D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[pemerton]

The fist disarm mechanic for D&D that I know of involves the ranseur and spetum in the AD&D PHB. Those weapons could be wielded only by fighters (and subclasses), monks and assassins.

The next disarm mechanic I know of is in Appendix R of Unearthed Arcana. That was restriced to fighter, cavaliers and sub-classes.

D&D has a long tradition of class-specific options, including class-specific options for fighters.

 

[Nagol]

I'm wrong.

 

[Hussar]

It makes for a good tertiary ability for some characters -- you won't stay current with the primary casters, but you have a bag of tricks you can reach into when the moment is ripe.

A high-Charisma character with an interest in UMD, you can get +20 or more by 10th level. That makes low caster-level scrolls, all wands, and miscellaneous devices pretty usable.

Oh I'm sure that's true.

So we should make it equivalent for non fighters to do maneuvers. Take a high strength character and ten levels and you can consistently do low end maneuvers.

Somehow I don't think that'll fly with the "everyone should be able to do maneuvers" crowd.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While a Rogue 10 can certainly beat a Fighter 3 in a fight, since that's a function of level, they shouldn't be able to use a Fighter's techniques any more than a Fighter can sneak attack.

But combat maneuvers aren't the Fighter's schtick. The Fighter is a completely generic class that isn't defined by its use of fancy maneuvers. If the Fighter has a defining feature, it's only that it is better at those things which everyone can do.

 

[Obryn]

But combat maneuvers aren't the Fighter's schtick. The Fighter is a completely generic class that isn't defined by its use of fancy maneuvers. If the Fighter has a defining feature, it's only that it is better at those things which everyone can do.

Even if that's true - and it's largely not, except arguably for 3e - it's inadequate.

No matter how high level a Fighter gets, they are never casting wizard spells, turning undead, singing inspiration to their allies, or wildshaping into wombats.

You're saying it's perfectly cool if the inverse is true, though - that every other class can be just as good at the Fighter at martial arts techniques if they get a few levels under their belt.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're saying it's perfectly cool if the inverse is true, though - that every other class can be just as good at the Fighter at martial arts techniques if they get a few levels under their belt.

I think that MM actually brought it up in a recent article, but Fighters have always the baseline that every other class differentiates itself against. Rogues sacrifice armor and hit points in exchange for their special skills, wizards sacrifice all that and their weapons in exchange for a handful of spells, clerics sacrifice smaller amounts of weapons and attack bonus in exchange for less-useful divine magic.

But the Fighter doesn't have anything unique. It's just better at everything that everyone can do. That's what the Fighter was in every edition prior to the (incredibly controversial) Fourth Edition.

A level 10 Wizard or a level 8 Cleric might be just as good at fighting as a level 5 Fighter, but for any given level, a Fighter of that level will be the best at fighting.

 

[Chaltab]

But the Fighter doesn't have anything unique. It's just better at everything that everyone can do. That's what the Fighter was in every edition prior to the (incredibly controversial) Fourth Edition.

Well, no, that's not actually true. The fighters have been masters at arms with soldiers under their command for most of D&D history Rules Cyclopedia had them getting various Weapon Mastery options that let them do unique things with their chosen weapon type. Prior to 3rd edition the fighters weren't 'Just better at everything everyone else can do.'

Even in 3rd Edition they weren't that because they are ultimately worse at fighting than certain other classes (Cleric, Barbarian, Paladin, everything from B09S). And "controversial" or not, Fourth Edition's incarnation of the fighter was widely praised specifically because it gave them something to do other than 'everything everybody else does but better'. The problem with the design you're describing is that even with impeccable balance on a number-crunch level, you risk boring players--if not from the lack of options in a fight, then from the lack of utility when fighting isn't the party's goal.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, no, that's not actually true. The fighters have been masters at arms with soldiers under their command for most of D&D history Rules Cyclopedia had them getting various Weapon Mastery options that let them do unique things with their chosen weapon type. Prior to 3rd edition the fighters weren't 'Just better at everything everyone else can do.'

Even in 3rd Edition they weren't that because they are ultimately worse at fighting than certain other classes (Cleric, Barbarian, Paladin, everything from B09S). And "controversial" or not, Fourth Edition's incarnation of the fighter was widely praised specifically because it gave them something to do other than 'everything everybody else does but better'. The problem with the design you're describing is that even with impeccable balance on a number-crunch level, you risk boring players--if not from the lack of options in a fight, then from the lack of utility when fighting isn't the party's goal.

About the last part of your post.

If you are not interested in fighting, don't choose the fighter.

 

[Ichneumon]

About the last part of your post.

If you are not interested in fighting, don't choose the fighter.

I like it when a fighter class helps fan that interest.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that MM actually brought it up in a recent article, but Fighters have always the baseline that every other class differentiates itself against. Rogues sacrifice armor and hit points in exchange for their special skills, wizards sacrifice all that and their weapons in exchange for a handful of spells, clerics sacrifice smaller amounts of weapons and attack bonus in exchange for less-useful divine magic.

But the Fighter doesn't have anything unique. It's just better at everything that everyone can do. That's what the Fighter was in every edition prior to the (incredibly controversial) Fourth Edition.

A level 10 Wizard or a level 8 Cleric might be just as good at fighting as a level 5 Fighter, but for any given level, a Fighter of that level will be the best at fighting.

The tough part about making a class that is not unique but just better at their specialty is hitting the sweet spot.

Either you get a fighter who is so much better than other classes that they are the only ones worth doing it (Pre 3e, paladin and ranger not withstanding)
Or you get a fighter who is better but not better enough that many other class can substitute very easily (3e, Late 4e)
Or you get a fighter who is better but not better enough to take the price, restrictions, and/or requirements (3e)

Giving a class something unique or making dabbling a lot weaker that the expert is the easiest way to mking the class.