D&D 5E Battle Master maneuvers for any class by spending a HD

[Mistwell]

Can I ask why fighters would be diluted? When fighters would be one of the main beneficiaries of this, considering their high HD and predisposition to combat?

Their high hit dice? Everyone gets the identical number of hit dice, and it's the maneuver itself which is more important than the die rolled for it. Shoot some don't even use your die roll for them. A druid for example who is shapechanged into a bear would use these all day long. They usually don't need their hit dice because their animal forms absorb the hits for them, so they'd just spend those hit dice they are not using to do things like precision attack with their animal form. Or choose a form which gets lots of low-damage attacks and just give one up to grant someone else a reaction attack.

Shoot, the Parry maneuver might save you more hit points than your hit die would give you if you have a high dex. A high charisma character could effectively transfer more hit points to an ally than they could gain from a hit die using Rally.

Let me phrase it another way. Does magic initiate dilute spell casters?

Yes. Which is why it costs an extremely precious resource (a feat) and is extremely limited (a couple of cantrips and a single first level spell once a day).

You have instead proposed something which takes no additional resources (no feat, everyone gets it), which is powered by something everyone gets and many don't use much (hit dice), and which has no limitation (all the battle master choices).

These are substantially less powerful than shield for instance, or Zephyr strike. Though of course you would have more uses if you chose to sacrifice healing resource.

I disagree. Now anyone at any time can grant a reaction attack to the rogue for extra sneak attack damage, or to themselves in a riposte, or turn a miss into a hit with a precision attack, all of which can have far more influence on a battle than a single shield spell.

I just think it needs a lot more limitations placed on it than what you've spelled out. Hit Dice alone are not enough of a limitation.

I mean, we already know this: a feat already exists to do this very thing (except for the hit dice usage) and it is limited to TWO maneuvers, for a feat! You want to give ALL the maneuvers away to everyone for no feat at all!

 

[cbwjm]

I'm for it, even if only a few were made available. Hit dice as a resource I think could be expanded beyond just healing on a short rest.

I don't even think it would be too bad for the battlemaster, sure others can do some of the same things but the battlemaster can do more and still heal up while the others are using up their short rest healing.

 

[TheSword]

Their high hit dice? Everyone gets the identical number of hit dice, and it's the maneuver itself which is more important than the die rolled for it. Shoot some don't even use your die roll for them. A druid for example who is shapechanged into a bear would use these all day long. They usually don't need their hit dice because their animal forms absorb the hits for them, so they'd just spend those hit dice they are not using to do things like precision attack with their animal form. Or choose a form which gets lots of low-damage attacks and just give one up to grant someone else a reaction attack.

Shoot, the Parry maneuver might save you more hit points than your hit die would give you if you have a high dex. A high charisma character could effectively transfer more hit points to an ally than they could gain from a hit die using Rally.



Yes. Which is why it costs an extremely precious resource (a feat) and is extremely limited (a couple of cantrips and a single first level spell once a day).

You have instead proposed something which takes no additional resources (no feat, everyone gets it), which is powered by something everyone gets and many don't use much (hit dice), and which has no limitation (all the battle master choices).



I disagree. Now anyone at any time can grant a reaction attack to the rogue for extra sneak attack damage, or to themselves in a riposte, or turn a miss into a hit with a precision attack, all of which can have far more influence on a battle than a single shield spell.

I just think it needs a lot more limitations placed on it than what you've spelled out. Hit Dice alone are not enough of a limitation.

I mean, we already know this: a feat already exists to do this very thing (except for the hit dice usage) and it is limited to TWO maneuvers, for a feat! You want to give ALL the maneuvers away to everyone for no feat at all!

The fighter is reducing the damage by 1d10+dex, the wizard is reducing it by 1d6+dex. That is what I was referring to by higher HD.

I think you’ve raised a good point with the Moon Druid as a caster that also spends substantial time in combat. owever it’s worth noting the Druid then isn’t using its wild shape that round, or using combat Wildshape for healing, or using the bonus actions of concentration spells.

Are there any other classes that would benefit disproportionately?

The rogue gets one reaction, yet they are no longer getting to use the excellent uncanny dodge.

Is it so bad if the ranger or Dex fighter gets to parry an attack and prevent a similar number of HP that they would later heal? Is that bad for the game? If the bard rallies a colleague and they get 1 or 2 points more than they usually would is that bad for the game?

What I see this doing is actually evening the odds for the fighter and other classes like monks that have little or no bonus actions and reactions once their very limited use abilities run out.

Top Tier classes: Paladins, Bards, Druids, Wizards and Clerics have lots of uses already for bonus actions and see proportionally less power gain from this benefit. Unlike for instance giving everyone an extra feat at first level or increasing points buy.

