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

[I'm A Banana]

Every other class has things that require some levels in that class to do properly, though.

It's worth noting that it seems like 5e won't require this for ANY special abilities, at least if you're playing with feats. Want to cast some spells or use some manuevers? It's just a feat away. No matter what class you are (I hope that rogue abilities work similarly!).

It's also worth noting that this...

If they did something like make those general maneuvers, but only the fighter could disarm someone and do damage at the same time (everyone else has to choose whether to do damage or accomplish the special effect), that would suit my vision of how the game ought to work.

...seems to be pretty much true as well. The article mentions a few abilities like the lazylord ability might not be available to "just anyone," but that those that aren't available to just anyone will reasonably be things that one would only expect trained experts to be able to do. So probably not disarms or pushes or trips, but knowing and being able to call out the precise right moment to tell an ally to attack? Yeah, I'd imagine that you'd need to be an expert at combat to do that.

 

[Salamandyr]

...seems to be pretty much true as well. The article mentions a few abilities like the lazylord ability might not be available to "just anyone," but that those that aren't available to just anyone will reasonably be things that one would only expect trained experts to be able to do. So probably not disarms or pushes or trips, but knowing and being able to call out the precise right moment to tell an ally to attack? Yeah, I'd imagine that you'd need to be an expert at combat to do that.

It depends a lot on what the maneuvers consist of...really "special" abilities, like a barbarian's rage, or more tendentiously, a rogue's sneak attack, or weapon specialization (or that damage on a miss thing that great weapon fighters get that has everybody upset), or as you note, the lazy lords "tactical command" ability, I'm totally fine with having walled off as a special ability only available to a specific class or through a feat. In each of those cases, they're something more than simple mundane actions...Anyone can get angry, but a barbarian takes fury to a whole nuther level. Anyone can take advantage of a flank, but a rogue can take that momentary distraction and really make you pay for allowing it. And so on. Or it could be a special ability...like magic, that it makes sense not everybody can do.

What gets my nose out of joint is taking things that ought to be mundane combat options, like pushing someone backwards, or tripping them, or trying to take their weapon away, and turning those into maneuvers that only a fighter can do, and not a ranger, or paladin, or bard or swashbuckling rogue, who really ought to be better at frontline combat than he was in the last playtest.

And making them feats anyone can take doesn't solve my dilemma, because I've no interest in yet another game with "builds". I want combat options to be used organically, because the circumstances in the game warrant it (like you have a fight that takes place on the edge of a cliff, so lots of turns are spent trying to push opponents off of cliffs) rather than characters being planned from the start to take advantage of certain mechanics.

So a fighter being able to disarm someone way better than anybody else is totally cool, but the rules stating "you need this special ability to disarm someone" and if you don't have it you can't ever try to do that, is just too gamist for me. It's like having a rule that only Bards can sing.

I'm still going to play 5e, because a lot of the rest of it is really good, and I can live with this...like I said, a lot of other people think doing it the 5e way is really cool, and Pathfindinder is a horrifying mess.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What gets my nose out of joint is taking things that ought to be mundane combat options, like pushing someone backwards, or tripping them, or trying to take their weapon away, and turning those into maneuvers that only a fighter can do, and not a ranger, or paladin, or bard or swashbuckling rogue, who really ought to be better at frontline combat than he was in the last playtest.

Sounds to me like they're taking this into account.

And making them feats anyone can take doesn't solve my dilemma, because I've no interest in yet another game with "builds". I want combat options to be used organically, because the circumstances in the game warrant it (like you have a fight that takes place on the edge of a cliff, so lots of turns are spent trying to push opponents off of cliffs) rather than characters being planned from the start to take advantage of certain mechanics.

I dunno what feats necessarily have to do with your concept of "builds," but, again, it sounds from the recent FAQ that anyone will be able to do basic moves (but fighters do it pus attack).

So a fighter being able to disarm someone way better than anybody else is totally cool, but the rules stating "you need this special ability to disarm someone" and if you don't have it you can't ever try to do that, is just too gamist for me. It's like having a rule that only Bards can sing.

Right....sounds like 5e fighter will be up your alley, then.

 

[Obryn]

Or it could be a special ability...like magic, that it makes sense not everybody can do.

Anybody can do magic though. Take a level in a spellcasting class. Or take the appropriate feat. Done.

What gets my nose out of joint is taking things that ought to be mundane combat options, like pushing someone backwards, or tripping them, or trying to take their weapon away, and turning those into maneuvers that only a fighter can do, and not a ranger, or paladin, or bard or swashbuckling rogue, who really ought to be better at frontline combat than he was in the last playtest.

And making them feats anyone can take doesn't solve my dilemma, because I've no interest in yet another game with "builds". I want combat options to be used organically, because the circumstances in the game warrant it (like you have a fight that takes place on the edge of a cliff, so lots of turns are spent trying to push opponents off of cliffs) rather than characters being planned from the start to take advantage of certain mechanics.

So a fighter being able to disarm someone way better than anybody else is totally cool, but the rules stating "you need this special ability to disarm someone" and if you don't have it you can't ever try to do that, is just too gamist for me. It's like having a rule that only Bards can sing.

It's funny, because there is a rule that only Bards can sing ... and have it rally/inspire their allies. The Bard is actually a perfect example, in my mind, of why Fighter-specific maneuvers make total sense in D&D's class-based system.

I think the problem is that you're discounting how much training and athleticism should be required to perform all the jazzy fighting techniques that set a trained warrior - a Fighter, a martial artist - apart from regular adventurers who simply hit things with weapons. And not taking into consideration what sorts of phenomenal techniques someone who devotes their lives to their training and weapon skill should possess.

