to have that +X due to bounded accuracy, so what it means to the PC is not the same.

A net or additional +/-1 relative to the curve is a +/-1, no amount of 'tude changes that. Pulling in the curve doesn't change that, if anything, it makes any modifier seem that much more significant.

I feel as though the number of dice needs to scale better, or be set on a different "refresh" rate than short rest-based, as the current small number of dice you get strongly stifles the flexibility you can have. I find myself gravitating towards a very short list of maneuvers because there's simply -not enough dice- to waste them on very situationally useful effects. That'd be a start.

The maneuvers, themselves, don't 'scale,' (that is, aren't level-gated) though. The BM's maneuvers are essentially appropriate to a 3rd level character, the same way an EK's first level spells are. From there the BM's CS dice scale, slightly, and the EK's slots scale, a little more dramatically. But the BM goes from 1st to 4th level spells, while the BM keeps choosing from the same list of Maneuvers.

By "quasi-improved" I'm kinda poking fun at people who say "the fighter can do all of that, you just need to improvise your actions, I prefer that to powers system!" See, for me, it's not enough that the fighter -can- do it--they need to be better at it, because they are supposed to be the best at fighting.

5e mostly scales on hp/damage, and fighters are 'best'* at fighting (with weapons), on that scale, having excellent DPR thanks to multiple attacks/round.

And it must be in the rules, if you have to make it up on your own, it's not a part of the class, it's something everyone can do, and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You'd think something like improve would just reduce out of the equation. Really, though, it's not as simple as all classes getting to improve all the same stuff, making it a wash. On the one hand, a class that has a large selection of powerful, push-button effects to call upon should improvise /less/ because they have less need to do so. OTOH, a class with a diversity of such effects has more places to start from when improvising. For instance, if you're in a wet environment, desiccating or freezing it might be an out-of-the-box way of changing the odds - if you had a cold-based spell, you just might do something like that.

Would a "warblade" subclass for the fighter be too hard to do?

Yes. A separate class would be more practical.

...Except if done via a spell list, because nobody has a problem if it's a spell that breaks the rules. Seriously, Tome of Battle again comes to mind.

Lol.

IMO the 4 attacks fighters get really limited their sub classes range.

Agreed. While a limited-use maneuver that attacked all enemies in reach (like 3.x WWA) or made more than one attack roll (to some specific end) might be included, at-will multi-attacking is something that any maneuver-based alternative to the fighter would have to give up to open up design spaced to greater versatility.








*in the advertising-claim sense of 'best,' ie: "just as good as anyone else."

 

[Magil]

Okay 6 encounters... with 2 short rests, let's assume 3-4 rounds of combat in each encounter... so 18-24 rounds of combat

level 3: 4 Superiority Dice/3 maneuvers... 2 rests means a total of 12 superiority dice... so in 18-24 rounds of combat you will be performing 12 maneuvers. That doesn't seem like a bad refresh, the worst is that you are using a maneuver on average...every other round, the worst is that you are using a maneuver 2/3rds of the time. What rate do you think would be better?

As for your second point... choosing a maneuver doesn't waste a die since you don't commit dice to maneuvers until you actually use them. Maneuvers grant versatility.

Not much versatility. 3 maneuvers is very little when compared to the spell list of a caster. They tend to have as many cantrips as that by that level. Like I said, I consider Riposte, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack to be such generally useful choices that you'll almost always take them (unless you're a bow-fighter, then you will likely skip Riposte).

Consider. The Sword Coast Adventure Guide cantrips "Green-flame Blade" and "Booming Blade" are weapon-based cantrips that have effects that are very comparable to the effects you might expect to see on maneuvers, but they are at-will and having scaling damage. It's not a perfect comparison for a variety of reasons, but it's enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. Sweeping Attack to Green-flame Blade. I mean, come on.

Hmmm... but depending on attribute scores, skills, prof w/certain weapons & armors, etc... everyone may not be able to do it, or at least not as well as you can. For example in most cases a 20 strength fighter is going to be able to pull off feats of strength that an eight strength fighter

Not as big as a gap as you might think, given the oft-quoted problem with bounded accuracy and ability checks. Being proficient in something doesn't actually improve the odds of success that much. In very extreme cases, like an 8 non-proficient vs. a 20 proficient, sure, there's a noticeable gap. But that's more of an outlier than a useful example.

