D&D 5E New maneuver; deadly strike.

[Horwath]

It's not about it being "too weak", it's about it being a bum deal right up until it is so powerful that no other maneuver is as appealing - because spend 1 die and maybe something happens will always be a worse deal than spend 1 die and definitely add damage plus also maybe something else, unless we are talking about very intense effect for the first option like the "maybe" being "maybe you kill any enemy it is reasonable for you to face in just your action."

yes, balancing could be and issue. But I dont see nothing wrong to have some maneuvars risky to begin with.
This is like improved version of GWM or SS damage boosting part, but with limited usage, which IMO makes it better, as GWM and SS are little over the top.

 

[Jester David]

I have an idea for new battlemaster/spell-less ranger maneuver.

very simple;

Deadly strike;
before rolling for attack spend a superiority die.
If attack hits roll 2 dices for extra damage.

it gives more damage than other maneuvers, but it's risky as you must use it beforehand and may miss and waste the superiority die.

One of things they tried in the playtesting was giving the fighter a pool of dice that could be spent to do maneuvers or deal damage. This was cool but problematic as people felt spending the die to do other action was a waste. Like how people seldom want to give up an attack to push or trip.
That's why there's no straight damage maneuver. Everything is something extra *and* damage.

This maneuver does a similar thing. Suddenly, it feels like using any other maneuver is a waste.

And it's better to just use a maneuver on a crit. No chance of a waste.

 

[Horwath]

One of things they tried in the playtesting was giving the fighter a pool of dice that could be spent to do maneuvers or deal damage. This was cool but problematic as people felt spending the die to do other action was a waste. Like how people seldom want to give up an attack to push or trip.
That's why there's no straight damage maneuver. Everything is something extra *and* damage.

This maneuver does a similar thing. Suddenly, it feels like using any other maneuver is a waste.

And it's better to just use a maneuver on a crit. No chance of a waste.

All true.

But sometime all your need/want is more damage and sometimes you need/want extra effect on the attack. There should be both options available.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But I dont see nothing wrong to have some maneuvars risky to begin with.

Generally speaking, players don't want their "thing" to be risky (in the case where "risky" means a good chance that their "thing" has no effect beyond depleting their opportunities to try their "thing" in the future). If there weren't already a choice that can be made (the maneuvers in the books) that doesn't involve this risk, you might find players more accepting of it - but as is, there isn't much sense in taking the risk that you spend a superiority die on nothing when you could spend a superiority die on assured effects.

 

[Horwath]

Generally speaking, players don't want their "thing" to be risky (in the case where "risky" means a good chance that their "thing" has no effect beyond depleting their opportunities to try their "thing" in the future). If there weren't already a choice that can be made (the maneuvers in the books) that doesn't involve this risk, you might find players more accepting of it - but as is, there isn't much sense in taking the risk that you spend a superiority die on nothing when you could spend a superiority die on assured effects.

Why not? To each it's own. If you make a more powerfull meneuvar, you must have a drawback to it. It can be that you can miss with it and spend your resources in vain. Most meneuvars even have it for one part of it. Why not make some that are all or nothing.

Same with spells. If you want to be certain there are spells that require neither attack roll or saving throw(iconic magic missile I.E.). but are weaker than those that require some "fail" mechanism in them(attack roll, saving throw, HP treshhold etc).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why not?

Same reason that if you look at something like Treantmonk's guide to wizards, you see spells that are less guaranteed to actually work when you spent a spell slot on them rated lower than spells that are guaranteed to work - because "all or nothing" is not more appealing than "reliably works" unless the effect on the all or nothing gamble is so much greater than its nearest reliable comparison as to seem like a "no brainer" to the player.

I mean, when I ran high-level AD&D 2nd edition, I'd see the spellcasting character avoid things like disintegrate (~20% chance of killing any enemy, but an ~80% chance that nothing but spending a spell slot happened because of the saving throw mechanics of the time) in favor of spells like bigby's forceful hand (100% chance to function at least long enough to absorb an enemy attack) or chain lightning (which at least guarantees some amount of damage even when successfully saved against).

And I've seen similar cases throughout all other games I've played - when there is a choice between high-risk, high-reward, and more reliable but less potent options, the players always trend heavily towards the latter.

 

[Jester David]

But sometime all your need/want is more damage and sometimes you need/want extra effect on the attack.

Sometimes you do want the condition or extra effect: specifically every time you don't want to deal extra damage. Extra damage is something you want every round.
This is problematic for an option that isn't usable at-will. There will be the constant temptation to get the extra damage right away and not wait for the rarer instances where you want the extra effect. That and the fact it's used before the roll means you might end up wasting one or more of your superiority dice, and won't have them when the opportunity to use an extra effect presents itself. It's rare to have maneuver not triggered on a hit for the very good reason that it's a limited resource power, as those should always have *some* effect (hence why cantrips do nothing on a miss, but spells of level 1 or higher typically deal half damage). .

There should be both options available.

Maneuvers are designed so that you get the extra damage and the effect explicitly so you don't have to choose. Because choosing is really a non-choice because damage always wins. The status effect is the trap choice.
It's "both options should be available" but the options are cake or death.


It's not broken or imbalanced per se, but it's simply not a well designed or thought out maneuver. After all, a "moar damage!" option is a really obvious idea for a power, so it's exclusion from the game is very purposeful and was done for a reason. Adding it back in should be done very carefully and with lots of thought.
That's my feedback, which was asked for by posting here.

However, if you really want a straight damage maneuver without conditions or saves, look at Precise Strike. It's usable pretty damn often and is not a guaranteed hit. But it's not every round, so there remains the opportunity to use other maneuvers. The damage is actually higher than just adding a second superiority die since it's changing 0 damage to actually dealing Weapon + Str damage on that attack.
And you're less likely to waste it since you know the d20 isn't coming up a "1".

 

[mellored]

I agree with the above. Precision strike already exists for "more damage".


That said, i don't see an issue with it if you think it's more fun.