NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8731331" data-attributes="member: 6877472">3e and Pathfinder have a ton of special actions all warriors can take.  Disarm, Sunder, Trip, and (in PF1), things like push, drag, steal and Dirty Trick.  Most of the time, players don't take those actions.Part of this is yes, those editions made these maneuvers difficult without specialization.  But the other part is, you give up an attack (or sometimes all attacks) to impose a status ailment on the target.  Sometimes, like Disarm or Sunder, this can be a very good status ailment, but many times, it's not.And giving up damage when, as many people say "the best status effect is Dead", is problematic.  That's why Battlemasters spend a resource to do their thing, and still be able to deal their damage.  If everyone could do this without spending a resource, and just spam "frightening strikes", that is exactly what they would do, and 5e isn't built to let non spellcasters have at-will damaging debuffs; indeed, a vocal group during the playtest specifically did not want this, instead wanting the Fighter of old, the heavy armored, tough, weapon damage dealer with no fancy moves or "magical" abilities (however you define such).And note even cantrips have very limited debuffs they can employ.  You're not knocking people prone or frightening people with cantrips.  You're removing reactions or nerfing heals.Could 5e have more maneuvers?  Absolutely.  But WotC thinks the majority of the player base doesn't want more complexity, so they're not likely to add such to the game (though anything can happen!).So it's up to you or 3rd party developers to address this.  Some will like the idea, others will reject it.</blockquote>

Verification