You didn't really answer my question though... what space are we looking to fill here? What things specifically are we trying to give the fighter that...

1. Are not covered by a current maneuver
2. Are not narrower or weaker than the current maneuvers
3. Are within the realm of doing martial things (as opposed to spells disguised as maneuvers since that's what the EK is for)

I gave one specific example of such, actually: grappling. Grappling is not covered or aided by any maneuver. And it's definitely a combat-oriented concern. You could boost grappling and shoving by aiding Athletics checks related to specific actions (Grappling, Shoving, Climbing other creatures, etc), and it wouldn't even interfere with a non-combat pillar, though I don't think it'd do all that much harm if it was a general boost to Athletics.

As for the optional rules in the DMG... I disagree. If the group wants that level of granularity in combat then it will be included... otherwise forcing it into the game just limits your audience since those who don't want it as part of the game will have a harder time removing it if it's core.

Anything that would be hypothetically released at this point wouldn't be core.

What "tools" are you looking for? What exactly in grappling (within the 5e rules for grappling) are you trying to accomplish? What tools do the barb, rogue and bard have that make them better grapplers? As long as you have a weapon in one hand all of the BM maneuvers are useful during a grapple and even without a weapon there are some that can be used... but I'd have to know more about what you can achieve from those other classes that you can't with the fighter first.

Rogue and bard have expertise, which doubles the proficiency bonus to Athletics. Bards can increase their bonuses on top of this via Enlarge/Reduce or Enhance Ability, 2nd-level spells. Rogues have Cunning Action, which can be used to Dash, and therefore increase the distance you can drag targets while grappling (remember, when you have grappled another creature, you can move at half speed, and move the other creature with you). I consider that to be quite important because the grappler focuses more on controlling the flow of battle than huge damage, and grappling opponents so you can drag them over to a cliff side and shove them off, for example, is one thing you can do with that (or into pits, into harmful spell effects, etc). The barbarian can Rage, which gives them advantage on all Strength-related checks, including Athletics, and get a minor boost to speed besides.

All three classes have innate ways to improve their Athletics checks, and the bard and rogue have significant additional advantages besides that. The fighter cannot boost its Athletics check on its own, the best it can say is that it can Action Surge for additional movement/tries every so often, or it eventually scales up to a large number of attacks for more attempts to grapple (has to wait a long time for that though).

This seems at a glance, on top of the fighter's other abilities over powered... Only one is new design space and it gives the fighter a gigantic boost in the other pillars while letting him keep his already formidable combat prowess as well... The others just seem like better versions of what exists but then my question is at what point is it too good. Combat wise I have 2 BM's in my current game and nether one seems to need better abilities in combat.

I would not say the battle master is bad balance-wise. I do think it's a bit weak, and I think it'd be evident if, say, I were to temporarily allow a battle master's superiority dice to recharge at the start of each turn. As far as the dice recharging at the start of each turn goes, it was actually like that for a significant portion of the playtest, and didn't seem to break anything!

But that's just a thought experiment. Maybe it would go horribly wrong. I doubt it, but maybe.

Okay so at what point are we intruding on the niche of the monk as the "mystical warrior"? Or the EK which seems to be the fighter for those who want to do what magic does? It seems you want a different design ethos encapsulated by 3e and 4e moreso than 5e... a bunch of fiddly narrow options as opposed to fewer broad options... not sure I want to see 5e go down that path... at least not in core.

I'm not proposing any more "fiddly narrow options" than the spell list provides a full caster. I would actually use the EK or perhaps Paladin as a baseline if I was to design the class myself, but with its own list instead of simply drawing in a limited form from the wizard list (or having the paladin's focus on buffing/healing).

... Really, though, it's not as simple as all classes getting to improve all the same stuff, making it a wash. On the one hand...

I know the issue isn't as simple as all that, I just didn't really want to get in-depth into it, because I have a feeling the horse is kindergarten paste by now.

Agreed. While a limited-use maneuver that attacked all enemies in reach (like 3.x WWA) or made more than one attack roll (to some specific end) might be included, at-will multi-attacking is something that any maneuver-based alternative to the fighter would have to give up to open up design spaced to greater versatility.

