D&D 5E Battlemaster and Superiority Dice are causing martials to suffer.

[Garthanos]

Well as I said I am having fund and I generally didn't in 4E .... so take that for what it is worth.

Not worth much to me which was why I mentioned "anecdote" . The original point was the fighter could be even in battle a ton more versatile without being overpowering, where as diverging on how bad the martial defender role is well that was a side note, (enough so that optimizers say not to bother but rather use a multi-class caster to protect your team).

A 4e fighter was arguably the best defender and a solid striker too, but I am saying in 5e we could even mix in the leader type (5e supports the concept but the difference with what I am saying is write all the maneuvers and class abilities with both allies and enemies in mind for instance let the battlemaster parry and riposte defend and retaliate on attacks against allies if the attacker is within weapon reach). Other things like making maneuvers usable with a bonus action or spending an extra attack to make these simple maneuvers basically always an option wouldn't hurt.

 

[ECMO3]

Not worth much to me which was why I mentioned "anecdote" . The original point was the fighter could be even in battle a ton more versatile without being overpowering, where as diverging on how bad the martial defender role is well that was a side note, (enough so that optimizers say not to bother but rather use a multi-class caster to protect your team).

Claiming that not having maneuvers "hurts" the martial experience is anecdotal too. This whole thread is based on an anecdote with no evidentiary basis.

We could keep the fighter where it is, where many players like it, without mucking up the definition and balance between the classes, the balance that has worked so well for 5E as a whole.

That is what we are doing at my tables, that is what is being done at most tables you will find online, those tables are presumably having fun and the fighter is a popular class with the current mechanics (by many accounts the most popular class). Since Tasha's and Xanathars people play a wide array of Fighter subclasses besides the Champion and the Battle Master.

The original premise was that Battle Masters were causing problems specifically because they are the only subclass that gets maneuvers and that is "hurting" the martial experience. That hypothesis is objectively untrue as any fighter can get those maneuvers and any class can access them with feats. Battle Masters can just do those things more often and with no opportunity cost (other than the subclass choice). Further, there is no objective evidence to support the idea that lack of more maneuvers "hurts" other martials. That is an "anecdotal" observation from the OPs tables perhaps, but it is implicitly refuted on a large scale by the fact the Fighter and the game both remain wildly popular.

A 4e fighter was arguably the best defender and a solid striker too, but I am saying in 5e we could even mix in the leader type (5e supports the concept but the difference with what I am saying is write all the maneuvers and class abilities with both allies and enemies in mind for instance let the battlemaster parry and riposte defend and retaliate on attacks against allies if the attacker is within weapon reach). Other things like making maneuvers usable with a bonus action or spending an extra attack to make these simple maneuvers basically always an option wouldn't hurt.

Sure, and 4E was not very popular and far fewer people played fighters in 4E than play them in 5E. I can't say the fighter was the reason, but people did not like 4E to the degree they do 5E.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, and 4E was not very popular and far fewer people played fighters in 4E than play them in 5E.

Sigh that argument again? Also not based on percentages the fighter was a very popular class your claims are thin air and unless you can give evidence for that shrug it should be taken as you making it up whole hog.

I can't say the fighter was the reason,

LOL you very much cannot say anything approaching it but you will insist on doing it anyway.

but people did not like 4E to the degree they do 5E.

Ad populum arguments every economics person calls the assumptions made about 5e selling better.... is bull c**p, but it will not shut anybody up.

Speaking of shutting up I will be doing so wrt your take on this sub thread as this is going an unproductive path.

 

[Garthanos]

The original premise was that Battle Masters were causing problems specifically because they are the only subclass that gets maneuvers and that is "hurting" the martial experience.

Which we may agree is a bit odd.... I think the maneuvers as they stand are underfed. But this seems to be the "if joe gets it by spending a resource then sam cannot do it" assumption. The idea of maneuvers being truly available to any (sans resource) is probably the desire of the OP. Many people think being a fighter should not be special... anyone holding a sword should be able to do what they do, ie if they get fancy tricks so should the guy who spends huge amount of time praying and the other who spends huge amount of time learning to summon animals and similar things.

That hypothesis is objectively untrue as any fighter can get those maneuvers and any class can access them with feats.

The feat is considered a very poor one by optimizers... in direct comparison to the caster analog.

Battle Masters can just do those things more often and with no opportunity cost (other than the subclass choice).

