D&D 5E Houserules balance check: all fighters get BM's maneuvers.

[Tales and Chronicles]

Quick question: how balanced would it be to scrap the battlemaster and add the maneuvers to the base fighter instead?

Basic Fighter

level	Feature
1	Fighting Style, Second wind
2	Maneuvers: 3 choices, 4 x 1d8 per SR
3	Archetype, Student of war
4	ASI
5	Extra attack, Know your enemy
6	ASI
7	Archetype, 5 x1d8, +2 known maneuvers
8	ASI
9	Indomitable: Whenever you make a saving throw, roll 1d6 and add the die to your saving throw total. If applying this bonus to a death saving throw increases the total to 20 or higher, you gain the benefits of rolling a 20 on the d20.
10	Archetype, +2 known maneuvers, 1d10 maneuver die

Advanced Fighter

level	feature
11	Extra attack 2
12	ASI
13	Relentless, 6 x1d10 per SR, +2 maneuvers
14	ASI
15	Archetype
16	ASI
17	1d12 maneuvers die.
18	Archetype
19	ASI
20	Extra attack 3

Is it too strong? I thought of maybe removing the 2 extra attacks if it is.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Out of curiosity why do you want to do this? Are all the fighters in your games battle masters already?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Out of curiosity why do you want to do this? Are all the fighters in your games battle masters already?

Just a thought exercise

Maybe bring a bit of 4e in my 5e games? Also, with the new UA maneuvers, this would let the players (those that want to, at least) add out-of-combat maneuvers to buff a little the non-combat side of fighters.

With Know your enemy + 1 tools proficiency + some archetypes that add skill prof + (potentially) non-combat maneuvers + (potentially) non-combat feats, fighters could be a even more worthwhile addition to the party out-of-combat play.

It started with the discussion about how PDK is lackluster as a support when compared to the BM. So I thought: ''why not both''?

A PDK + Rally maneuver + Commander strike + Silver tongue + Maneuvering strike + Bonus feat: Inspiring Leader + Bonus feat: Tandem tactic would be a powerful force multiplier in a party.

A Samurai + sweeping maneuver + menacing attack + pushing attack + restraining strike + Feats: GWM, Charger, Savage attacker, Tough or Mage Slayer would be a good ''berserker build'' once refluffed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just a thought exercise

LOL ok fair enough.

I would take things from a different approach. Trying to make things other than "I swing my sword to hit him" more viable and actually a good option compared to simply "damage.

For example, if you knock someone prone, they have to make a CON save or be stunned until the end of their next turn. This way, they don't simply "get up" and deny you the actual benefit of knocking them prone.

Personally, I am not a fan of battle masters and the entire maneuver/superiority dice mechanic. I would prefer to see them "weaker" but at will instead of limited.

Anyway, I'll step aside and see what others have to say. Good luck!

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like the idea a lot. It's less the need for power for me and more that having a limited number of maneuvers adds a lot more opportunity for strategic thinking to playing a Fighter in combat. And adding something from a menu of options every few levels scratches my itch to be playing a spellcaster.

I think giving the full Battlemaster compliment of maneuvers and dice to every Fighter, as Fighters are written, is overpowered. Instead I think they should all just get a small amount of this stuff and the Battlemaster should specialize in this aspect of the class's mechanics and get more. I would also probably restrict the other Fighters to d6s.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Personally, I am not a fan of battle masters and the entire maneuver/superiority dice mechanic. I would prefer to see them "weaker" but at will instead of limited.

My favorite take would be to have ''martial at-will'' rather than attack, attack once more, maybe once again if you're a fighter.

Something like:

Brace

Maneuvering Time: 1 action

Range: Self

Requirement: Shield or Weapon

Duration: 1 round

You raise your shield or your weapon high, bracing for the impending assault. Until the end of your next turn, you have resistance against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage dealt by weapon attacks.

Bleeding strike

Maneuvering Time: 1 action

Range: Weapon

Components: 1 melee or ranged weapon

Duration: 1 round

You mark a nasty cut on an enemy, leaving them losing blood for a time. Make an attack against the creature to assail it with a penetrating blow. On a hit, the target takes 1dW+Str or Dex piercing damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn. If you hit an creature with light or no armor, it also has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn. This attack's damage increases by 1dW when you reach 5th level (2dW), 11th level (3dW), and 17th level (4dW).

Dizzying blow

Casting Time: 1 action

Range: weapon range or 5ft

Components: a blugeoning melee weapon or shield

Duration: Instantaneous

You smash an enemy with a vicious blunt to the head with a bludgeon or a shield. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw, or it takes 1d6+ Str bludgeoning damage and moves 5 feet in a random direction if it can move and its speed is at least 5 feet. Roll a d4 for the direction: 1, north; 2, south; 3, east; or 4, west. This movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, and if the direction rolled is blocked, the target doesn't move. The attack's damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

They are simply refluff of Blade Ward, Chill Touch and Infestation

 

[DND_Reborn]

They are simply refluff of Blade Ward, Chill Touch and Infestation

Something along those lines is a start, and you could perform them instead of taking 1 or more attacks. Having them scale with level would keep them viable compared to straight damage, and keeping the damage a bit lower but include useful riders would make them appealing options.

I would keep them as simple as possible as well. So, if you keep a number limited, sort of like cantrips are limited (say 2 to a max of 4 maybe?), and have a selection of maybe 8 or so.

Fighter Gambits
Each gambit uses your action, working like Booming Blade in that no weapon damage until level 5, then 2xW at 11, and 3xW at 20th (or 17th???).
You know 1 at level 1, gain another at level 3, 7, and 13.

Some quick examples:
Blind - target has blinded condition until start of your next turn
Cripple - decreases target's movement until end of their next turn
Shove - target is knocked back 5 feet, 10 feet at level 5, 15 feet at level 11, etc.
Stun - target has stunned condition until start of your next turn.
Sweep - target is prone and has speed reduced to 0 until end of its next turn.
Tackle - target is grappled (or something??)

So, an 8th level Fighter might know 2 gambits and by that level would get to roll normal weapon damage for the successful attack and apply the gambit rider as well. Basically, the rider is replacing the additional attack granted by Extra Attack.

Maybe something along those lines. You could work in gambits that mimic battle master maneuvers, cantrips, or whatever you can think of.

 

[Charlaquin]

I prefer to assume that characters take their BM “maneuvers” off-camera, regardless of their Class.

 

[dave2008]

I like it, but I've got to imagine it is a power bump. Why not replace some ASIs with maneuvers to balance it out. Doesn't the fighter get 1 extra ASi? Just replace that with maneuvers

 

[the Jester]

You're definitely increasing the power of the fighter by doing this. Also, you're removing the option of having a simple fighter from those who want it.