Fighters if superiority dice was something all fighters get

I never liked that Superiority Dice has mostly been siloed off into a single subclass of fighter, except for some feats and an alternate rule fighting style that has shown up later.

But assuming that in the revision they want Superiority Dice to become a more central part of the fighter, and they go with having at least 4 subclasses of fighter in a revised PHB, what would the Fighter be like?

First with all Fighters getting Superiority Dice I'd see there as been less of a reason for there being a Battlemaster in the first place. The Champion might be gone too, as both the Battlemaster and Champion were different subclasses because they were about different mechanics and less about a different story "hook" that generally all subclasses have gone on to have.

But maybe the Champion isn't gone though, there is a need for a "Tutorial" subclass that's relatively simple for many players, and it could have a more significant story hook of being someone who isn't necessarily well-trained but just naturally good at fighting. They'd have standard Superiority Dice for a fighter with either a limited selection of maneuvers or their maneuvers picked out for them. Some of the things we're seeing with the Knights of Solamnia feats in the revised UA might provide a clue of how it goes down.

Assuming the standard amount is Prof bonus Superiority Dice per Long Rest, with d6 going to d8 or d10 at later levels as the die size, with an ability to regain some Superiority Dice expended between encounters or a short rest for either some or all Fighters.

The Battlemaster I'd see then gets split up into at least 2 subclasses, perhaps a Duelist which is the closest to what the Battlemaster is where they double down on maneuvers and Superiority Dice. They get the highest die increase amount of Fighters and bonus dice and manuevers. They get features related to how they're trained in fighting styles and maneuvers with maybe the ability to change some things every long rest. The other subclass to split off from the Battlemaster would be the Warlord, the idea is to take some of the teamwork related maneuvers and to expand on them getting abilities to affect an area. Though no healing like in 4e, but maybe add a Superiority Die amount of temp HP to allies in a 10 foot radius around the Fighter or in a designated area.

The Eldritch Knight would still be left as the 4th subclass, and maybe they still get spell slots like they do, or maybe it's spend Superiority Dice (equal to the spell level) to cast a spell. Or perhaps it's spell slots, but a Superiority Die does things to cantrips they cast.

And if there's more subclasses they want to bring in, maybe the 5th one is something like Arcane Archer, Rune Knight or Cavalier. Then there's the question of should other classes like Monks or Rogues get superiority dice. Any other thoughts on such a approach?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would give all fighters 1d4 at 1st level a 2nd d4 at 2nd level (at that point I would tie it to prof) and upgrade to d6's at 3rd level. teh base class they come back on a long rest (yeah I know that means not alot) but also at like level 5ish or 6ish have the ability to recover 1 per short rest

all fighter get 'brutal blow' add the die as no action on a hit and 'parry' reduce damage from an attack you can see equal to the die.

champions would ONLY ever get those 2 (unless they took a feat or fighting style) and still get the increased crit stuff and basically just be the 'simple' fighter

battlemasters the dice go up and you would get more choices of maneuvers as you level and have ways to regain some more dice on short rests

eldritch knights would get maneuvers that are mystical... something like 'firey burst' you deal fire damage to an adjacent enemy equal to the die...

the important part is to give non combat manuvers and higher level manuvers...
 


Ah, the fighter we were promised.

Let the Champion spend SD to perform actual awesome feats with bonuses instead of advantage and it can finally be a real subclass!
counter proposal... make the fighter work like the warlock.

at level 1 you choose champion, eldritch knight or battlemaster (static bonus, magic, and superiority dice) then at level 3 you get a more flavorful subclass like duelest, knight, huntsman, ect)
 

Oofta

Legend
No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone? If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?

If anything were added I would want some other mechanism. Something along the lines of always allowing a trip attack [edit: as a bonus action] but if you fail the enemy gets a free opportunity attack with advantage because it's a dangerous maneuver. Well, that and having everyone fall over constantly could get old.

Then again I don't have a problem with fighters in combat.
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Hero
just have all characters have superiority dice and maneuvers know based of proficiency bonus

You have a number of superiority dice equal to your proficiency bonus.
You known a number of combat maneuvers equal to your proficiency bonus.
your superiority dice is d4.
at level 5 it is d6
at level 9 it is d8
at level 13 it is d10
at level 17 it is d12

recharges on long rest.
 

Horwath

Hero
No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone? If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?

If anything were added I would want some other mechanism. Something along the lines of always allowing a trip attack but if you fail the enemy gets a free opportunity attack with advantage because it's a dangerous maneuver. Well, that and having everyone fall over constantly could get old.

