D&D (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master

[Horwath]

I don’t think Battlemaster Maneuvers are likely to get incorporated into the base class for the simple reason that even tracking Superiority Dice and deciding when to use or not use them sets the baseline level of complexity higher than I think they want for fighters, even before choosing which maneuver to use when you spend a superiority die. They likely want to insure there is an option for players who just want to spam basic attacks every turn and not have to make additional decisions beyond which enemy to target.

barbarian bear totem, that way ------->

 

[HammerMan]

yeah, I almost just want the battle master dice to just always be there.

Imagine taking the sneak attack but make it 1d4 at 3rd level then 1 more die every 3 levels (6,9,12,15&18) limit it to 1 hit per turn.

Give them cunning strike like the rogue but with all the battle master maneuvers at level 3 but more as you level that are more powerful.

 

[Stalker0]

yeah, I almost just want the battle master dice to just always be there.

If they use a similar model to cunning strike.

Battlemaster adds +1d6 to damage, can instead spend this to do maneuever X. Something similar to cunning strike.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Part of me expects they'll delete the Battlemaster.

I hope they do. And then they should take the maneuvers and put them all in the base class.

I mean, battle master maneuvers are about as powerful as cunning strikes.

I also think, if a subclass is so essential that there is a feat, that specifically uses/gives abilities of that subclass, it is and indicator that it should never have been a subclass ability, but a class ability instead.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don’t think Battlemaster Maneuvers are likely to get incorporated into the base class for the simple reason that even tracking Superiority Dice and deciding when to use or not use them sets the baseline level of complexity higher than I think they want for fighters, even before choosing which maneuver to use when you spend a superiority die. They likely want to insure there is an option for players who just want to spam basic attacks every turn and not have to make additional decisions beyond which enemy to target.

I think we can get a middle ground. Take 4e essential for example. The slayer and knight both just had a single encounter power. The base fighter can have a few simple options. The battlemaster could expend them.

 

[Pauln6]

I think a basic 1d6 damage bonus once per round for fighters that can be added to damage or spent on something else would be a great idea. They should get 3 options at each relevant level. One for control, one to assist allies, one to assist themselves. These should be split into free/reaction/bonus action.

They need to be simple enough for players who like simplicity so spend 1d6 to push as a bonus action. Spend 1d6 to reduce damage by 1d6 plus fighter level etc

 

[Scott Christian]

It's a such a weird dumb pointless goal.

The noobiest players in D&D consistently go for some of the most complex classes, and pretty much never go for Fighter, so it serves no purpose there. Rangers, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers and the like attract infinitely more interest from new players.

There is an ageing beer-and-pretzels crowd who do like the simple Fighter, but like, what % of D&D players are they? 3%? 4%? Something like that.

The problem I think is that the designers themselves are stuck in a deeply Gen-X mindset on Fighters, and unable to escape, or to see that a more modern design would serve the bulk of their customers better.

This is a very narrow viewpoint. Here are a few players that aren't fat, old, drunkards that enjoy a streamlined fighter that doesn't have knobs and gears and dials to turn:

• A player (and DM for that matter) that enjoys a pace of combat faster than glacier movement. What class does this? Not the wizard? Not the druid? Not the ranger? Not the sorcerer? Not any on them, except the champion.
• A player that enjoys having the freedom to come up with creative ideas using the description of their environment and the tools in their bag, as opposed to a text box that says exactly what will happen.
• A player that actually enjoys listening to the other players and hearing what they're doing (Egad! No!) as opposed to flipping through a book or looking online for that most perfect combo-scenario that will squeeze out every bit of damage.
• A player that is roleplay heavy and would rather spend the time crafting their next-best line, pun, or speech for their turn, instead of deciding whether to spend points to trip an opponent, and if they do, how much of a disruption will that cause, and will the rogue be able to get over there to get advantage, etc.

I have seen all of these players and more at tables use the champion effectively. The simple fact that it doesn't exist in your little world, and you make up percentages, and then have the audacity to characterize them as old, and as drinkers, is exactly why some of these conversations go nowhere.

(And the pretzel thing, while ambiguous, is exactly what it implies: They care about snacks more than the game. They are heavyset. etc. It is an old trope, stemming from the old bar days when they just threw a paper plate of pretzels at anyone who came to sit down because they knew they were already drunk.)

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

• A player (and DM for that matter) that enjoys a pace of combat faster than glacier movement. What class does this? Not the wizard? Not the druid? Not the ranger? Not the sorcerer? Not any on them, except the champion.

warlock is just as fast. and the Hexblade warlock can be everybit as cool as a champion and have more options that are limited to situational as to not bog down round by round... same with artificer.

• A player that enjoys having the freedom to come up with creative ideas using the description of their environment and the tools in their bag, as opposed to a text box that says exactly what will happen.

um, why would a spell caster not be able to come up with a creative out of the box idea?

• A player that actually enjoys listening to the other players and hearing what they're doing (Egad! No!) as opposed to flipping through a book or looking online for that most perfect combo-scenario that will squeeze out every bit of damage.

no one should be flipping through the book most turns, I mean sure it happens from time to time, but you should know your stuff not have to disengage from the story to find your stuff... again this is all things I was taught in my first campaign.

• A player that is roleplay heavy and would rather spend the time crafting their next-best line, pun, or speech for their turn, instead of deciding whether to spend points to trip an opponent, and if they do, how much of a disruption will that cause, and will the rogue be able to get over there to get advantage, etc.

I know I am new, but do people that play the most complex multi classed caster/pt spending not deliver puns speeches and one liners in most games?

 

[HammerMan]

I think we can get a middle ground. Take 4e essential for example. The slayer and knight both just had a single encounter power. The base fighter can have a few simple options. The battlemaster could expend them.

Ironically the knight and slayer are both GREAT examples. They got “more damaged” encounter over and over that just scaled for easy play but you could swap them out for more complex encounter powers

 

[Kurotowa]

This is a very narrow viewpoint. Here are a few players that aren't fat, old, drunkards that enjoy a streamlined fighter that doesn't have knobs and gears and dials to turn:

I'll add another to the pile. One player in my pre-pandemic group had just a touch of brain damage from a catastrophic medical event. He was a very sweet guy, fun to have at the table, but he couldn't handle complex tactical choices under time pressure. He started as a Forge Cleric but realized he was never using his spells in combat, so with the DM's permission he redid the character as a Champion Fighter and was a lot happier. He was tough enough he could take point in our formation, hit hard enough to feel he was contributing, and his tactical choices were cut down to "where do I stand and who did I hit" which was within his tolerance limit.

A character who's that simple to play with only a minimal loss in effectiveness has to exist in the game. There's just too many potential use cases for people who want a PC like that. Ideally it'll be a somewhat flexible slot so that it doesn't force everyone who wants a simple PC into only one playstyle. And after you accept that it has to exist somewhere in the game, the rest is just NIMBY posturing where adherents to complex characters try to insist that some other class be the one stuck devoting page count to it.

The simple D&D class can't be a caster because spells are inherently complex. Barbarian is narrow in playstyle and Rage adds a layer of complication. Rogue similarly has a lot of tactical calculation to optimize Sneak Attack, and Monk is just hella complex. So by default it's the Fighter, one who can easily be built with different weapon focuses and playstyles, who makes the best home for it. Even if I don't want to play it, I accept that there's good reasons why the Champion Fighter can and must exist.