D&D 5E Battlemaster Maneuvers - only 3-4 good ones?

[Ancalagon]

I think more people would take Commander's Strike if you didn't have to pay 3 to get 1.

A bonus action, attack and reaction is (very roughly) equal, for a fightery guy anyway.

The 3:1 ratio makes the ability very circumstantial indeed. Which isn't the same as worthless. Only "less worth" than most other maneuvers which you can control much more reliably.

Lower the cost to 2:1 and things start to look up.

Lower the cost to 1:1 and you're looking at the new Warlord...! [emoji6]

You (as the battle master) should be sacrificing an attack or a bonus action. I can't fathom why it's both, it makes no sense to me.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You (as the battle master) should be sacrificing an attack or a bonus action. I can't fathom why it's both, it makes no sense to me.

Probably as a balance, because it is assumed that you will be granting an extra attack to an ally whose attack is more powerful than your own. Such as a Rogue.

 

[Ancalagon]

Probably as a balance, because it is assumed that you will be granting an extra attack to an ally whose attack is more powerful than your own. Such as a Rogue.

Well then, if you grant a powerful ally an attack... huzza no? It is supposed to be a power

 

[Tony Vargas]

... huzza no? It is supposed to be a power

It's supposed to be a maneuver. No 'huzza.'

 

[Xeviat]

Well then, if you grant a powerful ally an attack... huzza no? It is supposed to be a power

When a fighter uses a maneuver, they're getting [W]+Ability+1d[superiority] in damage, plus an effect. When you grant that attack to a Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin, or Rogue, who have stronger singular attacks, due to their class abilities, it's more than what the fighter would have gotten using it on themselves. So giving up the attack and the bonus action is really fine. It's not for most. Using it on a Rogue is a huge bonus. They go from 2d6*+5+1d12 at the high end to 1d6+5+10d6+1d12 ... kind of a big jump.

Granted, it has a miss chance, while the raw maneuvers don't (since they're used on a hit).

 

[Azzy]

Commander's strike:
I like the principle of this, but the problem is the action economy angle. So you are giving up one of our attacks *and* your bonus action (which you could have used for something else) to let someone use a reaction - which they might have been to use for an opportunity attack, or shield spell or whatever. If the action economy could be improved the maneuver would be better.

I'd rather it didn't also use up your bonus attack, but it is pretty useful.

Disarming strike:
The real issue here is that the disarmed weapon is dropped at the opponent's feat... which they are then free to pick up on their turn with no penalty whatsoever, almost as if the disarming never happened! Boo. It is marginally useful if you do it then withdraw (your foe doesn't have his/her weapon to hit you with as a reaction) but appart from that... The maneuver would be *greatly* improved if the weapon was tossed 10 feet away... but it might be too powerful then?

Or even 1d10 or 2d6 feet away. Hell, as a DM, I'd say say give me a DC 15 Athletics check to catch it yourself if you have a free hand (like an expert disarm in 2e's CPHB).

Evasive footwork:
The use scenario of this is a bit narrow - increase your AC when moving - ie vs attacks of opportunities. When you need it it's great, but it won't be in every fight. Still not bad.

Personally, I think it'd be better if it lasted until the start of your next turn.

Lunging attack:
You give yourself a bit more reach. Is this good? Seems a bit narrow in use... I can't tell.

Situational, but a good option to have.

Maneuvering attack:
The use case scenario is narrow, but in some specific situation this is *hugely* useful - cut off an escape route for example.

It can also be used to get an ally out of melee range, get a rogue set up for sneak attack, position a spellcaster for an area of effect spell.

Parry:
I don't know what to think about this. It's dex dependent (so are battemasters dex fighters?). At first I was thinking "sweet, it's like casting shield!"... but then I realized I read it wrong - it's not AC, it's damage reduction. And it's only one attack. So now I don't know what to think of it.

Yeah, it can be handy in the right situation, but it's no shield spell.

Sweeping attack:
Meh... maybe for dealing with mobs?

With low-level opponents staying relevant longer, mobs tend to be fairly common. It's an okay maneuver.

 

[FrogReaver]

Parry is amazing

 

[Ancalagon]

Personally, I think it'd be better if it lasted until the start of your next turn.

Then it would be *amazing* - the equivalent of a shield spell, or even better!

With low-level opponents staying relevant longer, mobs tend to be fairly common. It's an okay maneuver.

Yes but inflicting your superiority dice in damage to a second mook instead of the guy you are hitting is only useful if you know that your blow *will* will the first guy and you are trying to "spread" the excess damage around. It's a pretty narrow case scenario IMO.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Tripping Attack + Booming Blade = proc the secondary BB damage on a failed save. Since standing from prone eats up half of your speed, it would qualify as movement for the purposes of BB.

 

[FrogReaver]

Tripping Attack + Booming Blade = proc the secondary BB damage on a failed save. Since standing from prone eats up half of your speed, it would qualify as movement for the purposes of BB.

I would disagree. Standing up from prone is not movement.