Then again I don't have a problem with fighters in combat.
you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.
 


Oofta

Legend
you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.
True, probably a bad example or make it a trip attack as a bonus action. Thing is most people forget about things like that and I don't personally care for superiority dice, not that I necessarily have any better ideas.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone? If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?
I'd like to see a variation where the Battle Master can use their maneuvers whether they have superiority dice or not, but if they have the dice they get to roll them to get the bonus to the maneuver.

you can always trip someone, it's called Shove attack and uses Athletics.
It's annoying that there are two sets of rules for these things though - if you Shove it's an opposed ability check but if you use a maneuver they make a saving throw. It should be consistent.
 

No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone? If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?
in this case (if you missed it) you CAN always try to trip... the artificial limit is how many times you can attack for damage AND get a trip off... like a minor action surge
 


No thanks. I personally don't care for the superiority dice concept or the artificial limitation of X times per some type of rest. If I can attempt to trip someone in combat, why can't I always try to trip someone? If it's a question of having the right set of circumstances, why is that set of circumstances artificially limited?
It's not artificial, I know in fighting you can't try to do something "special" all the time, like sidestepping and bending backwards to dodge a thrust and riposte with a rapier, without someone seeing that you're doing the same thing over and over again, and then hitting you for it because you've done something totally predictable that they figured out how to avoid after the 2nd or 1st time. Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
I'm not opposed to it, but I think that the fighter manuevers need to be expanded upon and beefed up. Maybe level-gate (or require multiple SD for) some options and give more options so that at higher levels you're not simply picking the manuevers that simply liked less than the ones you initially chose.
 

Oofta

Legend
It's not artificial, I know in fighting you can't try to do something "special" all the time, like sidestepping and bending backwards to dodge a thrust and riposte with a rapier, without someone seeing that you're doing the same thing over and over again, and then hitting you for it because you've done something totally predictable that they figured out how to avoid after the 2nd or 1st time. Sure maybe 3e had the better idea with, "everything unusual that you do, provokes an opportunity attack". But X times per some amount is reasonable allowance for abstracting such things.
Against that particular opponent sure. It's more the "Even though generic orc #412 just entered the room and had no chance to see what you had done, you can't do it again." or "It's a new encounter but because you used up all your dice last encounter and you haven't had a short rest yet, you can't fool generic goblin #376".

For me it would have to be against a specific opponent, at the DM's discretion of whether or not generic orc #413 was paying enough attention when you pulled the trick on #412. I'm not saying I have a better idea, just stating what my issue is. There could also be some sort of stamina cost or check at some point as well if the maneuver is particularly strenuous.
 

The Old Crow

Explorer
I would tie the number of superiority dice, dice size, and number of maneuvers to total martial levels, like the spell slot table for multiclassing. Full levels count for martials without spellcasting, third casters count for two thirds, half for half, and full spellcasters count for zero.
 


Quickleaf

Legend
I may be an outlier, and don't mean to knock the idea (I support all the homebrewing), but on those rare occasions I get to play, I love to play fighters. The thing is, I wouldn't be excited to play a battle master fighter – certainly lower down on the fighter subclasses I would play – because I enjoy more simplicity. The efforts to 4e-ify / Book of Nine Swords-ify / wizard-ify the fighter class felt really weird to me... if I wanted to be a spellcaster, I'd play a spellcaster. It's the simple yet adaptable part that draws me in.

EDIT: But if you were to implement a fighter-wide superiority dice rule, I wonder about swapping in Hit Dice instead. It's already a resource the player will be tracking or will learn to track, so why not double up on it? Less complexity, no need for another system.
 


I may be an outlier, and don't mean to knock the idea (I support all the homebrewing), but on those rare occasions I get to play, I love to play fighters. The thing is, I wouldn't be excited to play a battle master fighter – certainly lower down on the fighter subclasses I would play – because I enjoy more simplicity. The efforts to 4e-ify / Book of Nine Swords-ify / wizard-ify the fighter class felt really weird to me... if I wanted to be a spellcaster, I'd play a spellcaster. It's the simple yet adaptable part that draws me in.

EDIT: But if you were to implement a fighter-wide superiority dice rule, I wonder about swapping in Hit Dice instead. It's already a resource the player will be tracking or will learn to track, so why not double up on it? Less complexity, no need for another system.
this is also why I want a NEW class. I want a martial flavor, the ability to have the same concept as your simple fighter... but play more complex like the wizard.

casters run the gambit... you want simple go warlock, somewhere between go sorcerer complex wizard or cleric... warriors not so much
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top