That is a huge opportunity cost by the way like saying I only devote half resources to it. Probably the most significant single choice outside of class itself. (maybe only a third hard to say for sure)

 

[ECMO3]

The feat is considered a very poor one by optimizers... in direct comparison to the caster analog.

I think this is the real problem - optimizers. People who are driven to make their build is as mechanically strong as it can possibly be, and usually with a heavy emphasis on combat. If it isn't possible to make character A as strong as character B then there is something wrong with character A.

Two of the four characters I am playing right now have the martial adept feat - a 8th Level Rogue/ 2nd level Cleric (took it at Rogue 8) and a 1st level Shadow Sorcerer/6th Level Arcane Archer/5th level Arcane Trickster (took it at Fighter 4, total level 9).

The first character got the feat specifically so he could both cast a spell and sneak attack on the same turn. The maneuvers he got were quick toss and grappling attack (although he has never used the latter). Being able to throw a dagger for 5d6+1d4+str/dex and then use channel divinity or cast bless or faerie fire in the same turn once a short rest is pretty awesome. For his build it is almost as good as action surge.

The second character has both the feat and the fighting style giving her 2 battlemaster dice and 3 maneuvers (menacing attack, pushing attack, disarming attack). Added to her arcane shots and mage hand she is doing cool stuff all the time in combat. Disarming attack followed by mage hand legerdemain to grab the enemies weapon or focus is an awesome combo, as is grasping arrow followed by pushing attack.

Are either of those builds optimal? Probably not, both those characters still have a 16 dex at 10th and 12th level and I have an Arcane Archer without Archery fighting style or sharpshooter! But they are a heck of a lot more fun than optimal builds would be and I am not losing any ground in terms of game play and being overshadowed by someone else at the table.

 

[Garthanos]

I think this is the real problem - optimizers.

Not caring about and considering others who pay attention to the implications of mechanics NOT a part of the community seems a problem. The mentioned build I heard of recently about how to get virtually if not every skill that is optimizing.

The DMGs in 4e were very good at addressing different types of players in an inclusive way.

To you that is apparently wrong.

 

[Garthanos]

Are either of those builds optimal? Probably not, both those characters still have a 16 dex at 10th and 12th level and I have an Arcane Archer without Archery fighting style or sharpshooter!

Taking (high impact) feats first before attribute buffs actually is more optimal as is careful selection of multi-classing shrug.

 

[Garthanos]

If it isn't possible to make character A as strong as character B then there is something wrong with character A.

You might as well say Martial Characters are never allowed to be more versatile even in combat than magical ones instead of coding it.

 

[ECMO3]

Taking (high impact) feats first before attribute buffs actually is more optimal as is careful selection of multi-classing shrug.

But the feat I took that we are talking about is not a high impact feat, it is the feat you called "very poor" several posts above.

My Rogue-Cleric has two feats - Magic Initiate (Booming Blade, Minor Illusion, Absorb Elements) and Martial Adept. Neither of these is generally considered to be a high impact feat.

My S-AA-AT is a human and has 4 feats - Fey Touched, Telekenetic, Shadow Touched, and Martial Adept

Fey Touched and Shadow Touched are top flight feats, although not as high-impact as sharpshooter on a character who is primarily an archer, especially when they are boosting intelligence not dexterity. Telekenetic is ok, but not a world beater and Martial adept is again the feat you called "very poor"

 

[ECMO3]

You might as well say Martial Characters are never allowed to be more versatile even in combat than magical ones instead of coding it.

Both my characters mentioned above are primarily martials. The first has 2 cleric levels out of 10, the second has 1 sorcerer level out of 12 and both are very versatile in combat without deviating from RAW or for that matter using any spells.

Both of them have battlemaster dice (one who can use it for a bonus action sneak attack), both of them have cunning action.

Both of them have control/positioning options; the first through a free grapple after attack (with athletics expertise+1d6) and he gets an extra half movement with a grappled creature after the creature ends its turn through scout subclass. The second character through pushing attack, menacing attack, telekenetic shove, and grasping arrow. In terms of action economy all that stuff is either free after an attack or it is a bonus action or reaction.

That is all without using a single spell. Now what they are not doing is laying down as much DPR as a similar "martial" optimized for DPR, but any martial can be similar and get feats to do many of the things I mentioned above.