D&D 5E Maneuvers discussion

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hey, I just noticed they got rid of the push and knockdown maneuvers. Why on earth did they do that? Along with the loss of the jab and snap shot maneuvers, this means there's no way for a fighter to trip/knockback/grab and attack in the same turn. I think this is a huge loss and I'm rather surprised by it. There was a whole big thread here raving about how fighters could finally "stunt and attack" in the same turn - was it really that overpowered? Blargh.

 

[Howndawg]

Hey, I just noticed they got rid of the push and knockdown maneuvers. Why on earth did they do that? Along with the loss of the jab and snap shot maneuvers, this means there's no way for a fighter to trip/knockback/grab and attack in the same turn. I think this is a huge loss and I'm rather surprised by it. There was a whole big thread here raving about how fighters could finally "stunt and attack" in the same turn - was it really that overpowered? Blargh.

Push and knockdown are now actions anyone can take. Perhaps jab was removed because of abuse potential with Total Defense. An idea I thought of is:

Overpower
When you succeed at an opposed Strength check, roll as many expertise dice as you want. Take the highest result and do that much damage to the creature who failed the check.

In other words, you can damage the opponent of a Disarm, Grab, Knockdown, or Push.

 

[kerleth]

It was implied that you could use knockdown, push, and the like before by the freeform nature of ability checks. The whole idea was to let you hit somebody and stunt at the same time. These versions were simple and effective. Overpower seems to be a good alternative, but some version should live in the fighter's expertise. When I get home I'm going to take a good long look at the manuever list.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It was implied that you could use knockdown, push, and the like before by the freeform nature of ability checks. The whole idea was to let you hit somebody and stunt at the same time. These versions were simple and effective. Overpower seems to be a good alternative, but some version should live in the fighter's expertise. When I get home I'm going to take a good long look at the manuever list.

My current guess is they got rid of those maneuvers so that people would test out the free form stunts, but I hope there's something like that Overpower eventually.

Also, would mighty exertion work on these contests?

 

[kerleth]

That's a good point. It may very well have been to get people to try the "default" versions. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Good call. I think it should work for Con checks too.

Vault should go bye-bye because jumping should be a strength-based skill check, meaning this should be another use for Mighty Exertion.

From the wording, it definitely looks to me like you add modifier damage with Cleave, which is funny because it means that at high levels you'll be doing more damage with your cleave than your main attack. But it's necessary, because otherwise Cleave is just a crappy version of Whirlwind Attack. Personally, I think I'd pick Whirlwind Attack over Cleave anyway.

There are already big threads on Sneak Attack vs. Deadly Strike, but like Nine Hands said I'd like to see Rogues gets 1d6 per level (or even 1d6 per 2 levels). They'd have to lose access to Parry, but they shouldn't get Parry anyway.

Rogues get only five maneuvers that fighters don't: Sneak Attack, Skill Mastery, Iron Will (for some reason), Controlled Fall, and Defensive Roll (evasion lite). They share nine others with fighters. A lot of people are suggesting it's okay that both fighters and rogues use maneuvers now because clerics and wizards both use spells and look how different they are! But I'm pretty sure if two thirds of the cleric's spell list was from the wizard list, that would be seen as a problem. At this point, the rogue is basically a specialist fighter: he gets one cool maneuver (Skill Mastery) and four extra skills but gives up weapon and armor proficiencies and hp.

I also think, the solution may be more distinctive maneuver lists for rogues and fighters. And Sneak attack needs to be improved (deadly strike light is not enough).

I also believe, the rogue should not get less maneuvers or something different in those levels, where they lack a new maneuver (compared with the fighter list).

Solutions:
Maybe sneak attack also gives a +3 to hit (retroactively, like 4e backstab)
Maybe rogues get +1 to a few skills now and then, emphasizing his skill mastery, or improving his defensive options...

 

[MortalPlague]

Good call. I think it should work for Con checks too.

Good call. Strength only feels too narrow for a maneuver.

Vault should go bye-bye because jumping should be a strength-based skill check, meaning this should be another use for Mighty Exertion.

I disagree. This might be true for fighters, but what of a rogue who wants to jump between rooftops? If jump is relegated entirely to strength, mighty exertion doesn't help him. This maneuver as it stands allows for that roof-hopping agile rogue.

They'd have to lose access to Parry, but they shouldn't get Parry anyway.

I wouldn't mind seeing rogues lose out on Parry. In my opinion, fighters should still have it by default. Parry made fighters tough.

Anything that grants a bonus to attacks, saving throws, or skill check is annoying to me. We're supposed to have "bounded accuracy," and yet characters are adding up to +10 to these things? Idiocy. I'd say that those abilities need to be changed so that you add half of the expertise die to your roll.

I agree with you here. Many of these have the stipulation that you only add the highest die (which is good), but halving it would help things stay in control. Or maybe make it a flat bonus...

I also think, the solution may be more distinctive maneuver lists for rogues and fighters. And Sneak attack needs to be improved (deadly strike light is not enough).

I also believe, the rogue should not get less maneuvers or something different in those levels, where they lack a new maneuver (compared with the fighter list).

Agreed. Rogues and fighters feel way too similar right now.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sneak attack Ideas:


1. If you attack with advantage you double the number of expertise dice you roll
2. If you attack with advantage and both rolls hit, you double the number of expertise you roll
3. If you attack with advantage, you roll each expertise dice twice and take the higher result
4. If you attack with advantage and you miss, with both rolls, but hit at least AC 10, with either, you do your expertse dice damage (per hit)

5. (my favourite) If you attack with advantage, you do your expertise in damage for each roll that hits AC 10 (regardless if any roll would hit the regular AC)

This way, you would be able to deal more damage than a fighter with a little luck and in great circumstances, and you can reliably kill lesser foes

 

[cmbarona]

@UngerheuerLich I like the idea of combining advantage with sneak attack for special effect. I actually believe this could be the schtick that separates the Rogue from the Fighter. Fighters should always be good at combat. Rogues should generally be good, but not as good as the Fighter, EXCEPT when they have advantage (or their enemy has disadvantage). Then they should be better than the Fighter. This encourages Rogues to fight dirty and look for those corner cases where they can get the upper hand. For example, a beefier Parry called Riposte could allow counterattacks when the attacker has disadvantage. I think there are a handful of maneuvers that could be modified in this way.

Another way to approach this would be to modify maneuvers such that specific classes get specific benefits.