D&D 5E Is there any hope of seeing ToB style maneuvers in 5e?

[Ichneumon]

I don't know what ToB style maneuvers are, but I'm sure there will be some sort of robust tactical options for warrior classes in the "Standard" rulebook. Whether that'll be part of the initial release is another story.

Tome of Battle, after the eponymous D&D 3.5 book that provided some new martial (and gishy) classes, and a raft of combat options for them which look roughly similar to 4e's powers.

 

[Lokiare]

Its unlikely that we will see ToB style maneuvers in 5E because it appears to go against what the surveys said, which was akin to 'simple fighters complex casters' or something along those lines.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I want a maneuver system like Mike did for the Book of Iron Might in which the building blocks are given for the DM to create maneuvers on the fly based upon the attack descriptionl . Then, give martial types feats and expendable resources to reduce the associated to hit penalties. This would involve penalties to hit rather than disadvantage
The above (along with a 3e skill system, 2e specialty priests , and something close to 4e multiclassing would be big steps toward getting my friends and I to give Next a look).

 

[Teataine]

I wish it were so, and in core... but I doubt it...


Mike Mearls might as well stick him middle finger up and say "Fighter's can't have nice things" at this point...

Yeah, that's why the Next fighter consistently outdamages every other class in the game, is one of the few classes that can pull off complex action combos thanks to the fighter's surge, is effectively immortal at higher levels and has a rudimentary maneouver system built into the core with the Weaponmaster subclass, and internal reports say that they are getting even more complex optional stuff. In the closed playtest.

This is simply not true, just a rehashed bit of popular forum wisdom spawned more than a year ago, based on blog posts, before the game begun to take shape.

 

[Klaus]

what the surveys said, which was akin to 'simple fighters complex casters' or something along those lines.

Why do you think that?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Its unlikely that we will see ToB style maneuvers in 5E because it appears to go against what the surveys said, which was akin to 'simple fighters complex casters' or something along those lines.

From the figures they showed us, that wasn't the case, though. There are a significant number of players who like complex fighters, which is why ToB did well, and part of why 4E has such a strong following (not as strong as Pathfinder, maybe, but it's very significant). Given they promised this was an edition for "everybody" (countless times), they pretty much have to introduce some kind of complex fighter design fairly soon after release. Within a year I'd imagine.

ToB's implementation was pretty shoddy next to 4E, though, so hopefully more the latter than the former.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think it will be in the tactical combat module they've mentioned.

Yeah Mike Mearls said in a Legends & Lore that such maneuvers would be in a tactical module of some sort IIRC.

 

[Ruzak]

Yeah Mike Mearls said in a Legends & Lore that such maneuvers would be in a tactical module of some sort IIRC.

I am kinda hoping this doesn't take the form of a straight 4e module. As much as I like 4e, I think it would be better for the community if these parts were presented separately. I think that might better integrate players.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think it has to be either or. My personal preference is the simple fighter but I could see additional classes/subclasses etc.. that allow for martial manuevers. I could even see a feat that gives you a couple manuevers.

I wish the weapon master was what people in the complex camp wanted. I realize it falls short for them.

While I can live with it, I wish damage on a miss could get moved out of the simple fighter. I think people that really love the simple fighter will mostly not like damage on a miss. I'm guessing the simple fighter types are mostly traditionalists and some people that don't care who just want simple.

It seems to me that a few basic moves could make a lot of people happy. I do think that maneuvers could be categorized as standard, extraordinary, and supernatural so that some groups could opt-in to one level but not another. Even though I prefer personally the simple fighter, I could see allowing some level of maneuvers in my game but not to the degree that 4e did (in all ways that is obviously some where fine).

 

[Mournblade94]

Yeah, that's why the Next fighter consistently outdamages every other class in the game, is one of the few classes that can pull off complex action combos thanks to the fighter's surge, is effectively immortal at higher levels and has a rudimentary maneouver system built into the core with the Weaponmaster subclass, and internal reports say that they are getting even more complex optional stuff. In the closed playtest.

This is simply not true, just a rehashed bit of popular forum wisdom spawned more than a year ago, based on blog posts, before the game begun to take shape.

The Fighter can't have nice things mantra is an overworked and tired phrase.

It gets to the level where it is cute to read it.