• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Missing Battle Master Manuevers

Mistwell

Adventurer
These aren’t good arguments against adding those abilities to the BM manuever list.
Y’all seem to forget that feats are already duplicated in class abilities. It’s fine.

The Mobile feat doesn’t make the Swashbuckler or Drunken Master problematically designed.

Hell, the BM already has Parry, even though Defensive Duelist does roughly the same thing.
Oh I definitely think "Major thing a melee-oriented feat does" is a reason to not add it to the Battle Master list. Fighters get the most feats in the game, they're almost the only melee class in the game, and this is a melee feat meant almost entirely or them. Yeah don't take from that feat and give to the Battle Master as just a gimme bonus maneuver. Bad idea.

Bard ability is more complicated. I can see adding that as a maneuver. But not the Sentinel feat's ability.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Oh I definitely think "Major thing a melee-oriented feat does" is a reason to not add it to the Battle Master list. Fighters get the most feats in the game, they're almost the only melee class in the game, and this is a melee feat meant almost entirely or them. Yeah don't take from that feat and give to the Battle Master as just a gimme bonus maneuver. Bad idea.

Bard ability is more complicated. I can see adding that as a maneuver. But not the Sentinel feat's ability.
Again, Defensive Duelist and Parry are basically the same thing already.

Also, Fighter is far from being the only melee class. Rangers and rogues are as melee (which is to say, they can go either way and be quite powerful) as the fighter, and Barbarians and Paladins are more melee focused than the Fighter.

Lastly, it’s one part of a feat. Feats have bullet points that overlap with class stuff all over the place.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
Again, Defensive Duelist and Parry are basically the same thing already.

Also, Fighter is far from being the only melee class. Rangers and rogues are as melee (which is to say, they can go either way and be quite powerful) as the fighter, and Barbarians and Paladins are more melee focused than the Fighter.

Lastly, it’s one part of a feat. Feats have bullet points that overlap with class stuff all over the place.
How much you want to bet the class which takes the Sentinel feat the most is Fighter, by a more than 2 to 1 margin over any other class taking it?
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
How much you want to bet the class which takes the Sentinel feat the most is Fighter, by a more than 2 to 1 margin over any other class taking it?
So a similar maneuver would be a big plus for the BM in a game w/o feats - and in one with, he might just take the feat, instead.

Feats are optional rules, afterall, as are MCing, and there's a lot of standard options that are decidedly redundant in the presence of either or both.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
Lets assume you’re right, for the moment.

So what?
See my first reply before you tried to refute it with that?

So a similar maneuver would be a big plus for the BM in a game w/o feats - and in one with, he might just take the feat, instead.

Feats are optional rules, afterall, as are MCing, and there's a lot of standard options that are decidedly redundant in the presence of either or both.
Yes, feats are optional rules...and so would any supplement with expanded Battle Master maneuvers. So that's a push. I mean, I can see a supplement that breaks up all the feats into optional additions to various classes. That itself might be an interesting supplement, if it could be done. But as things stand, there is no reason to duplicate a feat which Fighters already often take, with an optional Battle Master manuever to duplicate a primary part of that mostly-fighter feat. A DM of course could do it for their game, but it doesn't seem like good space for an official expansion option in a future book.

And, I know what you guys are after here. I am not sure why we're not talking about the actual thing you guys are after as a theme - a non-magical means of doing what spellcasters do, similar to the Warlord. OK, I get that. I appreciate that concept. But I don't think we're going to get that in an official supplement, and I am not even sure it's a good idea to do it by means of grabbing various abilities from other magical classes or existing feats for a Battle Master. Just put out a Warlord.
 
Last edited:

Pauln6

Explorer
Which one?



Where?
5 minute workday - Manoeuvers and Commander.
I think the advanced manoeuvres I cribbed from a discussion on here somewhere.

I also think the BM needs more superiority dice. I house-ruled so that they get one extra superiority die and one extra manoeuvre which they must choose from the above supplement. I also upgraded the feat to grant 2 superiority dice and one extra manoeuvre from the above list.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
If your just here to crap on the thread request then please leave. Your just being an a-hole by staying and continuing to further crap on it.
 

Eubani

Explorer
Field Medicine - Expend 1 SD and make a DC10 Wisdom (Medicine) check on a successful check you heal a creature within 5ft of you 1d6 + SD damage.

I know some people do not like martial healing but to be honest I do not care. My main issue is how this should scale, should it allow the expenditure of multiple dice on the one use?
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
See my first reply before you tried to refute it with that?
What? Before I tried to refute it what with what?

But as things stand, there is no reason to duplicate a feat which Fighters already often take, with an optional Battle Master manuever to duplicate a primary part of that mostly-fighter feat. A DM of course could do it for their game, but it doesn't seem like good space for an official expansion option in a future book.
it doesn’t duplicate a feat. It does a similar thing to 1 part of a feat, on a more limited basis. You also claim it’s a “mostly fighter” feat, but since you haven’t answered why “fighters take the feat the most” is an argument anyone should do more than shrug at, I’m going to now challenge that assumption. Because I think it’s bunk. What’s more, people play other types of fighters, so even amongst fighters, it’s gonna be a split of subclasses, and even within the BM not everyone is going to choose the manuever (limited by superiority dice and taking up a maneuvers known slot) over the feat (at will, also reduce speed to 0 on OAs).

And that isn’t even mentioning that the feat has more utility the more you can pump a lot more damage into singular attacks, like rogues and Paladins. I see a lot of Paladins, Rogues, Monks, and Barbarians with Sentinel.

