Level Up (A5E) 1 level fighter dip too easy?

[xiphumor]

Another possible fix: Maneuver tables all progress separately, similar to Pact Magic and regular Spellcasting. You can pick up more low-level maneuvers when you multiclass, but not higher ones.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I have a quick question on this. I may be misreading it, but I think the amount of attacks you quoted isn't accurate. According to what I'm reading for Perfect Assault it says " When you activate this maneuver, you take the Attack action and make two weapon attacks, as well as double the number of additional attacks granted by Extra Attack." A 1st Fighter/19th Herald would only have 1 Extra attack (gained at Herald 5th) since only Fighter/Marshals stack for extra attacks. Based on that shouldn't it be a total of 4 attacks (2 base plus double the extra attack) or am I missing something else?

i don't think that reading makes sense, because what you've described is just equivalent to "you take the Attack action and make twice the number of attacks you can make on a turn" (or even just straight up "you take the Attack action twice") - anyone that gets a total of 2 attacks would make 4 attacks, and anyone that gets a total of 3 attacks would get 6. if your reading is correct, then it's literally the most convoluted manner they could have possibly written it (i mean, someone could probably think of a phrasing more convoluted, but that's besides the point). also remember that extra attack reads as "you can attack twice instead of once" (and for third attack "The number of attacks increases to three") - extra attack doesn't actually really grant "an extra attack", it grants the ability to attack twice (and later for fighters/marshals/probably most adepts thrice) instead of once. AAAND i just remembered this is the same phrasing as every other maneuver that lets you extra attack. OOPS.

like you said, though, either way it's busted. although with your THE CORRECT reading it'd be a lot easier for a herald to get most of their attacks replaced with other maneuvers while still getting all their perfect assaults off just because of how ratios work, haha

actually, let me go at some quick math with that - so, let's assume we replace each attack with a maneuver that requires 2 exertion. perfect assault costs 3. that means each turn, to replace all your attacks with a maneuver, assuming it is supposed to be basically the attack action twice, that'd be 3+(2*4) or 11 exertion a turn. with a fighter's exertion pool, the first turn we can pull that off easily. with herald 19, the next two turns we can basically guarantee that by spending a level 5 (5*2) and level 1 (1*2) slot for each of those turns (there seems to be no limit on the number of spell slots a herald can spend on the start of their turn to recover exertion). then the last 3 turns we can manage the same with a 4th (4*2) and 2nd (2*2) slot. so, replacing every attack with a maneuver should be fine.

wagain, all this math is assuming each maneuver aside from perfect assault is 2 exertion. maneuver specialization is at fighter 3, but herald doesn't get 2 5th level slots until level 19, so i don't think 1 less exertion for mastered maneuvers is worth the lost 5th level slot. if you plan to only use a 2 exertion maneuver for your perfect assaults, reducing that maneuver to 1 exertion is probably worth it, because you're reducing the exertion per turn needed from 11 to 7, which is pretty huge if you want to cast spells.

Another possible fix: Maneuver tables all progress separately, similar to Pact Magic and regular Spellcasting. You can pick up more low-level maneuvers when you multiclass, but not higher ones.

that doesn't feel great, but it's probably the fix that requires the least amount of work, so i guess it could work.

 

[Heraldofi]

One thing we had in earlier drafts were minimum 3-level classes. You could do a 1-level dip. Any class you entered you had to spend 3 levels in.

I mean, this feels like the easiest and cleanest solution. Three levels is enough of an investment that I think it's fine you're getting access to the Fighter's signature thing, 3 works neatly with the synergy feat system, and it's not so much that it feels prohibitive to multiclass.

 

[xiphumor]

I mean, this feels like the easiest and cleanest solution. Three levels is enough of an investment that I think it's fine you're getting access to the Fighter's signature thing, 3 works neatly with the synergy feat system, and it's not so much that it feels prohibitive to multiclass.

How exactly would that be enforced? Do you have to take those classes immediately? Can you put off those other two levels until you only have two left?

 

[Morrus]

How exactly would that be enforced? Do you have to take those classes immediately? Can you put off those other two levels until you only have two left?

You weren’t asking me, but the proposal was tat you had to do 3 levels in a row in a class before you could multiclass .

 

[Faolyn]

I'm running circles around ya!

but seriously, i think the part that gets me the most is that there was seemingly no reason NOT to just have maneuver progression be unified ala spell slots and have multiclassing maneuvers work based on that, but they just...didn't.

I can think of a few reasons:

So that plain ol' Fighters are truly masters-at-arms and can do something other than just "I attack."
So that Rogues aren't super-amazing fighters but are still good at a few interesting martial tricks.
So that Adepts, Berserkers, Heralds, and Marshals aren't overwhelmed with maneuvers and their own abilities and don't outshine the Fighters in the one thing that Fighters do.

1 fighter/19 herald is...definitely something. you get 5th level maneuvers AND proficiency in any two martial traditions (AND an exertion pool on top of spending spell slots for exertion, which is really just insult to injury at this point), which let you get access to such abilities as:

Right, but how often is that going to happen outside of one-shots specifically built for 20th-level characters?

