D&D (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master

[Pauln6]

most of BM maneuvers could be at-will if you remove added damage.

I toyed with this, making them a bonus action but I think it gets too complicated.

I'm starting to think giving fighters a once per round 1d6 damage boost that can be spent at higher levels for something akin to cunning strikes from a limited, themed list would work better to keep the fighter simple and preserve the more complex list for Battlmasters.

Take the most popular battlemaster manoeuvres as a starting point e.g. riposte, easier ways to use basic manoeuvres like push as a bonus action (I'm hoping topple on the masteries is tweaked to require a bonus action as well to limit usefulness to non fighters and retain parity with shield master), some defensive stuff like parry, and ways to assist allies in combat.

 

[Horwath]

I toyed with this, making them a bonus action but I think it gets too complicated.

Doesn't need to be.

everyone can know a number of them equal to prof bonus.
Effects that only depend on superiority die are not available for this variant.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't understand this, I see it over and over again in every thread about magic and non magic. My first character was a fighter, and everything she did was written down. Since she died every character I have played has been some form of caster, multiclass or half cast something. I know I am new and only have less then a dozen character for my experience, but not once ever have I seen a player 'loose the ability to improvise or outside the box thinking' from one class to another, you either have that with every character or none.

Again, spellcasters can improvise. And they occasionally do. I am not debating that. I even gave an example of a caster doing so.

My claim is that some players can use the champion style fighter to be creative - and they couldn't do that if they were a caster. If you don't believe that giving fixed choices and tons of options causes some people to freeze, try giving a specific type of kid a coloring sheet (color inside the lines) and a 96 different color crayon set. Some kids will not be creative, they will instead be less creative. Whereas, give that same kid a blank paper and four crayons and watch what happens.

It is psychology. And much like all things psychological, it is highly individualistic. My original post that you responded to argued against the complication and/or elimination of the champion class. This type of the player is the reason why.

 

[Scott Christian]

Combat pace is determined by the party, not a single player. I don't see that as valid. And others pointed out, classes like Warlock are about equally individually fast.

Oh, well if combat pace is determined by the party, I guess we can say power is also determined by the party. That's great news. No need to balance the power of any class. We can actually stop this discussion. Because the power of the party is not determined by a single player. So, that overpowered class doesn't matter when compared to a very subpar class. You know, because the power of the party is not determined by an individual.
That, or... each person is actually a part of the equation. And individually, those variables make the sum. And sometimes, a variable can outweigh the other variables, and therefore, have a larger effect than wanted.

Absolutely no reason to pick Champion Fighter to do this. Absolutely any class can do that. That's a way of playing, not something that requires or even benefits from a pared-down class. You'd probably be better off with a Rogue, anyway (Thief, particularly).

For the third time, I have never argued against that. Other classes can. Some players, when playing other classes - cannot.

That's just cheap trolling, so you're trying to destroy your own argument? No class requires you to do that, and nothing stops a Champion Fighter doing that. Indeed, the only Champion Fighter I've actually seen played in 5E was absolutely flipping through books during everyone else's turns. So obviously both not valid and actively unhelpful to your argument.

I disagree. It's common sense related to time. If a player has seventeen options, and they are trying to determine which one is best, they need to belay their attention from the players to their options. It has even been some people's argument on this thread that the caster likes to think outside the box, they like to come up with creative solutions. Thinking and coming up with creative solutions requires time and brain power. Hence, removing their attention from the other players role play.

Again, this doesn't require Champion Fighter nor particularly benefit from it.

The way you respond, you must have a time stop scroll in real life. It comes down to time and concentration and attention. Some players can't parlay their quips, puns, lines, or speeches with interconnecting story and character details within a two second time frame. But I know, your experience is different. All your players can clearly weave in their flaws and bonds and ideals into their saying without a second thought. They all know every spell they have and what it does and can pay attention to other player's roleplay. I get it. Your experience differs. Other tables differ as well.

PS - Way to not respond to the part of my post that explains how your depictions of players (which is trolling) is full of disrespect and negative.

