D&D (2024) Should the game be "balanced" and what does that mean?

[EzekielRaiden]

Tasha's Battlemaster

Not meaning to get too involved in this specific discussion, but did Tasha's rewrite the Battle Master? I don't recall having ever heard such a thing.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Not meaning to get too involved in this specific discussion, but did Tasha's rewrite the Battle Master? I don't recall having ever heard such a thing.

It added a number of maneuvers, including several non-combat maneuvers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It added a number of maneuvers, including several non-combat maneuvers.

...oh. That's...disappointing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not meaning to get too involved in this specific discussion, but did Tasha's rewrite the Battle Master? I don't recall having ever heard such a thing.

Tasha's added a collection of maneuvers, several of which let you use your superiority dice on skills effectively giving you something close to Expertise. The important three (particularly the latter two) are below.

Ambush​

When you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check or an initiative roll, you can expend one superiority die and add the die to the roll, provided you aren't incapacitated.​

Commanding Presence​

When you make a Charisma (Intimidation), a Charisma (Performance), or a Charisma (Persuasion) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

Tactical Assessment​

When you make an Intelligence (Investigation), an Intelligence (History), or a Wisdom (Insight) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

With 17 skills in 5e and either six skills in two maneuvers or seven in three that's a pretty decent range. It also IMO goes some way to fixing the critique of the battlemaster that at level 7, 10, and 15 you can only pick maneuvers that weren't good enough for you at level 3 when three of your maneuvers extend your range into non-combat pillars rather than are competing for when you'd use them with the other combat maneuvers. (Of course the two at L15 are still pretty redundant).

 

[Bacon Bits]

...oh. That's...disappointing.

Eh. They're pretty narrow. One is Stealth (or Initiative). One is Intimidation, Performance, or Persuasion. One is Investigation, History, or Insight.

Besides, the game is on it's pendulum swing back towards more narrative focus. I don't expect WotC not to listen to criticism that free-form roleplay and off-stat skill checks alone aren't compelling enough options outside of combat. Especially when they're finding the short rest focus of the class to be more of a drawback than a benefit for many tables.

 

[Reynard]

Eh. They're pretty narrow. One is Stealth (or Initiative). One is Intimidation, Performance, or Persuasion. One is Investigation, History, or Insight.

Besides, the game is on it's pendulum swing back towards more narrative focus. I don't expect WotC not to listen to criticism that free-form roleplay and off-stat skill checks alone aren't compelling enough options outside of combat. Especially when they're finding the short rest focus of the class to be more of a drawback than a benefit for many tables.

Having to give up a limited resource for a non combat ability weakens the class rather than expands it. It would be better if all maneuvers worked like Ambush and had both in and out of combat applications.

 

[Umbran]

I shouldn't have to go trawling up youtube videos, hopping on tiktok, or digging into 50 year old forums in order to run the game.

I'm going to push back on that a little bit.

The actual rules of non-competitive chess are short. You can pick them up and read them, and play the game. But, let's face it - that will yield you only the most basic play possible in the game. If you want to play chess at higher levels, you need to study the play of chess. You need to read books, watch and analyze the play of others, and play the game frequently. There have been tens to hundreds of thousands of publications (books, magazines, articles, and so on) about chess that avid players consume with relish.

And chess is a game with a strictly delineated set of moves a player can legally make at any given turn. D&D, on the other hand, is a game where the space of options for a player at any given moment is vast, and not clearly demarcated.

So, I'm going to suggest that we should consider exactly what our expectations of play are on a reading of the rules, vs what we expect out of years of play and study of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Having to give up a limited resource for a non combat ability weakens the class rather than expands it. It would be better if all maneuvers worked like Ambush and had both in and out of combat applications.

The resource (number of battlemaster maneuvers) wasn't a bottleneck so giving other things to spend it on strengthens the class. I agree that the combat + non-combat setup of Ambush is a better structure and if re-writing the battlemaster the maneuvers should be written that way - but as a patch adding some actual non-combat maneuvers works well. It moves the battlemaster out of combat out of the territory of "commoner with good PR" into the can do something league

 

[Bacon Bits]

Having to give up a limited resource for a non combat ability weakens the class rather than expands it. It would be better if all maneuvers worked like Ambush and had both in and out of combat applications.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Your argument is that Fireball and Tongues should use different resource pools?

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Your argument is that Fireball and Tongues should use different resource pools?

I wasn't really thinking that way, but now that you mention it, yes. Personally I would go with the difference between "fast casting" and "ritual casting" but that's a little farther afield than the thread topic.