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

[Saplatt]

In principle, I don't have a problem with the subclass. My biggest concerns are whether its introduction will slow down combat resolution, the extent to which it will force grid-based play and whether it will be reasonably balanced against other fighter subtypes.


The article just doesn't contain sufficient details for me to reach any conclusions about these issues.

 

[Sadrik]

So only fighters can do maneuvers?

My wizard character cannot try and push the villain into the portal?

 

[Dausuul]

For instance, if you want forced movement to be relevant, you have to abandon theater of the mind combat, which I won't do.

Forced movement can be highly relevant in theater of the mind. Probably the most common use would be where someone is in melee with a dangerous foe and you want to give that person room to retreat without wasting an action to disengage; the party wizard, say. It's also very effective when a battle takes place near a cliff or on a bridge. If the wizard throws a wall of fire, you could stand right outside it on the "safe" side and ready an attack action; the first enemy who comes through gets knocked right back into the flames. Et cetera.

All of these are scenarios in which the value of forced movement does not depend on exact knowledge of the battlefield. It does depend on the DM being willing to make snap rulings like "There is a space where you could push the guy where he won't be able to make an opportunity attack when the wizard retreats," but that's part and parcel of TotM play.

As someone else pointed, for combat maneuvers to be useful, combats should last a good number or rounds, and I'm fine with the 2-3 rounds we're currently experiencing; I don't want to change that.

Mearls listed the following as things you can do with maneuvers:

• Grant a bonus attack to an ally in place of one of your own attacks
• Disarm an enemy
• Grant an ally advantage on an attack roll against a target
• Make a counterattack as a reaction
• Sweep your weapon through an area, damaging several foes with one attack
• Parry an attack
• Force an enemy to move
• Allow an ally to move

The advantage, counterattack, sweep, and parry all seem like things that could be highly useful even in a very short combat. Under the right circumstances, the ally bonus attack could also be very handy; say you're fighting a wraith and only one person in the party has a magic weapon.

I think the Battle Master will be quite good in TotM play.

 

[Sadrik]

Mearls listed the following as things you can do with maneuvers:

• Grant a bonus attack to an ally in place of one of your own attacks
• Disarm an enemy
• Grant an ally advantage on an attack roll against a target
• Make a counterattack as a reaction
• Sweep your weapon through an area, damaging several foes with one attack
• Parry an attack
• Force an enemy to move
• Allow an ally to move

I think the Battle Master will be quite good in TotM play.

If only the fighter/battlemaster will be allowed to do these things there will be a problem in the rules set.

 

[Dausuul]

If only the fighter/battlemaster will be allowed to do these things there will be a problem in the rules set.

If the PHB includes the entire text of FATAL copy-pasted, there will also be a problem in the rules set. Why would you expect this to be the case?

 

[Obryn]

So only fighters can do maneuvers?

My wizard character cannot try and push the villain into the portal?

Can my fighter character cast a fireball?

There will probably be a baseline maneuver system. But the Fighter gets to be much better at it.

 

[Obryn]

I can't enjoy a game where I am playing my PC but the guy next to me in the same game is using the types of mechanics I hate. It spoils the whole game for me. I play in a lot of sanctioned events so I play with a lot of people I don't know and frankly, I don't care what their personal preference is. I am there for "my" enjoyment and to play the game using "my" hard earned money. If the game were free, then I wouldn't care one way or the other.

Wait wait wait, don't you play Pathfinder?

I ran a cavalier in a pf game recently, and they're chock full of gamist x/day non-magical abilities.

 

[fjw70]

If the PHB includes the entire text of FATAL copy-pasted, there will also be a problem in the rules set. Why would you expect this to be the case?

I am going to be really pissed if they waste space in the PH by including the entire Seattle phone book. That stuff should be in the DMG.

 

[Kinak]

I like the mix-and-match at the player level philosophy Next is espousing (we'll see how it goes), although I definitely understand [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] and the problems that can come from certain ingredients being added.

In a not-4e example, players can easily build a group-buffer or someone who conjures a swarm of pets in 3.x/PF. These are character archetypes some people enjoy playing and, in theory, the game is made better by their inclusion.

In practice, the group-buffer puts a load on the other players to keep track of all the modifiers. So one player gets to play what they want at the expense of making the game more complicated for everyone else.

Similarly, a conjurer can easily slow any battle to a crawl. It's a fun archetype, but I don't want to GM those battles and my other players don't want to play in them.

Every character brought into the game changes brings baggage that effects the whole game, not just their player. "Options for everyone!" sounds very noble, but a few bad options can really spoil the whole batch.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[ExploderWizard]

Interested, interested, interested,.........

....L&L 4/1/14

......annnnd then I lost interest.