There is an ageing beer-and-pretzels crowd who do like the simple Fighter, but like, what % of D&D players are they? 3%? 4%? Something like that.

The problem I think is that the designers themselves are stuck in a deeply Gen-X mindset on Fighters, and unable to escape, or to see that a more modern design would serve the bulk of their customers better.

I have seen all of these players and more at tables use the champion effectively. The simple fact that it doesn't exist in your little world, and you make up percentages, and then have the audacity to characterize them as old, and as drinkers, is exactly why some of these conversations go nowhere.

(And the pretzel thing, while ambiguous, is exactly what it implies: They care about snacks more than the game. They are heavyset. etc. It is an old trope, stemming from the old bar days when they just threw a paper plate of pretzels at anyone who came to sit down because they knew they were already drunk.)

But it is clear. You want the champion to be more complex or to disappear. I have said my peace. I have explained why various group of players enjoy and/or need that class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree. It's common sense related to time. If a player has seventeen options, and they are trying to determine which one is best, they need to belay their attention from the players to their options. It has even been some people's argument on this thread that the caster likes to think outside the box, they like to come up with creative solutions. Thinking and coming up with creative solutions requires time and brain power. Hence, removing their attention from the other players role play.

No, it's insulting and sneering trolling on you part, and it's obviously unhelpful. Talking about trying to find optimizations on the internet at the table? That's nothing but trolling. No decent player does that, and the sort who might is going to be a pain on any class. Certainly playing a Champion won't stop them.

And it's just nonsense to suggest any D&D class is so hard to play that the average player has difficulty playing a class and role-playing. Obvious, arrant nonsense we all know is untrue.

(Some starting players might - but again, starting players tend to be attracted to the more complex and fancy classes, and trying to persuade them to play ultra-simple Fighting Man is a good way to convince them D&D ain't for them.)

For the third time, I have never argued against that. Other classes can. Some players, when playing other classes - cannot.

You absolutely strongly implied that. And again it's nonsense. It's nothing to do with classes. A player who can't do it on a Battlemaster Fighter won't suddenly become capable of doing it on a Champion.

PS - Way to not respond to the part of my post that explains how your depictions of players (which is trolling) is full of disrespect and negative.

This is laughable self-victimization. Pretending "beer and pretzels" == ageing alcoholic just makes a bad joke out of your entire argument - and is rather insulting to people who play that way too.

And do you know where the "negative depiction" you're complaining so vehemently about comes from?

Defenders of the Champion subclass.

There was a very long discussion about it, probably 1-3 years ago (maybe longer, who knows with the pandemic). We got through the "starting character" canard, and defenders of the Champion agreed that, yeah, it's true new players don't usually want to play Fighters, and even when they do, don't want to play Champions. So I and others questioned who does play them then, and the general answer was laid-back dudes who play beer-and-pretzels style, and mostly over 40. And honestly? I can believe it. It kind of settled the discussion.

The only other "here's why" example we've been given that I saw was of a gentlemen who literally had brain damage (see upthread). Again this was offered in defence of the Champion class. So these aren't "negative depictions" I've come up with. They're depictions that people defending the Champion subclass suggest are their true experiences. Thus you're mad with the people you agree with, really, not me.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The thing is, the simple fighter could still be built into a more complex chassis.

That is likely true, but this is just an update and the chassis is not going to change.

I have no issue with that concept, but if you want that you will have to o look outside WotC (which I fully support going) or waiting until they make big changes (6e).

The problem with that is that, in previous editions (going back to 2e) there have been combat maneuvers that martials can use. 5e doesn't have anything beyond grappling and shoving. And that makes me, as someone that likes fighters (the class concept, not the 5e execution) rather sad.

IFK, I play a battlemaster and have lots of maneuvers, coupled with feats, and I don’t feel like I have a lack of things to do. The weapon masteries will add even more options.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I toyed with this, making them a bonus action but I think it gets too complicated.

