D&D 5E Battle Master vs. Eldritch Knight

[Corwin]

@Corwin, yeah, some threads got crossed there. Reading and posting on my phone makes it hard to keep track of everyone.

S'all good.

They still have a limited number of spells per day, though.

Certainly. But BM maneuvers are a limited resource as well.

Any utility function will eat into their combat.

Which is the whole point about it being okay if they fall a little behind, of the other fighters, in combat effectiveness when they choose to do so.

As for what balance means, it's when people don't overshadow other people in their niche.

I honestly believe there is no system that can protect from this. It's a table/players thing.

Also, if a player wants to spread their niche out a bit by having more utility and flexibility, that's going to necessarily open up a lacking in the combat niche. Otherwise, where is the give-and-take? 5e is full of meaningful choices.

Just like two BMs can have different degrees of DPR dominance. If one of them uses a rapier and takes Commander's Strike, Evasive Footwork, and Rally, they are going to be dealing noticeably less damage in general than a greatsword BM with Disarming Attack, Riposte and Sweeping Attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Trying to invalidate the game's intended focus, on all three pillars, in order to justify someone's skewed position, doesn't seem productive to me.

Trying to invalidate the game's innate DM-mediated flexibility to focus on or minimize a given pillar, just to deny a perfectly reasonable playstyle doesn't seem productive, either. ;P

You'd have to define "balance" first before I can agree with that.
Does it? Again, define "balance" first.

The definition of balance I find most useful is that a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

If we are assuming a campaign that focuses more or less equally on all three pillars, then a choice that's viable only in one might well fail to clear that bar.

How would you even go about trying to "balance" out of combat?

Mechanically, by providing character creation choices that remain viable outside the combat pillar, in the sense that they each leave the player with significant meaningful/viable choices in out-of-combat play. It could also be helpful to provide a structure to out of combat challenges, similar in effect to that of initiative in combat: providing opportunities for every player to participate.

All characters have stuff for out of combat.

All characters have certain things that all characters can do, yes. Anyone can make a CHA check, even if it's at -1 with disadvantage for want of any viable choices that might have worked better.

They still have a limited number of spells per day, though. Any utility function will eat into their combat.

Any utility function used eats into their remaining utility, too. There's (perhaps ironically) nothing magical about a daily limit. Flexibility with a daily limit is still flexibility.

Someone here said that maneuvers were reasonably comparable to first level spells.

I thought that was you? ;P

They're not. They're much more focused and limited in scope.

They're similar to first level spells in the design sense that they're presumably each perfectly OK for a 3rd level melee type to have access to.

 

[Xeviat]

Oh, and for the record, after looking at the BM and EK like this, I totally support not only reducing the amount of points the BM has initially AND giving them some high level maneuvers and even some utility maneuvers (speed boosts, physical skill boosts, save boosts) along with possibly a few "generic" maneuvers that they always know (so you don't feel terrible for not choosing something "necessary").


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WarpedAcorn]

Oh, and for the record, after looking at the BM and EK like this, I totally support not only reducing the amount of points the BM has initially AND giving them some high level maneuvers and even some utility maneuvers (speed boosts, physical skill boosts, save boosts) along with possibly a few "generic" maneuvers that they always know (so you don't feel terrible for not choosing something "necessary").


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only thing with that approach is that you are basically homogenizing the class. What's unique about the Battlemaster is its limited number of combat maneuvers that replenish on a short rest, making it a stronger option in games that allow more short rests. Conversely, the Eldritch Knight has few spell slots with more variety of actions including the use of Cantrips. If you reduce BM's Superiority Dice, but give them some high end manuevers and generic "always available" maneuvers then you are just turning them into Eldritch Knights that whose spells are reskinned as physical techniques.

Also, in this discussion, the debate has basically been between Superiority Dice vs. Spell Slots. For the BM, the Superiority Dice are pretty much all it has going for it. The EK not only has the Spell Slots, but also some unique class features like Weapon Bond, War Magic, ect...The only other feature of note for the BM is Know Your Enemy, which most people I have spoke to say is fairly worthless overall (except maybe to save yourself the humiliation of attacking a high level NPC).

 

[Xeviat]

I don't think a few high level maneuvers would be bad. They'd be to give you something other than what you've had the option to take since level 3. Sure, they can drop a maneuver on each of their 3 attacks in the teens, but I'm sure that gets boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrHotter]

Oh, and for the record, after looking at the BM and EK like this, I totally support not only reducing the amount of points the BM has initially AND giving them some high level maneuvers and even some utility maneuvers (speed boosts, physical skill boosts, save boosts) along with possibly a few "generic" maneuvers that they always know (so you don't feel terrible for not choosing something "necessary").


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These things were looked at in the play test. Battlemasters (weaponmasters in the playtest) had 2 d6 superiority dice at level 3 and only had 3 maneuvers (no choices). They also got better maneuvers once they hit level 7.

It looks like after feedback they decided to give a more/larger dice and more options for maneuvers to make them worth playing.

If you are the DM in a game with BMs and EKs and feel the BMs are too powerful you could always give the BM fewer dice or make the dice a d6. Just be sure to tell the players this before they roll their characters. I don't think the best policy would be to start buffing other classes/subclasses because one player is envious of another player.