I agree that stuff like "push a guy a little bit" is hardly a showcase of martial talent, no more so than "hit a guy" or "hit a guy pretty hard." A trained martial artist should be able to do a whole lot more than that. Anyone can "bash guy in face with shield," but only a trained member of the Iron Bulwark school can use the Snapping Turtle Offense.

Members of other classes aren't highly-trained martial artists any more than a Fighter is a highly-trained spellcaster.

 

[keterys]

At the end of the day, people have an internal disconnect between "But any old jock can push a guy" and "How can anyone possibly alter reality with strange words; that must take years of training!"

Or maybe it takes a black belt of several years to do it consistently, especially with attacks that are fairly crippling, while any snot-nosed brat can yell "Wingardium Leviosa".

Perception's a killer. D&D breaks it down for us, though. A level's a level, a feat's a feat. We don't need to toss mental baggage onto that?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Members of other classes aren't highly-trained martial artists any more than a Fighter is a highly-trained spellcaster.

The thing is, we have a metric with which to compare martial prowess - it's your proficiency bonus for a weapon you're proficient in, similar to the old BAB or THAC0.

If you have a mage with a +5 proficiency bonus, and a fighter with a +3 proficiency bonus, then the mage is the one with superior combat technique when wielding a dagger or staff.

 

[Rygar]

At the end of the day, people have an internal disconnect between "But any old jock can push a guy" and "How can anyone possibly alter reality with strange words; that must take years of training!"

Or maybe it takes a black belt of several years to do it consistently, especially with attacks that are fairly crippling, while any snot-nosed brat can yell "Wingardium Leviosa".

Perception's a killer. D&D breaks it down for us, though. A level's a level, a feat's a feat. We don't need to toss mental baggage onto that?

I would argue that the disconnect is on the side of those who support this ability. Consistently, when things like Push, DOAM, Rogues sneak attacking freely come up, the supporters defend it by using a standard humanoid armed and armored. No other opponent will ever be considered, and any attempt to introduce any of the other opponents and the issue generally gets ignored, the standard humanoid reiterated.

The problem with all of these things has never been the standard humanoid, it's the several hundred other options most of which don't make sense in conjunction with these things. Off the top of my head...

How do you push a Giant? A Dragon? A Water Elemental? An Ooze? A Displacer Beast who probably isn't even where you're aiming? A incorporeal like a Ghost? A Golem? Froghemoth? Air Elemental? Fire Elemental? There's so many cases where this flat out doesn't make sense.

I don't think anyone has ever had a problem with "Pushing" a like-sized or smaller creature that can be reliably targeted, and has a tangible and substantial body. It's everything else that is the problem.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think the more normal of the "special combat actions" are even being walled off.

There was a push action in the playtest and the last 2 editions. I'd be surprised if it isn't in 5e. It think the difference is a character with superiority die are the only ones who can really damage +trip/push/disarm. A paladin or barbarian without the feat or multiclassng would have to use their whole action to push a bandit into the campfire. A battlemaster could possible attack for damage with his flail and knock the bandit into the burning wodchips. Just the more advanced maneuver won't have basic action equivalents.

As for the difficulty of doing this actions. I hope the saving throw is small enough for the gigantic foes are not pushed often and the swift are not grappled and tripped all the time. It is easy to fix though. A STR 22 giant could be hamstrung and forced to stumble back with a slash at the legs done with care. It would be hard to succeed as it has +5 to the saving throw. So it the DC is like... 13, those are not good odds to trip a giant or dragon.

 

[Salamandyr]

Sounds to me like they're taking this into account.



I dunno what feats necessarily have to do with your concept of "builds," but, again, it sounds from the recent FAQ that anyone will be able to do basic moves (but fighters do it pus attack).



Right....sounds like 5e fighter will be up your alley, then.

I saw something to this effect after my last post. That's good to hear. "The fighter is way better at doing the things that anybody can do" is exactly the what I'm looking for. If that's the way it works out, I'm on board...or more on board.

The build thing was an aside about how, for instance in 3e, you built characters around combat options, like a "trip monkey" who would trip people all the time. I want the players trying to trip when it's appropriate to try to trip, not because they've allocated 75% of their resources to being able to trip people with alacrity...that also gets into the thing about how the fighter has tended to be this hyper specialized one trick poniculous who becomes only slightly more useful than a commoner if you take away is favorite toy/combat option. Fighter's should be Conan/Lancelot/Fafhrd/D'Artagnan. He may prefer a sword, or a bow, but if he doesn't have that, he'll kill you with a hangnail, naked, in whatever fashion is most appropriate for the situation.

 

[Obryn]

The thing is, we have a metric with which to compare martial prowess - it's your proficiency bonus for a weapon you're proficient in, similar to the old BAB or THAC0.

If you have a mage with a +5 proficiency bonus, and a fighter with a +3 proficiency bonus, then the mage is the one with superior combat technique when wielding a dagger or staff.

Attack bonuses are only part of the big picture. It's the special effects, if you will, that make the difference.

You need to be a wizard to cast like a wizard. You should need to be a Fighter to fight like a Fighter.

And certainly I can't be the only one who finds "hits 10% more often" to be a hallmark of martial superiority.

How do you push a Giant? A Dragon? A Water Elemental? An Ooze? A Displacer Beast who probably isn't even where you're aiming? A incorporeal like a Ghost? A Golem? Froghemoth? Air Elemental? Fire Elemental? There's so many cases where this flat out doesn't make sense.

How does Bob Cleric do that? No idea. How does Joe Fighter do that? Through keen understanding of balance and motion, and training in how to fight unusual enemies.