As you say there is a feat that grants a proportion of this, but without the cost of the limited HD resource. We don’t object to these abilities being available in principal, it’s just a question of how much.

 

[Mistwell]

The fighter is reducing the damage by 1d10+dex, the wizard is reducing it by 1d6+dex. That is what I was referring to by higher HD.

Yes, do that math. If it's a melee fighter (and I think it will be given so many of these impact melee attacks) they will have a high strength and dex as a dump stat. Meanwhile the Wizard likely has Dex as their second best stat (or possibly tied with con or third after con). The fighter will reduce 5.5 damage with that. The wizard will reduce 5.5 with a 14 dex, or 6.5 with a 16 dex. And the rogue will reduce 9.5 damage!

I just think this is a bad idea with a lot of unintended consequences.

The rogue gets one reaction, yet they are no longer getting to use the excellent uncanny dodge.

Uncanny dodge is great when you need it, but you don't need it most of the time. Most of the time, their reaction goes unused and they would LOVE a second sneak attack.

Is it so bad if the ranger or Dex fighter gets to parry an attack and prevent a similar number of HP that they would later heal?

I think it is bad for the game to give away FOR FREE a boost like that for no apparent reason, yes. And it's not a "similar number". The rogue is converting 5.5 to 6.5 hit points for 9.5 in reduced damage (and no need for an hour rest to do it). That's a pretty meaningful boost, for no reason.

What I see this doing is actually evening the odds for the fighter and other classes like monks that have little or no bonus actions and reactions once their very limited use abilities run out.

And I think you will find the melee fighters will gain the least from this. Fighters get bonus actions, it's just usually from feats. Because they get more feats than any other class. That's why so many end up with the polearm and polearm mastery, for example. Or shield mastery.

As you say there is a feat that grants a proportion of this, but without the cost of the limited HD resource. We don’t object to these abilities being available in principal, it’s just a question of how much.

Obviously it's your game. I hope you try it and report back to us your findings. I think it will not play out as you expect, but I am just predicting that based on white room theory. Maybe I am wrong. Give it a try. But if you want feedback, I think you should limit this much more than you have.

 

[TheSword]

Yes, do that math. If it's a melee fighter (and I think it will be given so many of these impact melee attacks) they will have a high strength and dex as a dump stat. Meanwhile the Wizard likely has Dex as their second best stat (or possibly tied with con or third after con). The fighter will reduce 5.5 damage with that. The wizard will reduce 5.5 with a 14 dex, or 6.5 with a 16 dex. And the rogue will reduce 9.5 damage!

I just think this is a bad idea with a lot of unintended consequences.



Uncanny dodge is great when you need it, but you don't need it most of the time. Most of the time, their reaction goes unused and they would LOVE a second sneak attack.



I think it is bad for the game to give away FOR FREE a boost like that for no apparent reason, yes. And it's not a "similar number". The rogue is converting 5.5 to 6.5 hit points for 9.5 in reduced damage (and no need for an hour rest to do it). That's a pretty meaningful boost, for no reason.



And I think you will find the melee fighters will gain the least from this. Fighters get bonus actions, it's just usually from feats. Because they get more feats than any other class. That's why so many end up with the polearm and polearm mastery, for example. Or shield mastery.



Obviously it's your game. I hope you try it and report back to us your findings. I think it will not play out as you expect, but I am just predicting that based on white room theory. Maybe I am wrong. Give it a try. But if you want feedback, I think you should limit this much more than you have.

The feedback is very useful, and I’d much prefer to theory it out here and debate the ramifications. One of the three players in an experienced group that would appreciate itis interesting (the only one I’ve mentioned it to).

I’m not too concerned about giving power at no cost when it’s given to everyone. I’m comfortable adjusting encounter difficulty, but I appreciate this isn’t for everyone.

Which feats would be undermined by this, sentinel, polearm master and shield mastery? At the moment it does feel like at least one of these is a must have feat because the fighters otherwise lack of bonus and reactions.

 

[Garthanos]

Allow anyone who knows maneuvers to do it is on my list.

 

[Garthanos]

One can also allow someone to trigger an opportunity attack from the target to attempt a maneuver

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the idea is brilliant, particularly because it doesn't force anyone to use the option or penalize those who don't use it, since they can keep their HD for healing (except for one possible second-order consequence that your allies may decide they don't want to heal you "because you can heal yourself").

Particularly, I like how the idea is consistent enough with the narrative description of HD. Normally, you use HD to regain HP, so it's easy to describe these special maneuvers consuming HD because they represent asking your body for a strenuous effort beyond the normal, which then delays healing.

The first consequence is that it obviously gives character more choice - and therefore power.

Giving characters more choice is the purpose of this house rule, so how can you see it as negative? And power is relative, if you boost everyone then you are not doing anything wrong. The DM can keep the same level of difficulty in the game in various ways. Anyway, flexibility is power but NOT as much as a sheer numerical boost.

