D&D 5E Do Fighter Battlemaster Superiority dice feel magical?

[snickersnax]

How many action movies have you seen where a bad-ass combatant of some kind does the same move, every, single, time he attacks? I mean, you might start seeing 'signature moves' after a few scenes, but the choreographer's going to mix it up, keep it interesting.

Clearly you don't watch Steven Seagal movies

Not magical - even quite "realistic".
You have some tricks up your sleeve, but you can't pull these more than once on the same enemy.
Okay, maybe twice - but never more than thrice!
(my personal martial arts experience)

You don't need more than more than 1 or 2 moves that you are really good at to win fights every time against 95% of opponents. Against the same guy the move may take a little longer to set up the 100th time you crush him with it but he's already lost the moment he squares off against you. (my personal martial arts experience)

 

[Nevvur]

I'd be inclined towards a Battlemaster fighter that could use any of his maneuvers at will, but still have a limited number of superiority dice which add extra damage and make it more difficult to save against (where applicable).

Maybe the superiority dice add your proficiency bonus to the DC. So, a 5th level fighter with 18 Str could try tripping people all day, with a DC 12 (8+4+0), whereas using the superiority dice adds damage and makes it a DC 15 (8+4+3). And because he's a Battlemaster, he can do it as part of his attack, rather than a separate action that other classes would have to take.

I still wouldn't consider the dice to be magic, though.

I like that idea quite a lot. My only gripe is I would feel compelled to give the champ and EK some attention, too.

 

[Pauln6]

I like that idea quite a lot. My only gripe is I would feel compelled to give the champ and EK some attention, too.

Certainly riposte could do with a nerf as it does too much damage and crops up in every fight.

I suppose you could give fighters the option of sacrificing an attack for a manoeuvre at will. Often sub optimal but it does at least open up tactical options. You can spend a die to do SD damage or sacrifice an attack for an effect.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'd be inclined towards a Battlemaster fighter that could use any of his maneuvers at will, but still have a limited number of superiority dice which add extra damage and make it more difficult to save against (where applicable).

Maybe the superiority dice add your proficiency bonus to the DC. So, a 5th level fighter with 18 Str could try tripping people all day, with a DC 12 (8+4+0), whereas using the superiority dice adds damage and makes it a DC 15 (8+4+3). And because he's a Battlemaster, he can do it as part of his attack, rather than a separate action that other classes would have to take.

I still wouldn't consider the dice to be magic, though.

If you're accepting the idea that the battlemaster can have an abstract limited resource and spend it to make their maneuvers better, what's wrong with the rules as written? What are you fixing?

And as a stylistic matter, I would be very hesitant to write a class feature that did not use the character's proficiency bonus. Think about what that's saying in the language of the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'd be inclined towards a Battlemaster fighter that could use any of his maneuvers at will, but still have a limited number of superiority dice which add extra damage and make it more difficult to save against (where applicable).

Maybe the superiority dice add your proficiency bonus to the DC. So, a 5th level fighter with 18 Str could try tripping people all day, with a DC 12 (8+4+0), whereas using the superiority dice adds damage and makes it a DC 15 (8+4+3). And because he's a Battlemaster, he can do it as part of his attack, rather than a separate action that other classes would have to take.

I still wouldn't consider the dice to be magic, though.

Part of my Warlord bodge using superiority dice was a "Path of the opportunist" choice that started off with a single d4 superiority dice, which refreshed at the end of the character's turn. (And when rolling initiative, and when taking an action outside combat.) Combined with the vanguard subclass for the class, it would give something close to a BM fighter with less attacks (maxed at 2) and less total damage, but able to use 4 different maneuvers in a round when pushed.

 

[Ancalagon]

like lepruchans

... I have to add lepruchans to my game now

 

[Tony Vargas]

(more what I'd expect for, say, Exalted), but at least I can see the logic.

