log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Houserules balance check: all fighters get BM's maneuvers.

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Quick question: how balanced would it be to scrap the battlemaster and add the maneuvers to the base fighter instead?

Basic Fighter
levelFeature
1Fighting Style, Second wind
2Maneuvers: 3 choices, 4 x 1d8 per SR
3Archetype, Student of war
4ASI
5Extra attack, Know your enemy
6ASI
7Archetype, 5 x1d8, +2 known maneuvers
8ASI
9Indomitable: Whenever you make a saving throw, roll 1d6 and add the die to your saving throw total. If applying this bonus to a death saving throw increases the total to 20 or higher, you gain the benefits of rolling a 20 on the d20.
10Archetype, +2 known maneuvers, 1d10 maneuver die

Advanced Fighter
levelfeature
11Extra attack 2
12ASI
13Relentless, 6 x1d10 per SR, +2 maneuvers
14ASI
15Archetype
16ASI
171d12 maneuvers die.
18Archetype
19ASI
20Extra attack 3

Is it too strong? I thought of maybe removing the 2 extra attacks if it is.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Out of curiosity why do you want to do this? Are all the fighters in your games battle masters already?
Just a thought exercise :p

Maybe bring a bit of 4e in my 5e games? Also, with the new UA maneuvers, this would let the players (those that want to, at least) add out-of-combat maneuvers to buff a little the non-combat side of fighters.

With Know your enemy + 1 tools proficiency + some archetypes that add skill prof + (potentially) non-combat maneuvers + (potentially) non-combat feats, fighters could be a even more worthwhile addition to the party out-of-combat play.

It started with the discussion about how PDK is lackluster as a support when compared to the BM. So I thought: ''why not both''?

A PDK + Rally maneuver + Commander strike + Silver tongue + Maneuvering strike + Bonus feat: Inspiring Leader + Bonus feat: Tandem tactic would be a powerful force multiplier in a party.

A Samurai + sweeping maneuver + menacing attack + pushing attack + restraining strike + Feats: GWM, Charger, Savage attacker, Tough or Mage Slayer would be a good ''berserker build'' once refluffed.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Just a thought exercise :p
LOL ok fair enough.

I would take things from a different approach. Trying to make things other than "I swing my sword to hit him" more viable and actually a good option compared to simply "damage.

For example, if you knock someone prone, they have to make a CON save or be stunned until the end of their next turn. This way, they don't simply "get up" and deny you the actual benefit of knocking them prone.

Personally, I am not a fan of battle masters and the entire maneuver/superiority dice mechanic. I would prefer to see them "weaker" but at will instead of limited.

Anyway, I'll step aside and see what others have to say. Good luck! :)
 

Benjamin Olson

Adventurer
I like the idea a lot. It's less the need for power for me and more that having a limited number of maneuvers adds a lot more opportunity for strategic thinking to playing a Fighter in combat. And adding something from a menu of options every few levels scratches my itch to be playing a spellcaster.

I think giving the full Battlemaster compliment of maneuvers and dice to every Fighter, as Fighters are written, is overpowered. Instead I think they should all just get a small amount of this stuff and the Battlemaster should specialize in this aspect of the class's mechanics and get more. I would also probably restrict the other Fighters to d6s.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Personally, I am not a fan of battle masters and the entire maneuver/superiority dice mechanic. I would prefer to see them "weaker" but at will instead of limited.
My favorite take would be to have ''martial at-will'' rather than attack, attack once more, maybe once again if you're a fighter.

Something like:

Brace
Maneuvering Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Requirement: Shield or Weapon
Duration: 1 round
You raise your shield or your weapon high, bracing for the impending assault. Until the end of your next turn, you have resistance against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage dealt by weapon attacks.

Bleeding strike
Maneuvering Time: 1 action
Range: Weapon
Components: 1 melee or ranged weapon
Duration: 1 round
You mark a nasty cut on an enemy, leaving them losing blood for a time. Make an attack against the creature to assail it with a penetrating blow. On a hit, the target takes 1dW+Str or Dex piercing damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn.
If you hit an creature with light or no armor, it also has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn.

This attack's damage increases by 1dW when you reach 5th level (2dW), 11th level (3dW), and 17th level (4dW).

Dizzying blow
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: weapon range or 5ft
Components: a blugeoning melee weapon or shield
Duration: Instantaneous
You smash an enemy with a vicious blunt to the head with a bludgeon or a shield. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw, or it takes 1d6+ Str bludgeoning damage and moves 5 feet in a random direction if it can move and its speed is at least 5 feet. Roll a d4 for the direction: 1, north; 2, south; 3, east; or 4, west. This movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, and if the direction rolled is blocked, the target doesn't move.
The attack's damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

They are simply refluff of Blade Ward, Chill Touch and Infestation
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
They are simply refluff of Blade Ward, Chill Touch and Infestation
Something along those lines is a start, and you could perform them instead of taking 1 or more attacks. Having them scale with level would keep them viable compared to straight damage, and keeping the damage a bit lower but include useful riders would make them appealing options.

