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

[The Crimson Binome]

What I am against, is that vision that the Fighter needs to know only generic stuff while all others have their "schtiks".

I suppose you and I are at an impasse, then, because I want exactly the opposite thing out of my Fighter - better at the generic stuff, with absolutely nothing unique.

 

[pemerton]

The fighter in AD&D used the same basic attacks as the mage and thief did, except more of them and with bigger numbers.

Fighters have always the baseline that every other class differentiates itself against.

<snip>

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.

I don't remember there being a maneuver system of any sort in AD&D.

completely antithetical[/I] to old school D&D (including class-specific maneuvers/powers/etc. for the fighter

I refer you both to post 101 upthread: in 1st ed AD&D the only character who can perform a disarm, at least per the rulebooks, are a fighter (or sub-class), assassin or monk (using a ranseur or spetum) or (per Appendix R of Unearthed Arcana) a fighter or cavalier or sub-class thereof (wielding a sword or mace).

The weapon-by-class table also meant that only fighters, assassins and monks could get access to dismounting manoeuvres (via polearms), and only those three classes plus druids could get access to set-vs-charge (via spears).

I fail to see how fighter, cleric or thief have all that much flavor in D&D.

In classic D&D thieves have a lot of flavour: they are the only PCs who, as written in the rulebooks, can engage the game via stealth and skulduggery. (Although at low levels their success chances are a little weak.) All thief campaigns have a very distinctive flavour, at least in those earlier editions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I refer you both to post 101 upthread: in 1st ed AD&D the only character who can perform a disarm, at least per the rulebooks, are a fighter (or sub-class), assassin or monk (using a ranseur or spetum) or (per Appendix R of Unearthed Arcana) a fighter or cavalier or sub-class thereof (wielding a sword or mace).

I did mention that all other classes have to sacrifice something in order to get their powers, and in many cases, what they sacrifice is proficiency with weapons and armors.

I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though. You could either say that Fighters are the baseline with proficiency in everything and the best attack bonuses and saves, or you could say that someone else is the baseline and Fighters have access to special disarming weapons and the unique ability to hit more accurately. Personally, I would still be inclined to still look at it with the Fighter as baseline, since its special access to disarming weapons is something which it shares with a couple of other classes, and every other class has something unique which it doesn't share with anyone.

 

[pemerton]

I did mention that all other classes have to sacrifice something in order to get their powers, and in many cases, what they sacrifice is proficiency with weapons and armors.

<snip>

its special access to disarming weapons is something which it shares with a couple of other classes, and every other class has something unique which it doesn't share with anyone.

AD&D paladins have nothing unique: every class makes saves, several other classes can cast healing spells and protection from evil 10' radius, and clerics can turn undead. They're nevertheless a reasonably flavoursome class.

Also, clerics and assassins can use maces but can't disarm. Thieves and assassins can use swords but can't disarm. Disarming using a sword or mace (per UA appendix R) is something that only a fighter, cavalier, ranger, barbarian or paladin can do.

My point is that it simply false to claim that AD&D fighters had nothing special to them.

If you were making the claim about B/X fighters it would be true. (They don't even get multiple attacks. And thieves can use any weapon.)

 

[Minigiant]

Overall I see an analog to 3e's Special combat actions which everyone could do. But these action often took away damage dealing if you didn't have th feat that improves it. And since fighters got bonus feats, most users of them were fighters. Some other classes could take the feats but this was rare. But you could still perform the action poorly without the feat.


Personally I am meh on it.

I'd prefer if there was a fighter subclass that went full on and gave them huge combat actions like arcade fighting games. Like spending a unit of energy to make 6 attacks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There is always this very annoying problem in the background, and it doesn't want to die...

Everybody says the Fighter needs something unique, but every time the designers design something unique for the Fighter, always someone comes up and say "but my Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Rogue should be able to learn that too, because it's combat and everybody should be able to learn that!". So the designers make that available to everyone, and we're back to square one that the Fighter doesn't have anything unique...

Why doesn't that happen e.g. with the Monk? The Monk also is all about combat and physical skills, why isn't everyone claiming that a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Rogue should be able to learn flurry of blows or stunning attack or ki strikes?

