D&D 5E Thoughts on Improving Martials

[ECMO3]

Still missing
stunned
restrained
blinded
frightened
incapacitated
vulnerable to a specific damage type

slowly but surely we are heading to 4ed!

Stunned: This is extremely powerful and I am not sure it is true that you should be able to do this.

Restrained: The rune knight can do this using the fire rune. Any other fighter can do it using a battlemaster maneuver. Any class can do this using grapple

Blinded: Arcane Archer can do this using attack action. Other characters can do it with improvised actions

Frightened: Any fighter can do this through battlemaster maneuvers

Incpacitated: The Rune Knight can do this with the stone rune. Also technically any character can do this by reducing the opponent to zero hps.

Vulnerable to a specific damage type: This one I don't think you can do with a fighter (or with most classes)

 

[Quickleaf]

@Steampunkette Here's an idea! If we're imagining "martial characters" as a kind of loosely related cluster of character classes, in the same way that we might use the term "casters" to refer to bards, clerics, druids, wizards, and so forth, then what is their unifying principle?

For casters, the unifying principle is spells organized into 8 spell schools: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation. Those 8 schools basically define what is possible for a "caster" to achieve with magic.

Not that we need to reinvent "not spells" by another name, nor even creative an exhaustive list of maneuvers, but what I think is interesting is the application of an organizing principle. Those 8 spell schools get to the heart of what D&D casters do.

What ~8 categories could we use to organize the way we think about what "martial characters" can do?

For example: Infiltration, Leadership, etc.

 

[ECMO3]

The proposal is to allow fighters to deal damage AND trip.

You can do that every turn with the shield master feat. They can also do it limited amounts with the battlmaster maneuvers.

I think this would make a great homebrew feat if you want to do it without a shield. Maybe:

Two-Handed flourish: When you hit a target with a melee attack using a weapon with two hands you can use attempt to shove as a bonus action. While holding a melee weapon with two hands you can attempt to reduce the damage when hit with a missile weapon. As a reaction, make an attack roll and if the result is higher than the attackers attack roll reduce the damage by the difference between the attacker's roll and your attack roll.

I think that would be good as a feat and comparable to other feats.

 

[Steampunkette]

@Quickleaf Casters unifying identity is "Casts Spells". Only Wizards care about schools. Clerics are more interested in Domains, Warlocks more interested in Pact Spells, etc.

The unifying function of martials is "Hits Things" either with weapons or bare hands but not spellcasting.

And then Gish is "Hits things -and- Casts spells"

If I were so inclined as to create a "List of Maneuvers" for each class I could dive into piles of historical study of different fighting styles from around the globe. Or just use the A5e options that provide dozens of different combat maneuvers for various concepts. That's not my intention, here. It's to create a simple framework that everyone can use at any point to give Martial characters other combat options beyond "Hit things" and "Sacrifice all your damage to apply one of two effects"

Something simple and easy that works as a rule of thumb for adjudicating stuff that might come up in combat.

 

[Quickleaf]

Oh ok. Never mind then. I thought you were interested in discussing non-combat things for "martial characters" to do, and I was inviting creative inquiry in that vein. My mistake.

 

[Steampunkette]

Oh ok. Never mind then. I thought you were interested in discussing non-combat things for "martial characters" to do, and I was inviting creative inquiry in that vein. My mistake.

Ohhh... I thought you were referring to the idea of maneuvers by school, as has come up previously in this thread. I apologize.

That's my mistake, Quickleaf.

I'm keenly interested in your noncombat idea, though I'm not sure I grasp what you're carrying and where.

 

[Steampunkette]

The issue with creating those "8 Schools" would be that every one of them would just translate to a set of skills.

Infiltration as Stealth and Deception, maybe Disguise kit. Leadership as Persuade and Intimidation, maybe Deception... etc etc etc.

Because skills are meant to be 5e's version of 2e's noncombat proficiencies -plus- all of the old Thieves Skills put together in one comprehensive "Everything that isn't combat" setup, it's damnably hard to break it apart in a nonmagical way.

 

[Raith5]

I agree with the premises of the OP but what about developing an array of combat stances? One of things I like about playing a Barbarian rather than a fighter is the choice to do reckless strike option. I think it the kind of chance choice weighty enough to keep me engaged and feel like my decisions are more the thoughtlessly rolling a die without going too far down the 4e pathway.

I dont disagree about increasing the role of conditions for martials or having maneuvers which impose conditions - but stances may be a practical way to manage this further depth.

 

[Steampunkette]

What would the stances do, @Raith5?

 

[Umbran]

Then swing on the goddamn chandelier

Mod Note:

You seem more than disgruntled. Could you perhaps stop taking that frustration out on people, please?

Because, I gotta tell you, getting aggressively in people's faces generally convinces them that you're a pain, not that you're correct. So please bring it down several notches. Thanks.