D&D 5E Battlemaster sub-subclasses

[DEFCON 1]

With the talk over the in the 'Warlording the fighter' thread as well as the info revealed by Mearls in the Tome Show interview thread about how they made a bit of a mistake in not having flavor attached to the fighter sub-classes... it made me wonder if perhaps anyone had built specific Battlemaster sub-subclasses? In other words... took the maneuvers of the BM and demarcated specific types of flavorful "builds" by the selection of specific maneuvers and/or feats when the time was right?

So for instance... what five maneuvers (and perhaps any eventual feats) would constitute a 'Cavalier' build? If you were to build a 'Duelist' BM what would the selections of maneuvers be? A 'Marshal' would consist of what? A 'Myrmidon'? A 'Samurai'? A 'Brawler'? A 'Kensai'? A 'Gladiator'?

Each of these BM sub-builds would/should have specific flavor to them, and perhaps even change some of the BM's leveled sub-class abilities to better reflect the sub-build. Now some may ask why we'd nail down a specific selection of maneuvers rather than just let people select their own... but really, that's the point-- some people might like the idea of having a specific 'five moves of doom' designed to be selected as a package build. The same way there were Dragon articles back in 3E that created "classes" by the specific order of multiclass selection (so for instance the 'Skald' class was a specific barbarian/bard multiclass build.)

In the end, these BM builds wouldn't exactly be "true" sub-classes... but at least people here could have a bit of a direction for building a particular style of fighter rather than just having to arbitrarily guess which maneuvers to take to be a 'Brawler' or whatever. It wouldn't be perfect, but it could be a useful start.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm not sure if that matters. Take what's appropriate to your PC. There is no cookie-cutter, assembly-line approach to a Cavalier, Myrmadon, et al.

 

[Sadrik]

Not exactly what you are looking for but something...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465807-The-New-and-Improved-Fighter-and-six-subclasses

Also, I think those can be backgrounds for the most part. YMMV.

 

[Minigiant]

The way I'd do it is to reduce the number of maneuvers known and dice to add a flavor ability.

For example for a brawler

Level 3

• Brawling: Your unarmed strikes deal 1d4 damage.
• Combo.: When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action
• Combat Superiority: 2 maneuvers. 3d8 superiority dice.

level 7

• Strong Hands: You have advantage on Strength (Athletics) shecks and have a 30ft climb speed

Level 10

• Combat Superiority: 4 dice
• Clinch: Your unarmed strikes deal double damage to creatures you grapple.
• Stomp 'Em Out: Your unarmed strikes deal an extra 1d4 damage to prone creatures.

Etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not sure if that matters. Take what's appropriate to your PC. There is no cookie-cutter, assembly-line approach to a Cavalier, Myrmadon, et al.

Not at the moment, but that's the point. The maneuvers of the Battlemaster allow a player to build almost whatever kind of fighter they want. But as there's no story or flavor attached to the maneuvers per se... after you select them you basically are a Fighter with Five Combat Tricks You Can Do. So the thought was to marry both the mechanics of the maneuver system to the story of different types of warriors.

You're right in that by no means is it "necessary" to specify specific five-maneuver builds... but the same could be said for the Wizard's schools. It's not "necessary" to create the eight specific school sub-classes of the Wizard-- you could just as easily have a generic Wizard and then each player could decide for his or herself "Hey, I'm going to take mainly nothing but illusion spells and thus I'm going to be an Illusionist". But by 5E having the story and flavor of the schools married to the mechanics, the actual sub-classes help sell the idea. And the same could be said of the different flavorful fighter builds. Not "necessary" (in that each player could just select maneuvers on their own) but perhaps helpful.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Not at the moment, but that's the point. The maneuvers of the Battlemaster allow a player to build almost whatever kind of fighter they want. But as there's no story or flavor attached to the maneuvers per se... after you select them you basically are a Fighter with Five Combat Tricks You Can Do. So the thought was to marry both the mechanics of the maneuver system to the story of different types of warriors.

You're right in that by no means is it "necessary" to specify specific five-maneuver builds... but the same could be said for the Wizard's schools. It's not "necessary" to create the eight specific school sub-classes of the Wizard-- you could just as easily have a generic Wizard and then each player could decide for his or herself "Hey, I'm going to take mainly nothing but illusion spells and thus I'm going to be an Illusionist". But by 5E having the story and flavor of the schools married to the mechanics, the actual sub-classes help sell the idea. And the same could be said of the different flavorful fighter builds. Not "necessary" (in that each player could just select maneuvers on their own) but perhaps helpful.

The maneuvers are just tools. It's up to the players and DM to assign flavor based on the world and character being developed. Why have the game system mandate that?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The maneuvers are just tools. It's up to the players and DM to assign flavor based on the world and character being developed. Why have the game system mandate that?

I'm not suggesting the 'game system' mandate that (or mandate anything.) I'm inquiring about the idea that *if* some people wanted flavorful fighter builds to choose from (rather than having to build one themselves), what might those builds look like? The same way we can build new Backgrounds by selecting two specific skills, 2 tools or languages, a special feature, and then add story and flavor to it (which people then post in the Homebrews forum so it's accessible to others), what might specialized fighter builds look like for those who might want a pre-made Gladiator, Cavalier, Duelist or whatnot?

The reason for the idea is the same reason for anything and everything we can find in the House Rules, Homebrews, & Conversion Library forum... it might prove useful to some people.

 

[Minigiant]

There's also the issue of since the fighter martial archetype weren't designed for flavor, many flavorful feature which could to the character don't exist. So DM have to figure out how to do it.

Brawler fighters suck at punching.
Gladiator have little reason to use those exotic weapons.
Kensais get nothing for focusing on a single weapon.
Etc

You can kinda try stuff with feats and multiclassing but you are lucky if it works out.

And unfortunately....

50% of D&D Fans can't design their way out of a paper bag.. Sure 5th is harder to royally screwup but there is no depth "how to design" guide.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that the design team made the right call by NOT attaching flavor to specific maneuvers. The flavor and story development of the character really should be up to the player instead of some pre-planned mechanical path strictly by the numbers. Individual circumstances in the campaign can have an impact on how a character develops.

Suppose a player's particular fighter is Bad Luck Jack. Poor Jack always gets hit the most (even among other fighters), and beaten up fairly often because of his poor luck. No matter what type of fighter Jack is, his player decides to learn the parry maneuver when the opportunity arises. This makes sense for poor Jack no matter what build he was aiming for.

Then there is over-generalizing in the build types. Lets take Gladiator for example. Not all who stand upon the sands fight the same. A murmillo will be using very different moves compared to say, a hoplomachus, retiarius, or dimachaeus. Each fighter should simply learn the maneuvers that he or she thinks will best serve them.

 

[neobolts]

A murmillo will be using very different moves compared to say, a hoplomachus, retiarius, or dimachaeus

Apparently I have not read that particular Dr. Seuss book.