Secondly it makes the Battlemaster redundant, though this could be resolved By granting the BM an extra bonus action at 3rd and 10th level and an extra reaction at 7th and 15th, while keeping their superiority dice.

It doesn't make the Battlemaster redundant. The BM still has its own superiority dice. You don't have to make the HD option so wide that it does 100 things while the BM only does 3, you can start with just a few options. Besides, do you have a BM in your group? If you don't then why bother?

Thirdly it gives characters things to do with those redundant bonus actions and reactions.

For me this is not necessarily a positive, but neither a negative. The PCs are not meant to always use their bonus actions or reactions every single round, the 5e action economy was not built with the assumption that it is a resource like in 3e/4e that you must try to "fill" with useful choices all the time. Instead, bonus actions were designed as a way to represent special abilities giving you "a little more" than your normal effectiveness in a turn, and are almost exclusively meant for limited-uses abilities or stuff that you use only when you need it (e.g. Cunning Action).

Yes, two-weapon fighting is the glaring exception that makes the PC use a bonus action every round, and many people think it was a design mistake to make it work that way.

Fourthly it slightly weakens classes that rely heavily on bonus and reactions as those classes won’t benefit so much from these choices.

I wouldn't worry about this either. Again, the only exception is a 2WFer, everyone else aren't using bonus actions all the time, and using HD has a cost and a limit as well.

Lastly it slightly weapons some feats that either do something similar or rely on bonus actions and reactions. I’m specifically thinking Dual Wielder, Parry and Sentinel.

Same as before.

What else have I missed?

The only thing I can think about is that HD = level. I see no problem at low levels when the PCs can at most use a few HD to get these special actions, but when you have 10 or more HD, there is a possibility they will use them a bit too often, but then this is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[TheSword]

I think the idea is brilliant, particularly because it doesn't force anyone to use the option or penalize those who don't use it, since they can keep their HD for healing (except for one possible second-order consequence that your allies may decide they don't want to heal you "because you can heal yourself").

Particularly, I like how the idea is consistent enough with the narrative description of HD. Normally, you use HD to regain HP, so it's easy to describe these special maneuvers consuming HD because they represent asking your body for a strenuous effort beyond the normal, which then delays healing.



Giving characters more choice is the purpose of this house rule, so how can you see it as negative? And power is relative, if you boost everyone then you are not doing anything wrong. The DM can keep the same level of difficulty in the game in various ways. Anyway, flexibility is power but NOT as much as a sheer numerical boost.



It doesn't make the Battlemaster redundant. The BM still has its own superiority dice. You don't have to make the HD option so wide that it does 100 things while the BM only does 3, you can start with just a few options. Besides, do you have a BM in your group? If you don't then why bother?



For me this is not necessarily a positive, but neither a negative. The PCs are not meant to always use their bonus actions or reactions every single round, the 5e action economy was not built with the assumption that it is a resource like in 3e/4e that you must try to "fill" with useful choices all the time. Instead, bonus actions were designed as a way to represent special abilities giving you "a little more" than your normal effectiveness in a turn, and are almost exclusively meant for limited-uses abilities or stuff that you use only when you need it (e.g. Cunning Action).

Yes, two-weapon fighting is the glaring exception that makes the PC use a bonus action every round, and many people think it was a design mistake to make it work that way.



I wouldn't worry about this either. Again, the only exception is a 2WFer, everyone else aren't using bonus actions all the time, and using HD has a cost and a limit as well.



Same as before.



The only thing I can think about is that HD = level. I see no problem at low levels when the PCs can at most use a few HD to get these special actions, but when you have 10 or more HD, there is a possibility they will use them a bit too often, but then this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks for the break down of the cons to this.

I was also wondering to myself whether pushing someone 15 feet and doing a 1d10 extra damage is that much better than healing yourself say 1d10+2 hp. Obviously the action economy is helpful but many of these maneuverable also use up bonus actions or reaction slots.

Regarding level, unless there are alternate sources of healing (which begs the question why would those spell slots be used when they are better than these abilities) then people will still need to save some HD for healing.

I suspect to tone this down, it might be best that only the maneuvers that affect you or your foe should be available. The commanders strike, rally, and maneuvering strike abilities could be struck from the list if it was too powerful. Again if needed the UA variants that work outside of combat could also be struck.

 

[Stormonu]

Might be worth considering putting a limit on the use - maybe no more than 1/2 HD; at higher levels letting someone use 10+ battle maneuvers in a combat might get a bit unbalancing, especially when extra attacks start kicking in.

Overall, I like the idea of opening up options for combat beyond whacking the hit points out of foes, but not making its use mandatory.