D&D 5E Legends & Lore Article 4/1/14 (Fighter Maneuvers)

[ppaladin123]

I'm okay with Battle Master , so am i for the previous Path's name Weaponmaster. Battle Master reminds me of the fun board game from the 90's we played while kids!

​

I loved this game as a kid.

 

[Jester David]

I like what I'm hearing. Especially since he's referring to "archetype" rather than subclass or "fighting school".
Maneuvers are cool but should be optional, with a mix between simple and complex fighters. Some people like simple classes and hate managing resources so there should be *something* for them to play.

Subclasses were problematic for this, as it meant every subclass had to be either simple or complex. It really became apparent when I was brainstorming subclasses in another thread here. It was hard to think of thematic fighter subclasses as they either had to be simple or complex. Is a gladiator simple? What if someone really likes the story of playing a gladiator but hates the simplicity/complexity?

Fighter complexity really needs to be handled via the base class, with rules you can opt into or swap fir other rules. So you can play a simple knight or complex gladiator.
Much like spell points should be something you can take to replace Vancian casting if you wish.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It seems aesthetically weird that the Fighter is the only class that uses the subclass system as a complexity opt-in. I wonder if there will be simple subclasses for other classes.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What the hell? It's not enough that 5e provide fun for you, it must strenuously avoid anything that's fun for others but not for you?

On the topic of the article, this doesn't seem especially different from what was in the last playtest, but one thing concerns me. In the playtest, the superiority dice provided a mini-contest. For example, attack -> hit -> roll damage -> roll superiority die to try to trip -> if over opponent's dex mod, trip is successful -> if under dex mod, trip fails, use superiority die result for added damage.

I thought this was a very nice solution to the issue of damage vs. effect. You weren't giving up damage to try for an effect, but if the effect failed, you got damage as a nice consolation prize. Also, it fit nicely with ability mods, as clumsy people were easy to trip, dextrous people difficult to trip, etc., while the added damage was nicely capped at +5, just as the GWF damage-on-miss was.

In the article, though, it says superiority dice are going to start out at d8, which suggests they've abandoned this system. It's a shame. However, the article doesn't mention using superiority die for damage effects, which is a good sign that they're keeping maneuvers an additive to regular damage, rather than forcing a choice between damage or effect.

One maneuver I'm intrigued with is the spreading damage to multiple enemies one. I wonder how that will work? Make one attack, spend a die, distribute the die result as damage to any adjacent enemies?

Sorry, but if I plan on buying D&D Next; it will be because of what I like and not what you like. I don't want to play in the same game with a 4th edition style character.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, but if I plan on buying D&D Next; it will be because of what I like and not what you like. I don't want to play in the same game with a 4th edition style character.

You genuinely don't care if someone you're playing with liked that kind of character? Or you care, it's just that you care about it breaking your standards of believability for the game more than you care about your peers desire for that particular type of character?

For me, I care more that the people I am playing with, play the types of characters they want to play. But I find I am pretty flexible in adjusting believability based on most given situations, and I can see someone not liking it. For me, as long as I like the character I am playing, it'd be hard for me to be bothered by what other people are playing. For instance if we were playing a 3.5e game and someone else wanted to play a Book of 9 Swords class, I'd be fine with that even if Bo9S was not my thing.

 

[Iosue]

Sorry, but if I plan on buying D&D Next; it will be because of what I like and not what you like. I don't want to play in the same game with a 4th edition style character.

If you buy D&D Next it will be in large part because of what I like. The difference between you and me, though, is that I'm perfectly happy for other folks to have their fun if I also have mine. It's hard to imagine myself ever playing this "Battle Master" fighter. Not really what I like. But if another player at the table is playing it? No problem, be my guest.

