D&D 5E Legends & Lore Article 4/1/14 (Fighter Maneuvers)

[Dausuul]

I've got a player who regards limited-use martial abilities as doing a violence to their verisimilitude (even on the encounter level), so I'd personally be interested in adopting some of these maneuvers as "baked-in," so that the only limited resource the fighter is spending is the action economy. Though I don't imagine that'd be for everyone. And I don't even imagine it'd be that hard to bake-in, as by the sounds of it, the fighter perhaps spends the dice on damage, not on the manuever per se.

My suggestion: At the start of each of his/her turns, the PC loses all superiority dice, then rolls 1d8*. If the result is less than or equal to the number of superiority dice the character would normally have, s/he gets one superiority die which lasts until the start of the next turn. If not used by then, the die is lost.

The idea is that every so often, you spot an opening to try a maneuver. The better you are at maneuvers, the more openings you see. But you have to seize the chance when it comes--you can't save it for later. This avoids the verisimilitude-damaging "gas tank" model of limited abilities, while also keeping the PC from spamming the same maneuver endlessly.

[SIZE=-2]*The die size might need to be adjusted for balance. I figured one short rest every two combats, and five rounds per combat, which would suggest 1d10; then I considered that there is a substantial cost to not being able to choose when to use your superiority dice, and reduced it to 1d8. But it's basically just a seat-of-the-pants guess.[/SIZE]

 

[I'm A Banana]

Being able to do special maneuvers over and over again goes against my verisimilitude, even with my novice level understanding of sword-fighting, if someone repeatably tried to do the same kind of maneuver many many times in such a short period, I'd catch on after the 3rd or 4th attempt and take steps to avoid that, generally making their attempts far less likely to happen. Even though I'm quite aware the verisimilitude really isn't one thing that one should even go for in the system, given that abstraction and ease of play are also major factors in the game, and it never was meant to be a realistic simulation of anything.

*shrug* People have different weirdness. I don't think his is TOO extreme (it's just a more stringent version of the issue that a lot of people have with martial dailies), though I don't share it myself. I'm not interested in convincing him he's WRONG, I'm interested in giving him a game that meets his needs, too. I imagine that'll be possible.

My suggestion: At the start of each of his/her turns, the PC loses all superiority dice, then rolls 1d8*. If the result is less than or equal to the number of superiority dice the character would normally have, s/he gets one superiority die which lasts until the start of the next turn. If not used by then, the die is lost.

The idea is that every so often, you spot an opening to try a maneuver. The better you are at maneuvers, the more openings you see. But you have to seize the chance when it comes--you can't save it for later. This avoids the verisimilitude-damaging "gas tank" model of limited abilities, while also keeping the PC from spamming the same maneuver endlessly.

A little track-heavy, but not bad, and pretty interesting. I was also thinking of just keying the abilities to crits, which sort of reflect a sudden, unexpected edge, as well. Or perhaps Combat Advantage. These are less dependent on player choice, which seems to be the key to avoid spamming them.

But maybe I'd be OK with spamming, too. It's certainly believable, and encourages the logical counter-strategies like carrying backup weapons and using things with reach that you see in the real world, where disarming doesn't "cost" you anything. And hell, if my encounters are so bland and long that everyone gets bored watching the fighter do tricks over and over again, I think I may be having deeper issues than spamming maneuvers.

I am kind of fond of the inherent chaos of "non-player dependent" activation of these, too, though.

 

[Minigiant]

With the battlemaster as the complex fighter and getting maneuvers when they spend superiority dice, does anyone else see the warrior (the simple fighter) getting free maneuvers when they get a critical hit?

No bonus damage needed as it is a crit.

This way the battlemaster calls their maneuvers whereas the warrior lucks into them.

I also wonder if their is room for a middle ground. A fighter in the middle that can get bonus damage or maneuvers but not rely on luck nor resource management.

 

[Cyberen]

My suggestion: At the start of each of his/her turns, the PC loses all superiority dice, then rolls 1d8
The idea is that every so often, you spot an opening to try a maneuver. The better you are at maneuvers, the more openings you see. But you have to seize the chance when it comes--you can't save it for later. This avoids the verisimilitude-damaging "gas tank" model of limited abilities, while also keeping the PC from spamming the same maneuver endlessly.

Schrodinger martial expertise for the win !
This edition seems to open a tremendous of design space, while retaining reliability, simplicity and modularity. When do we get to play it ?

 

[Minigiant]

Sort of math time.


If critical hit rules and the warrior subclass remain the same, the warrior subclass basically adds damage equal to the maximum value of your weapon to your attack routine over a fighter without subclass.

Basically for a great weapon users it is +12 damage over 20 attacks and for a sword and board it is +8 damage over 20 attacks.


Therefore at level 3, a battle master must add +8 damage over 20 attacks.

So if maneuvers are declared after hit, 2 dice per rest is balanced.
If maneuvers are declared before hit, 3 dice per rest is balanced.

As the fighter levels, the warrior gets increased threat range and the battle master gets more dice.