D&D (2024) Fighters if superiority dice was something all fighters get

[Jer]

casters run the gambit... you want simple go warlock, somewhere between go sorcerer complex wizard or cleric... warriors not so much

Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.

You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters. No other class does things like that - the other classes use subclasses instead of builds. So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.

You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters. No other class does things like that - the other classes use subclasses instead of builds. So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.

yeah, I like the idea of a battlemaster CLASS that would then have subclasses more flavorful

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Yes - trying to shove all of the non-magical martial mechanics into essentially two classes is a mistake in design for this edition IMO.

You can see it in the Tasha's Fighter writeup where they try to create a whole bunch of "builds" for the Battlemaster to cover all kinds of different fighters. No other class does things like that - the other classes use subclasses instead of builds. So the Battlemaster essentially gets its own set of subclasses because it's actually not defined enough to be a subclass - it's more like a class that is crying out for some subclasses.

That part there seems like they're actually begging to have more uses of the superiority dice mechanic. And it's not only the most recent UA with it's Knights of Solomnia feats, but also previously rejected subclasses from UA where they tried to have other subclasses use superiority dice in limited ways.

At least Monks, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers and others get a built-in resource that can be adapted to different subclasses depending on the need, but Fighters had this problem where they need to invent new mechanics for new subclasses all because they don't get something like Bardic Inpsiration or Ki Points that can be adapted for different uses.

 

[NaturalZero]

Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.

I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to stand up? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to disarm a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Make a ranged attack? Attack of Opportunity.
Cast a spell? Attack of Opportunity.
Sneeze? Attack of Opportunity.
Look sideways? Attack of Opportunity.
Think bad thoughts? Attack of Opportunity.

I remember building a fighter, using up 2 feats and pumping up Int in order to do something like just trip someone without provoking an attack and not losing an attack, a trick that the battlemaster can just do. There are a few things from 3e that I miss, but they way fighters worked (or more generally how characters were built) is something I don't look back on fondly.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is no strict need for a "tutorial class". If you're a beginner, play a 1st level character. By the time you get to 3rd level, you've learned enough to manage maneuvers.

Combat superiority is definitely the best about Fighters and could have been a base class feature. Then perhaps the number of known maneuvers could depend on subclass so that you can have a low-complexity subclass which grants as few as 1 known maneuvers, and others which grant many.

The complexity is mainly when you have to choose which to use between many options. If you have ONE option, you only need to choose when, "do I use it now, or do I save it for later?".

Same idea could have been used for spellcasters. Have a Wizard subclass that knows ONE spell per slot level. Now you have a low-complexity Wizard.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is no strict need for a "tutorial class". If you're a beginner, play a 1st level character. By the time you get to 3rd level, you've learned enough to manage maneuvers.

I am in no way the target audiance of the 'basic fighter' I dislike (to the point of it annoying me when OTHER people take that subclass at my table) however there are fans of it, and there is a reason to keep something basic... or as you say 'tutorial' in the game

Combat superiority is definitely the best about Fighters and could have been a base class feature. Then perhaps the number of known maneuvers could depend on subclass so that you can have a low-complexity subclass which grants as few as 1 known maneuvers, and others which grant many.

100% agree

The complexity is mainly when you have to choose which to use between many options. If you have ONE option, you only need to choose when, "do I use it now, or do I save it for later?".

look at teh 4e slayer... that could have been the 5e fighter, then just have options to trade out the powerstrikes for more complex powers.

Same idea could have been used for spellcasters. Have a Wizard subclass that knows ONE spell per slot level. Now you have a low-complexity Wizard.

I think that sorcerer and warlock have that covered.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone?

You can.

I don't why people use this example. It doesn't make sense.

You can.

It's called Shove. It's the same thing as a normal trip - literally you can prone people with it. Trip Attack is a "powered up" version of it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't why people use this example. It doesn't make sense.

becuse people on the internet can't say something is good, fun, well designed, but not for them (I mean I can't say that about 3.5... so I am no better but I try) so instead we have this

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was just looking back at 3e and thinking about how wacky some of the mechanics were and how I don't miss them. Everything used to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

Try to trip a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to grapple a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to stand up? Attack of Opportunity.
Try to disarm a foe? Attack of Opportunity.
Make a ranged attack? Attack of Opportunity.
Cast a spell? Attack of Opportunity.
Sneeze? Attack of Opportunity.
Look sideways? Attack of Opportunity.
Think bad thoughts? Attack of Opportunity.

I remember building a fighter, using up 2 feats and pumping up Int in order to do something like just trip someone without provoking an attack and not losing an attack, a trick that the battlemaster can just do. There are a few things from 3e that I miss, but they way fighters worked (or more generally how characters were built) is something I don't look back on fondly.

My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.

They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...

I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My main group is literally scarred for life by 3E's awful AoO rules.

They just think everything is going to trigger one. It's been two editions, guys, you'd think they'd get better, and I continually reassure them that it's quite hard to trigger one in 5E, but...

I can't complain too much as I thought 5E had a 5' step movement-action disengage until a couple of years ago.

same