The answer is, almost never, and it's kind of silly to decide whether an entire build is good or bad based on a situation that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

Also, a Herald that spends all their spell slots on exertion doesn't have them to spend on smites, since you otherwise only get 1 smite (at 4th level) or 3 (at 8th level: one regular and two greater) per long rest. Every other smite, you need to spend slots on.

 

[xiphumor]

I can think of a few reasons:

So that plain ol' Fighters are truly masters-at-arms and can do something other than just "I attack."
So that Rogues aren't super-amazing fighters but are still good at a few interesting martial tricks.
So that Adepts, Berserkers, Heralds, and Marshals aren't overwhelmed with maneuvers and their own abilities and don't outshine the Fighters in the one thing that Fighters do.

All of these things could still be true if martials had a maneuver multiclassing table the same way that spellcasters do. I don't quite follow your point.

Right, but how often is that going to happen outside of one-shots specifically built for 20th-level characters?

The answer is, almost never, and it's kind of silly to decide whether an entire build is good or bad based on a situation that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

This! The highest anyone I've met has played outside of one-shots is Level 7 or 8. Also, admittedly, by the time you get to those levels, the spellcasters are nearly gods, so an unbalanced martial is not so bad compared to an unbalanced spellcaster.

Also, a Herald that spends all their spell slots on exertion doesn't have them to spend on smites, since you otherwise only get 1 smite (at 4th level) or 3 (at 8th level: one regular and two greater) per long rest. Every other smite, you need to spend slots on.

But the whole thing here is that they don't have to spend their spell slots on exertion because the fighter level gives them an exertion pool.

 

[Faolyn]

All of these things could still be true if martials had a maneuver multiclassing table the same way that spellcasters do. I don't quite follow your point.

Not really, because then every martial class would gain maneuvers in the same manner at the same time, which means they'd have the same abilities as a Fighter does. The Fighter would only be slightly better than most of the other martial classes, due to maneuver specialization (which would give them a bonus to a maximum of five different maneuvers) and reserves (for a maximum bonus of +4 exertion). Why play a Fighter when you can play a Fighter who smites or goes into a rage?

And Fighters would also be significantly worse than the Adept, who gets much more extra exertion (max of +10) and a +1 bonus to the DC for all maneuvers (and Adept Weaponry ensures that an Adept can use the exact same type of weapon as any fighter can). In both cases, Fighters would go back to being less interesting than all the other martial classes, since those classes can do everything the Fighter can and more.

So, having all the martials gain maneuvers at the same time would be easier for multiclassing but, I believe, not beneficial for the game as a whole.

But the whole thing here is that they don't have to spend their spell slots on exertion because the fighter level gives them an exertion pool.

True. But that also makes them a lot more powerful than fighters, since they can get smites and/or potentially tons of extra exertion. You wouldn't even need to go fighter 1/herald 19 for that to be the case.

 

[xiphumor]

I think you’ve misunderstood. They wouldn’t all use the same table normally. They would get a separate table when multiclassing that different classes progress through at different rates. E.g. if you’re a 4 fighter / 3 rogue, you have the capacities of a 6 fighter because your rogue levels only count for 2/3 of a fighter level.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I can think of a few reasons:

So that plain ol' Fighters are truly masters-at-arms and can do something other than just "I attack."
So that Rogues aren't super-amazing fighters but are still good at a few interesting martial tricks.
So that Adepts, Berserkers, Heralds, and Marshals aren't overwhelmed with maneuvers and their own abilities and don't outshine the Fighters in the one thing that Fighters do.

...what? i meant have every class reference the fighter table ala spellcasters with the multiclassing spellcaster table, not to have them all progress at the same rate. im not sure why you'd think that was what i was saying given the rest of the conversation.

Right, but how often is that going to happen outside of one-shots specifically built for 20th-level characters?

The answer is, almost never, and it's kind of silly to decide whether an entire build is good or bad based on a situation that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

extremely--this isn't like a build being really good at fighting a specific set of enemies, it's just level 16-20 play. you might as well just completely write off high level play if you think discussing builds at that level is silly. though you do have a point that it takes a while for it to come online.

Also, a Herald that spends all their spell slots on exertion doesn't have them to spend on smites, since you otherwise only get 1 smite (at 4th level) or 3 (at 8th level: one regular and two greater) per long rest. Every other smite, you need to spend slots on.

...that's not how smites work in a5e. you just get a number equal to your proficiency per long rest, each one at the damage listed on the table. you can't get more with spell slots.

well, actually, im kind of wrong, because only HERALD smites don't work that way. fighter smites do...sort of. the brute fighter gets to spend exertion to add 1d8 bludgeoning damage to an attack that hits at a 1 for 1 rate up to their prof bonus...and now a 3 fighter/x herald has spell smites again, now at about double efficiency.
ferald is terrifying.