In 3e, they're not claiming it, because it's already true. Stunning Fist is a feat. There are various methods of getting extra attacks. The unique stuff that a monk gets is supernatural, not about physical skill, so it falls under that nebulous category of magic, which may or may not involve some special "gift" that has nothing to do with the character's decisions.

That being said, everybody doesn't think the fighter needs something unique. Somebody, not everybody. Like many things, it wasn't even an issue until 4e. All those earlier edition fighters worked fine.

What I am against, is that vision that the Fighter needs to know only generic stuff while all others have their "schtiks".

I am against that too. I think that everyone should have generic stuff and no one should have a "shtick". The fighter is the example the other classes should aspire to, not the black sheep to be exiled.

I refer you both to post 101 upthread: in 1st ed AD&D the only character who can perform a disarm, at least per the rulebooks, are a fighter (or sub-class), assassin or monk (using a ranseur or spetum) or (per Appendix R of Unearthed Arcana) a fighter or cavalier or sub-class thereof (wielding a sword or mace).

The weapon-by-class table also meant that only fighters, assassins and monks could get access to dismounting manoeuvres (via polearms), and only those three classes plus druids could get access to set-vs-charge (via spears).

And this is a central class ability along the line of a full-fledged maneuver system? I doubt it. I'm aware weapon proficiencies had various, often odd implications before they just became a -4 penalty for nonproficiency, but I'm still pretty confident that the class was not built around exclusive actions, but around bonuses to things that anyone could do. The odd exception here and there doesn't preclude that.

Then it needs to be an actual option. There need to be options for the Fighter to be useful out of combat, without having to jump through thriteen hoops and compromise their ability to fight as well.

I don't think it's critical. If you want to do something other than fight, there are plenty of other classes that aren't named after fighting. Noncombat options are a nice add-on or trade-in, not something central to the class. Of course, the vaguer and more open class niches are, the easier it is to do that.

 

[Li Shenron]

In 3e, they're not claiming it, because it's already true. Stunning Fist is a feat. There are various methods of getting extra attacks. The unique stuff that a monk gets is supernatural, not about physical skill, so it falls under that nebulous category of magic, which may or may not involve some special "gift" that has nothing to do with the character's decisions.

And that's maybe the key of the problem. You can play a Wizard since level 1 and nobody says anything, you can play a Fighter for a while then take levels in Wizard and that's fine. But if you want to learn one spell then "oh no, that's horrible, you cannot because you don't have the "gift" or a teacher or, or...", while the Wizard can learn everything the 3e is learning (except one feat).

But superiority dice and maneuvers are not something as basic as an old 3e feat, they are a specific mechanic with multiple uses associated. So IMO it's just fair, that it requires the same "gift" or "training" to gain superiority dice as it requires to gain spellcasting abilities (which is in fact the current case in 5e: either take levels in that class, or take a cross-classing feat). Now we can also have a cross-classing feat granting Rage, Sneak Attack and so on...

 

[Ahnehnois]

And that's maybe the key of the problem. You can play a Wizard since level 1 and nobody says anything, you can play a Fighter for a while then take levels in Wizard and that's fine. But if you want to learn one spell then "oh no, that's horrible, you cannot because you don't have the "gift" or a teacher or, or...", while the Wizard can learn everything the 3e is learning (except one feat).

I'm all good with them being able to learn a spell. In 3e, you have a set of feats with no prerequisites that grant spell-like abilities and freely available Use Magic Device. You still can't learn spells whole-cloth, but it's everything but. I'd be perfectly fine if we took the next step and made spells available to anyone who had the (non-class-based) prerequisites, like Wisdom, Intelligence, faith, a fancy book, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

I suppose you and I are at an impasse, then, because I want exactly the opposite thing out of my Fighter - better at the generic stuff, with absolutely nothing unique.

Well, isn't that why we have different fighter subclasses? The Battlemaster has fancy maneuvers and stuff. The Warrior just hits harder, more accurately, and more often than everybody else.

 

[Chaltab]

Well, isn't that why we have different fighter subclasses? The Battlemaster has fancy maneuvers and stuff. The Warrior just hits harder, more accurately, and more often than everybody else.

Absolutely. I'm much happier with the Fighter with the Battlemaster subclass than without it.