I'm starting to think giving fighters a once per round 1d6 damage boost that can be spent at higher levels for something akin to cunning strikes from a limited, themed list would work better to keep the fighter simple and preserve the more complex list for Battlmasters.

Take the most popular battlemaster manoeuvres as a starting point e.g. riposte, easier ways to use basic manoeuvres like push as a bonus action (I'm hoping topple on the masteries is tweaked to require a bonus action as well to limit usefulness to non fighters and retain parity with shield master), some defensive stuff like parry, and ways to assist allies in combat.

why make it a BA? They can just do it as part of an attack, they know a similar number to current BMs, and spending a die improves the manuever either just by adding damage or by some other thing. Some manuevers would remain dice only ie not at-will. Done.

 

[Pauln6]

why make it a BA? They can just do it as part of an attack, they know a similar number to current BMs, and spending a die improves the manuever either just by adding damage or by some other thing. Some manuevers would remain dice only ie not at-will. Done.

Because some manoeuvres like tripping attack stomp on feats. Because no action cost at wills might create multiclass cheese. If topple does it anyway then I doubt it would even make the cut unless you want every fighter to have it on every weapon.

 

[Pauln6]

Doesn't need to be.

everyone can know a number of them equal to prof bonus.
Effects that only depend on superiority die are not available for this variant.

But consider - riders from weapon mastery, riders from cunning strike, feats, and fighter manoeuvres all applying to the same attack.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is a very narrow viewpoint. Here are a few players that aren't fat, old, drunkards that enjoy a streamlined fighter that doesn't have knobs and gears and dials to turn:

• A player (and DM for that matter) that enjoys a pace of combat faster than glacier movement. What class does this? Not the wizard? Not the druid? Not the ranger? Not the sorcerer? Not any on them, except the champion.
• A player that enjoys having the freedom to come up with creative ideas using the description of their environment and the tools in their bag, as opposed to a text box that says exactly what will happen.
• A player that actually enjoys listening to the other players and hearing what they're doing (Egad! No!) as opposed to flipping through a book or looking online for that most perfect combo-scenario that will squeeze out every bit of damage.
• A player that is roleplay heavy and would rather spend the time crafting their next-best line, pun, or speech for their turn, instead of deciding whether to spend points to trip an opponent, and if they do, how much of a disruption will that cause, and will the rogue be able to get over there to get advantage, etc.

I have seen all of these players and more at tables use the champion effectively. The simple fact that it doesn't exist in your little world, and you make up percentages, and then have the audacity to characterize them as old, and as drinkers, is exactly why some of these conversations go nowhere.

(And the pretzel thing, while ambiguous, is exactly what it implies: They care about snacks more than the game. They are heavyset. etc. It is an old trope, stemming from the old bar days when they just threw a paper plate of pretzels at anyone who came to sit down because they knew they were already drunk.)

Since when does "beer and pretzel game" mean "fat drunk"? I always was under the impression that it referred to a relaxed, combat-only style of game, that didn't care about optimization or much about plot. I think you really went from zero to a thousand there with the accusations man.

As for your points...

1) Combat doesn't go faster if you have a wizard, druid, cleric and then you pick a champion fighter. Sure, you can speed up your turn, but you aren't speeding up the entire combat. In addition to being unable to control what classes other people pick, you have OTHER classes that are equally fast. The Barbarian and Rogue can take fast turns, same with paladins and rangers. If you just want a fast turn, you aren't limited to just the champion fighter.

2) Has nothing to do with class. Everyone can do this. Stop trying to peddle "I have no options" as "I have the freedom to try new things". Everyone has that freedom. Most of them ALSO have options.

3) This has nothing to do with your class. People who play wizards can sit and listen to other players. Seriously man, you are associating player behavior with class like it is some zodiac sign. People who play other classes aren't combat-perfection obssesed jerks who won't listen to your RP.

4) And the same thing. I'm a heavy RPer. I play a lot of classes. Just because I play paladins and druids doesn't suddenly mean I don't RP.

You seem to have just associated "I play a champion fighter" with "I'm a good player who cares about the story and world" and that's just a bit gross.