D&D 5E Battlemaster and Superiority Dice are causing martials to suffer.

[FrogReaver]

The added class features for fighters, combined with weapon properties/masteries, has frustrated me when playing fighters, which used to be one of my go-to classes - because of the simplicity.

There's some really straightforward masteries like graze or cleave. So IMO, it's still possible to do simple, and never really was optimal to do so.

 

[ART!]

There's some really straightforward masteries like graze or cleave. So IMO, it's still possible to do simple, and never really was optimal to do so.

I was running a sword 'n' board 2024 fighter champion using DDB last night when I posted, and I think part of my frustration is how DDB character sheets work. I find the way it presents class features/options especially clunky. I think if I set up my own little flowchart or info sheet I'll be much better off.

 

[Retros_x]

IMO most battlemaster maneuvers are actions that are already possible but with superiority dice as bonus on top. I'll allow all martials the same moves just without the dice bonus.

I also like the approach to just improvise and negotiate with martial players when they do special moves. I tell them: Just think in action movie moves, and we talk about what happens. Often it is something like an additional check to get an advantage like advantage on attack roll, additional damage or some conditions like prone, but if they fail something bad happens to them (the get prone themselves, loose their balance (attacks against them have advt.) or something like that.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

IMO most battlemaster maneuvers are actions that are already possible but with superiority dice as bonus on top. I'll allow all martials the same moves just without the dice bonus.

I also like the approach to just improvise and negotiate with martial players when they do special moves. I tell them: Just think in action movie moves, and we talk about what happens. Often it is something like an additional check to get an advantage like advantage on attack roll, additional damage or some conditions like prone, but if they fail something bad happens to them (the get prone themselves, loose their balance (attacks against them have advt.) or something like that.

Add in athletics rolls/appropriate skills to pull off some of the more involved ones, then the champs athletics bonus is nice or the barbarians advantage ties in nicely. Battlemaster could forego any skill rolls since they are masters & all

 

[Willie the Duck]

IMO most battlemaster maneuvers are actions that are already possible but with superiority dice as bonus on top. I'll allow all martials the same moves just without the dice bonus.

That and/or they do so instead of an attack, instead of along with one.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

That and/or they do so instead of an attack, instead of along with one.

I don't personally prefer killing action economy for things that should be lumped in with movement or something a martial should just be able to do.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

... maybe lose out the rest of your action on a failed skill check like with a failed climb check, or failed difficult terrain navigation : egs of equivalent already established concepts

 

[Retros_x]

Add in athletics rolls/appropriate skills to pull off some of the more involved ones

Thats exactl what I do with the additional checks. For example something like the barbarian wants to do a jump attack from a heighened position onto an enemy and I offer the player to do an athletics check, if they succeed they prone the enemy and transfer their falling damage towards the attack damage, if they fail they land prone next to the enemy.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

These two ideas i feel limit martials from what i feel they could be, why can martial threaten people into attacking them, why cant they simply disarm and trip people, why can't they rally or parry and such. And why should any of this be on any resource?

In my opinion, the absolutely fundamental design problem in D&D (3.5, 3.0, 5.0) is that the designers put so much value on abilities having no restrictions on their use.

I've illustrated this in another thread by pointing out how the rogue has no limit to the number of locks they can pick, but that since you are never actually going to ever come close to being able to capitalise on this lack of a resource cost there is no real benefit to being able to do it any number of times aside from a few edge cases.

Consider: A rogue who can pick only five locks per day is theoretically weaker than a rogue with the exact same stats, but who can pick an infinite amount of locks per day without restrictions.

My conclusion is that either all abilities should have resources associated with them, or no abilities should have (including spells). This would get rid of all the problems with the five minute week day.

 

[Bae'zel]

It would be nice if things were more consistent.

I'd rather have fewer, more broad rules for combat maneuvers that anyone can attempt, but certain classes excel at them more than others.

I've encountered other game systems like this: the options are there for everyone to use, but specific "classes" grant extra thematic benefits or exceptions.

Eg: Every PC can spend an Action to use Strength (Athletics) to impose the Prone condition on an enemy, but the Fighter can do that as part of a melee or ranged attack, or the Monk can use Acrobatics instead. Stuff like that.