Mod Note: "The difference between you and me...," is an inappropriate comment. Don't make it personal - as soon as you do, you are apt to be in an ego battle, rather than an rational discussion about games. ~Umbran

 

[LightPhoenix]

Regarding the name, the problem is most of the synonyms for warrior or fighter have subtextual meaning that makes their use more problematic (see "warlord"). That said, given that the subclass has more tactical options, I'm surprised they didn't go with "Tactician." It's not perfect, but it's a little less corny.

Obviously we haven't seen the class so it's impossible to make any sort of judgement or analysis here. That said, this seems to be completely in line with the original design goal of allowing the player (versus the system) to determine the level of complexity they want. In general, I feel like 5E has been dropping the ball on this idea for some time now, and obviously I think it was a great one. So everything else aside, I'm in favor of it for that reason.

 

[Li Shenron]

So is the Battle Master the only subclass that gets superiority dice?

In the core, most probably yes. But core also likely contains guidelines to mix'n'match different subclasses, so you can just get superiority dice in a custom subclass.

I like what I'm hearing. Especially since he's referring to "archetype" rather than subclass or "fighting school".

...

Is a gladiator simple? What if someone really likes the story of playing a gladiator but hates the simplicity/complexity?

Fighter complexity really needs to be handled via the base class, with rules you can opt into or swap fir other rules. So you can play a simple knight or complex gladiator.
Much like spell points should be something you can take to replace Vancian casting if you wish.

I really think Mearls meant that Battle Master is a subclass.

It's true that subclasses have multiple purposes, and are used both as complexity dials and narrative archetypes, so there is no way to play a "simple gladiator" unless they design another subclass for that, or unless you adjust the narrative e.g. use the Warrior subclass to get low-complexity but say you're narratively a gladiator. We should definitely expect splatbooks to be full of subclasses for years to come.

Base classes include choices at some levels (spells for the Wizard, fighting styles for the Fighter...) which might affect complexity, but I think they want the main complexity dial to be the subclass, so that some players need only make one main choice.

It seems aesthetically weird that the Fighter is the only class that uses the subclass system as a complexity opt-in. I wonder if there will be simple subclasses for other classes.

In theory, they've said already a long time ago that there was going to be at least one low-complexity subclass per class, and that it will be the one used by default by all PC in the "Basic" book.

We don't know for sure the idea is still valid, and neither it's been confirmed that the "Starter Set" is the same "Basic" they meant a year ago.

I have a hard time thinking they can come up with subclasses of the caster classes that achieve the same level of low-complexity as the Warrior, because the lower limit is set by the spellcasting rules, which are nowadays clearly more complex than in the past. Someone who played D&D before 4e might expect the usual Vancian "prepared slots", and instead the basic spellcasting rules already give you four separate things to manage: prepared spells + daily slots + cantrips + rituals.

 

[Ichneumon]

Sorry, but if I plan on buying D&D Next; it will be because of what I like and not what you like. I don't want to play in the same game with a 4th edition style character.

Uh-huh. Well, consider your money saved, because the warlock is going to be in D&D Next: loud and proud, sporting at-will and short-rest mechanics
as fundamental class features. If you consider those to be typical 4e traits, then the warlock melts down into a creamy 4e-flavored milkshake. The battle master? Not so much. I agree with another poster who likened it to Tome of Battle.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

So out of the fighter subclasses we so far have the, Warrior which is the "basic/simple" fighter subclass and the Battle Master/Weaponmaster/Gladiator/whatever they're calling it these days for the maneuvers.

I guess for the Battle Master, 16 maneuvers should cover most of the stuff a fighter could do before you get to Y just like X but improved. Will it cover all of the stuff in Tome of Battle? No because that book had plenty of mystical maneuvers that would be outside the scope of that class, but I'll think it'll cover just about all of the combat feats in 3e.

The other fighter subclass they suggest exists would be the Eldritch Knight, with something stated to be limited spellcasting and magical things other than spells. Which makes me wonder if that means maneuvers of a more mystical nature or just something as simple as elemental damage on top of weapon damage.