D&D (2024) Fighters if superiority dice was something all fighters get

[GMforPowergamers]

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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I agree the SHove should be a save

 

[Kobold Avenger]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

x per encounter can easily be explained as timing and the confluence of opportunity

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

x per encounter can easily be explained as timing and the confluence of opportunity

yeah... we are giving the player control of when teh opportunity presents itself, not the character.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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