I would keep them as simple as possible as well. So, if you keep a number limited, sort of like cantrips are limited (say 2 to a max of 4 maybe?), and have a selection of maybe 8 or so.

Fighter Gambits
Each gambit uses your action, working like Booming Blade in that no weapon damage until level 5, then 2xW at 11, and 3xW at 20th (or 17th???).
You know 1 at level 1, gain another at level 3, 7, and 13.

Some quick examples:
Blind - target has blinded condition until start of your next turn
Cripple - decreases target's movement until end of their next turn
Shove - target is knocked back 5 feet, 10 feet at level 5, 15 feet at level 11, etc.
Stun - target has stunned condition until start of your next turn.
Sweep - target is prone and has speed reduced to 0 until end of its next turn.
Tackle - target is grappled (or something??)

So, an 8th level Fighter might know 2 gambits and by that level would get to roll normal weapon damage for the successful attack and apply the gambit rider as well. Basically, the rider is replacing the additional attack granted by Extra Attack.

Maybe something along those lines. You could work in gambits that mimic battle master maneuvers, cantrips, or whatever you can think of.
 



the Jester

Legend
You're definitely increasing the power of the fighter by doing this. Also, you're removing the option of having a simple fighter from those who want it.
 


FaerieGodfather

Aberrant Druid
Now I'm wondering about the viability of certain classes taking two subclasses (by DM's discretion) instead, with the the assumption that one subclass-- in this case, the Battlemaster-- is standard. I don't really follow the 5e meta enough to know which classes would need this and which wouldn't... I'm assuming the Ranger is still the bottom of the heap: would being able to take two subclasses fix it?
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
There's
Now I'm wondering about the viability of certain classes taking two subclasses (by DM's discretion) instead, with the the assumption that one subclass-- in this case, the Battlemaster-- is standard. I don't really follow the 5e meta enough to know which classes would need this and which wouldn't... I'm assuming the Ranger is still the bottom of the heap: would being able to take two subclasses fix it?
There's a few I wouldn't do it for because their subclasses are top-heavy (Cleric, Paladin) or the generalist subclasses are too strong to layer on to other classes (Bard comes to mind).

Classes you could do it for:

Ranger (Beast Master)
Barbarian (Berzerker)
Druid (Land)
Fighter (Champion or Battle Master)
Sorcerer (Divine Soul)
Wizard (Probably doesn't need it, But War Mage is nice and generic)
 

Instead I think they should all just get a small amount of this stuff and the Battlemaster should specialize in this aspect of the class's mechanics and get more. I would also probably restrict the other Fighters to d6s.
That's pretty much how the UA Subclasses, like the Spellless Ranger, Cavalier, Scout, Knight, and Monster Hunter do it.
 

Now I'm wondering about the viability of certain classes taking two subclasses (by DM's discretion) instead, with the the assumption that one subclass-- in this case, the Battlemaster-- is standard. I don't really follow the 5e meta enough to know which classes would need this and which wouldn't... I'm assuming the Ranger is still the bottom of the heap: would being able to take two subclasses fix it?
Ranger is quite strong over the first six levels

Its just the mid and later levels suck.
 

FaerieGodfather

Aberrant Druid
There's a few I wouldn't do it for because their subclasses are top-heavy (Cleric, Paladin) or the generalist subclasses are too strong to layer on to other classes (Bard comes to mind).
Frankly, I don't think any Charisma Mafia class needs the help... and yeah, Warlock and Paladin subclasses are both too powerful and largely incompatible. I'd like to bring back two Domains for Cleric... but we'd need more Domains for that to work, and all of the Domains would need to be toned down.

I'm largely thinking... Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, maybe Monk... if Monk even has enough thematically compatible options.
 

jgsugden

Legend
I'd allow a player to give up Action Surge to gain three maneuvers and four d8 superiority dice. Then they could give up Indomitable at 9 to increase the dice to d10s, gain 2 more superiority dice and gain 2 additional maneuvers. You'd still gain uses of indomitable and action surge at 13h (one indomitable) and 17th levels (a second indomitable and a first action surge).
 


Some quick examples:
Blind - target has blinded condition until start of your next turn
Cripple - decreases target's movement until end of their next turn
Shove - target is knocked back 5 feet, 10 feet at level 5, 15 feet at level 11, etc.
Stun - target has stunned condition until start of your next turn.
Sweep - target is prone and has speed reduced to 0 until end of its next turn.
Tackle - target is grappled (or something??)
I like it, but not this.

Round 1
Fighter pulverizes the troll's leg, crippling the beast.
Troll reaches for a wheel chair and sits down.

Round 2
Fighter smashes his axe into the crippled troll's chest.
The troll's disability ends. The troll stands up. It's a MIRACLE!!!
 


COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top