Is it really that strange an idea? The Eldritch Knight already gives up its 4 attacks per round when it casts most of its spells. But few people seem concerned about the "conflict with design philosophy" there. Even the 7th/18th level features don't let an EK use all of its attacks when it casts. I'm just having a hard time seeing what's so different or game-breaking in my hypothetical suggestion. It'd just need a new "spell list".

Look, EKs can already do this in limited form by taking the cantrips "Green-flame Blade" or "Booming Blade"! And for a few levels it's actually somewhat worthwhile, if you have nothing better to do with your bonus action. Would it be so badwrong or hazardous to take the idea those spells present and run with it, making a much longer list with levels?

A fighter does get 4 attacks per turn at-will--at level 20, so it barely ever comes up. The level 11 feature (a third attack) is a far better comparison. A valor bard gets 4 attacks per turn at level 10 for a minute at a time when it casts Swift Quiver. Now, I know that's not an entirely fair comparison, as it eats the bonus action, uses a 5th level spell slot, restricts weapon choice, level 11 hand crossbow fighter with feats can do the same thing every turn, yada yada. Edit: Forgot to finish this point. I was trying to point out that we already "dip" both ways, in giving other classes access to "extra attacks" in a limited form, and giving the fighter the option to give up its extra attacks to do something else. This kind of stuff is done in core. I'd be interested in taking the idea further.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not much versatility. 3 maneuvers is very little when compared to the spell list of a caster.

And range of things maneuvers do is pretty narrow by comparison, as well.

Consider. The Sword Coast Adventure Guide cantrips "Green-flame Blade" and "Booming Blade" are weapon-based cantrips that have effects that are very comparable to the effects you might expect to see on maneuvers, but they are at-will and having scaling damage. It's not a perfect comparison for a variety of reasons, but it's enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. Sweeping Attack to Green-flame Blade. I mean, come on.

Nod. Nothing surprising there.

I gave one specific example of such, actually: grappling. Grappling is not covered or aided by any maneuver. And it's definitely a combat-oriented concern. You could boost grappling and shoving by aiding Athletics checks.

Anything that would be hypothetically released at this point wouldn't be core.

The whole "Oh, noes, don't force it on me!" thing is a little overblown and silly. Anything new/improved at this point is going to be DM opt-in, only, by definition. Maybe that sky-is-falling attitude would make more sense on the AL board?

Rogue and bard have expertise, which doubles the proficiency bonus to Athletics. Bards can increase their bonuses on top of this via Enlarge/Reduce or Enhance Ability, 2nd-level spells. Rogues have Cunning Action, which can be used to Dash. The barbarian can Rage, which gives them advantage on all Strength-related checks, including Athletics, and get a minor boost to speed besides.

The fighter cannot boost its Athletics check on its own, the best it can say is that it can Action Surge for additional movement/tries every so often, or it eventually scales up to a large number of attacks for more attempts to grapple.

Reminiscent of a problem 3.x had with some combat options, that they were based on skill checks, where ranks would quickly overwhelm other modifiers, and fighters just didn't have the ranks to keep up. PF solved it with CMB/CMD.

I would not say the battle master is bad balance-wise. I do think it's a bit weak,

It's hardly weak, nor out of line by 5e balance standards. It's just a fighter, and thus multi-attack-DPR-focused. It's maneuvers can't do much nor do it often, because there's just not that much design space left to the sub-class.

I'm not proposing any more "fiddly narrow options" than the spell list provides a full caster.

So, only a few hundred? That's OK, then.

Is it really that strange an idea?

No.

The Eldritch Knight already gives up its 4 attacks per round when it casts most of its spells.

Nod, but the multi-attacking is always available 'at will,' so it's only 'giving it up' in round-to-round sense.

I was trying to point out that we already "dip" both ways, in giving other classes access to "extra attacks" in a limited form, and giving the fighter the option to give up its extra attacks to do something else. This kind of stuff is done in core. I'd be interested in taking the idea further.

The 'dips' into multi-attacking are limited-use and face other restrictions and limitations, and aren't built on a foundation of multi-attacking. The fighter's at-will multi-attacking is just a big block of easily-quantified, quite important, DPR functionality that leaves little room for other goodies.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Is there enough design space to create this many maneuvers for combat?

The 4E figther must have had hundreds of powers to choose from at the end, so the desing space is definitely there. However, further research into such potent martial powers are prohibited under the terms of the 2013 Treaty of Seattle, which put an end to the Edition Wars.