D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[mellored]

Why? Are you proposing making the raging barbarian more complex than the fighter?

Limited rages, rage being interrupted by a hold person, and calculating half damage is more complex than just rolling against AC.

But I really don't care what it is called. As long as there is a simple option for them.

I submit that a battlemaster who simply uses zero manoeuvres isn't significantly less powerful than a champion anyway.

If maneuvers aren't useful, then why have them?

How about if you chose between maneuvers or passives?

I.e.
At level 2 you gain +X damage, or you may instead chose one of the following.

• you can attempt to blind a creature as a bonus action. Once you do so, they are immune to your attempts for 24 hours.
• You gain an extra action. You can't use this again until you take a short or long rest.
• Ect....

 

[Incenjucar]

There's not really a reason to add in a 1/day/target limit on an ability working. You don't become immune to a jab to the eye just because you dodged one ten seconds ago. It also adds in a lot of bookkeeping.

 

[Pauln6]

There's not really a reason to add in a 1/day/target limit on an ability working. You don't become immune to a jab to the eye just because you dodged one ten seconds ago. It also adds in a lot of bookkeeping.

You only really have to remember if that monster escapes and you fight it again on the same day. Without it, fights will become very cheesy as anyone DMing a shield master can attest.

 

[Garthanos]

You only really have to remember if that monster escapes and you fight it again on the same day. Without it, fights will become very cheesy as anyone DMing a shield master can attest.

yup its perhaps the lowest overhead "resource" possible in typical D&D play

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Just a random thought. If the big thing for experts was adding expertise (that two expert classes had) to the ranger, and the big thing for priests was adding channel (that two priest classes had) to druids, is there something that two warrior classes have that the third doesn't?

 

[James Gasik]

Unarmored Defense?

 

[mellored]

There's not really a reason to add in a 1/day/target limit on an ability working. You don't become immune to a jab to the eye just because you dodged one ten seconds ago. It also adds in a lot of bookkeeping.

Enemies are not going to fall for the same trick over and over again. They will block a jab to the eye if you keep doing it.

Also, balance. Especially if it's a bonus action.

And most enemies are dead before 24 hours, so 99% of the time it's 1/enemy. And the ones that escape you don't need to keep track of.
Though 1/enemy/hour would also work if you think that's easier.

Or feel free to make your own suggestions, if you have a better idea.

 

[Emberashh]

Itd probably be easier to say such an abilities effects need to be rolled for to be applied, and they last for 1dx turns if they hit. Hit or miss, a successive attempt takes an accuracy penalty if used against the same enemy in the same fight.

Add the ability to miss and you don't really need to limit something like an eye jab to an arbitrary once a day thing.

And important to note that spells should be able to straight up miss too; having to give Fighters always hit abilities just because mages have them is solving the problem in the wrong direction.

 

[Incenjucar]

Enemies are not going to fall for the same trick over and over again. They will block a jab to the eye if you keep doing it.

Also, balance. Especially if it's a bonus action.

And most enemies are dead before 24 hours, so 99% of the time it's 1/enemy. And the ones that escape you don't need to keep track of.
Though 1/enemy/hour would also work if you think that's easier.

Or feel free to make your own suggestions, if you have a better idea.

Everything else in the game can be spammed without it becoming impossible to use against the same target. If there's specifically a NEED to limit it to preserve balance, the 4E excuse of "They won't fall for that again!" is fine, but it was only ever an excuse to maintain the Encounter power economy, not a compelling reason on its own that needed to be reflected in the game to make it make sense.

 

[Pauln6]

I suppose my concern is that fighters are perfectly playable as they are. Most are looking for a versatility increase rather than a power increase. Mirroring the long used resource of Channel Divinity isn't adding a new or confusing resource management system so it feels fairly safe to me. It can scale with fighter level. I suppose you could make it a short rest resource though?