I've heard the idea of fantasy being treated like fantasy deflected to Exalted a lot. I've never played it, only heard about it second hand, but isn't it a bunch of, essentially, minor deities slumming it up with mortals?

I suppose Gandalf (Maiar) and Heracles (demi-god) would be Exalted?

 

[Eric V]

A cornerstone of science is that the same physical laws apply to everyone and to everything, everywhere in the universe. It's positively axiomatic, today, but it's relatively new.

This is why I sort of get why Leatherhead wrote that Fireball doesn't feel magical. I agree somewhat; it does feel like science.

To wit: Clerics, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards all get to cast this spell. Clerics through the power of their deity, Sorcerers their own inner strength, Wartlocks through their fiendish patron, and Wizards through study...but none of that matters if they don't have the same material components! Why would a god of Light demand that? It gets sillier when looking at Hold Person, because then the spirit of Nature itself, or the power of one's vow also get thrown into the mix...but again, pointless, since they ALL need that small, straight piece of iron.

Since there are spells that are found on multiple spell lists, and they require the same material components, regardless of power source, it starts to feel more like science. Having completely different spell lists (like 4e had) would have addressed this issue.

To the original question: not they do not feel magical at all. They are an attempt to reproduce actions scenes we've all seen in movies, books, etc. performed by strictly non-magical characters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is why I sort of get why Leatherhead wrote that Fireball doesn't feel magical. I agree somewhat; it does feel like science.

Maybe not as much as "an orb of matter at absolute zero" among other direct anachronistic reference in the classic game.

Since there are spells that are found on multiple spell lists, and they require the same material components, regardless of power source, it starts to feel more like science. Having completely different spell lists (like 4e had) would have addressed this issue.

1e also had more of a difference among spell lists, in that they'd at least have different casting times and material components and the like for different classes. 3e scrubbed that, and just has one listing for a spell, then gave the levels at which it was available to each class that could cast it, so I suppose, it is the 'most scientific edition' - might be why self-proclaimed simulationists like it so much. (And, I'll again take a jab at putting all spell write-ups in one long catalogue, it makes browsing through /your/ class's choices impossible and is annoying as heck. 1e's class/level organization was much more friendly - and that's the only time I get so say 1e was friendlier or better-organized!)

To the original question: not they do not feel magical at all. They are an attempt to reproduce actions scenes we've all seen in movies, books, etc. performed by strictly non-magical characters.

They're essentially token/bowdlerized 4e powers, which, yeah, seemed like they were designed to make action movie scenes flash through your head when you went to visualize them.

Clearly you don't watch Steven Seagal movies

Can't say I'm a fan. I think I may have seen most of one of them, though - he was a cook alone on an aircraft carrier?

(Yeah, that's plausible.)

(my personal martial arts experience)

(my personal martial arts experience)

That's a wash, then. Back to genre.

 

[Kinematics]

If you're accepting the idea that the battlemaster can have an abstract limited resource and spend it to make their maneuvers better, what's wrong with the rules as written? What are you fixing?

And as a stylistic matter, I would be very hesitant to write a class feature that did not use the character's proficiency bonus. Think about what that's saying in the language of the game.

There's nothing wrong with the current rules, and I'm not trying to fix anything. I'm just noting that it could be viable to shift how it works a little. The main problem would be that it drastically increases the number of dice rolls being made if you're trying an extra maneuver every turn. It's probably also unbalanced relative to current power levels, so would need some general tweaking.

On the other hand, there is literally nothing stopping you from using any maneuver as your action, no matter what your class, so the suggestion is somewhat redundant. You just can't blend it in with the attack the way Battlemaster allows.


As for the proficiency bonus: The point would be that you're just trying to brute force the effect, when you're not in a position to apply your full skill and power to it. Getting someone into exactly the right spot to pull off one of those tricks to full effect takes effort and luck, and not something you can pull off every single time, which is what's represented in the superiority dice limitation.