Oh! I forgot the monk earlier, btw. Almost entirely a melee class. So, that’s half the phb classes, not counting melee subclasses of the remaining classes.

And, I know what you guys are after here. I am not sure why we're not talking about the actual thing you guys are after as a theme - a non-magical means of doing what spellcasters do, similar to the Warlord. OK, I get that. I appreciate that concept. But I don't think we're going to get that in an official supplement, and I am not even sure it's a good idea to do it by means of grabbing various abilities from other magical classes or existing feats for a Battle Master. Just put out a Warlord.
Don't assign motives to people other than yourself. I can’t speak for Tony, but I’ve no interest in whatever nonsense you’re talking about here. If I want to discuss a 5e Warlord, I’ll make a thread for that.

We are discussing what sorts of additional manuevers we’d like to be able to take when we play Battlemaster Fighters. That’s it.

Stop thread crapping. It’s unbecoming.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Field Medicine - Expend 1 SD and make a DC10 Wisdom (Medicine) check on a successful check you heal a creature within 5ft of you 1d6 + SD damage.

I know some people do not like martial healing but to be honest I do not care. My main issue is how this should scale, should it allow the expenditure of multiple dice on the one use?
Not sure it needs to scale, but if it does I’d stick with 1d/superiority die spent.

Also, 1d6+SD is probably too much. Maybe SD+Charisma?

Even if if it doesn’t scale, it’s a great way to get downed allies back up.
 

Pauln6

Explorer
5 minute workday - Manoeuvers and Commander.
I think the advanced manoeuvres I cribbed from a discussion on here somewhere.

I also think the BM needs more superiority dice. I house-ruled so that they get one extra superiority die and one extra manoeuvre which they must choose from the above supplement. I also upgraded the feat to grant 2 superiority dice and one extra manoeuvre from the above list.
Oh and the other thing I would probably do would be to change the Purple Dragon Knight and instead of giving them proficiency in Persuasion, I would give them two superiority dice (maybe static 1d6) which they can add to Persuasion checks (following on from the design of the popular fighter scout playtest). This frees them up to buy other Warlord style manoeuvres using the feat to increase Warlordyness without breaking balance. You could even give them the two Warlord manoeuvres from the PHB as part of the class feature and let them buy command manoeuvres from the list in the supplement with the feat.
 

Eubani

Explorer
Not sure it needs to scale, but if it does I’d stick with 1d/superiority die spent.

Also, 1d6+SD is probably too much. Maybe SD+Charisma?

Even if if it doesn’t scale, it’s a great way to get downed allies back up.
As it is field medicine and not Morale based HP regain (which I have no issue with) I would use Wisdom as it is the stat for the medicine skill.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Yes, feats are optional rules...and so would any supplement with expanded Battle Master maneuvers. So that's a push.
There's no reason to assume that an optional expansion of BM maneuvers would always/only be used in campaigns that opt into feats, so it makes no sense to write them as if feats were assumed, but, rather, to write them as if feats were, optional - because they are.

What reason is there to 'protect feats?' What's the harm of feats & class abilities duplicating, considering that, in the PH, /they already do just that/?

Just put out a Warlord.
That'd suit me, obviously, and, for myself, I think that trying to expand the BM is likely fruitless, because the all-DPR-all-the-time fighter chassis just doesn't have 'room' for anything too elaborate. But, "XOMG, you'll overlap a feat," doesn't seem like a reason.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Arguably
Battle==War
Master==Lord
It just doesn't quite do the job

The maneuvers just cannot be used often enough and most lack tactician feel le intelligence driven / affecting whole party for ex and the fighter lacks an appropriate warlordy fighting style.

I think it is silly to worry about it becoming a vehicle for the warlord its rather meant to be.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Arguably
Battle==War
Master==Lord
It just doesn't quite do the job

The maneuvers just cannot be used often enough and most lack tactician feel le intelligence driven / affecting whole party for ex and the fighter lacks an appropriate warlordy fighting style.

I think it is silly to worry about it becoming a vehicle for the warlord its rather meant to be.
Let's also nip this in the bud right now. This thread isn't about warlords.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
There's no reason to assume that an optional expansion of BM maneuvers would always/only be used in campaigns that opt into feats, so it makes no sense to write them as if feats were assumed, but, rather, to write them as if feats were, optional - because they are.

What reason is there to 'protect feats?' What's the harm of feats & class abilities duplicating, considering that, in the PH, /they already do just that/?

That'd suit me, obviously, and, for myself, I think that trying to expand the BM is likely fruitless, because the all-DPR-all-the-time fighter chassis just doesn't have 'room' for anything too elaborate. But, "XOMG, you'll overlap a feat," doesn't seem like a reason.
For me, it just so happens that I mostly play in featless campaigns.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Don't assign motives to people other than yourself. I can’t speak for Tony, but I’ve no interest in whatever nonsense you’re talking about here. If I want to discuss a 5e Warlord, I’ll make a thread for that.

We are discussing what sorts of additional manuevers we’d like to be able to take when we play Battlemaster Fighters. That’s it.

Stop thread crapping. It’s unbecoming.
Thank you. This thread is not about warlords. The actual inspiration for this thread came from thinking about various way's I've tried to theory craft a defender style PC without without feats. I honestly think maneuvers would work perfectly for that flavor. They likely wouldn't create a better defender than the cavalier but they could be an interesting and compelling take.

That got me to thinking about what other flavor splashes could have been enabled by more combat maneuvers.

A maneuver that enables someone to charge into combat would be very nice too
Maybe one that trades defense for even more offense
Those 2 combined would help enable the reckless attacker theme
 

Advertisement

Top