D&D 5E Next up is Fighter, what do you want from UA?

[DEFCON 1]

Which is why I suggested kits. Keep it within the battlemaster subclass.

Sure. But whether you call them 'Battlemaster kits' or 'Subclasses' doesn't really matter, because they are accomplishing the same thing, which I think we are both high on.

I am a firm believer that the Battlemaster is not in fact a "subclass", but is in fact what the Fighter class was supposed to be. The same way that Clerics and Wizards have "spells" as their main defining and mechanical function... I think "maneuvers" are supposed and meant to be that for Fighters. Which is why the Battlemaster doesn't have any fluff attached to it... the fluff is supposed to come out of deciding what type of Fighter you are, and then which maneuvers are selected and used to best exemplify it. The same way you are an Illusionist by selecting a whole crapload of illusion spells, and then the School that gives you some additional illusion features on top of it.

The only problem is... in an effort to not make things "complicated" for certain types of Fighter fans, they created the "simple" Champion, which basically entirely removed what were meant to be the mechanical underpinnings of the class. Basically it'd be the equivalent of them making "simple" Clerics and Wizards by taking away their spells altogether and instead giving them a couple unchanging "magical" features. The Champion basically breaks the mold they were trying to set, and now people just don't think of the Battlemaster the way its supposed to be. Which is The Fighter.

As a result, we have people here asking for "Defender-like" subclasses. Or "Dual-Wielding" subclasses, or "Kensai (Sword saint) subclasses. All of these these things which should and could be designed and made through the Combat Maneuver and Superiority Dice system. Someone said they wanted a Fighter subclass that uses CHA? We already have that first step with the Rally maneuver. The Defender subclass? We already have the Goading Attack maneuver. Both of those are good first steps towards giving us what we want... but we can't just stop there.

Rather than creating specialized subclass outside of the Battlemaster chassis... we should be treating maneuvers like we do spells-- if there's something missing in spellcasting, they make new spells. Likewise... if there are gaps in our Fighters' abilities and the types of Fighters we can make, create new maneuvers.

Truth be told... I'd much prefer the Maneuver system to be built up to be somewhat on par with the Spellcasting system, such that you could give some classes "Minor Combat Superiority" as a subclass, the same way we give "Minor Spellcasting" to them. So just like for the Fighter we take out the Maneuvers system and give them Minor Spellcasting to create the Eldritch Knight archetype... they should have the system robust enough that for (for instance) the Ranger and Paladin, they could create a conclave and an oath that takes out their spellcasting and replaces it with Minor Combat Superiority. Rogues should be able to take Minor Combat Superiority with a subclass the same way they get Minor Spellcasting with the Arcane Trickster. The systems should be interchangeable so that players can create the types of characters they want.

Then once you add more maneuvers to the game (just like you keep adding more spells to the game)... you can begin creating true fluffy Fighter subclasses that have some pre-selected maneuvers that help define what it does, plus then a feature or two that is unique to that one specific one. Like what we received in UAs previously with the Scout, Monster Hunter, and Cavalier. Those are the subclasses we should be making (or "Battlemaster kits" as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] defined them just to avoid confusion). And where we can then get our defender-like "Knight", or our dual-wielding "Tempest", or our unarmored "Gladiator", or our weapon-specific "Kensai", etc. etc. etc.

This is what the Maneuvers system was built for. Let's not forsake it to history as just a single subclass's special mechanic. It's too flexible of a combat system to just give up on it like that.

 

[Parmandur]

The idea of a crusader - a 1/3rd cleric - is weak as it overlaps too much with the paladin.
If it was an inquisitor or witch hunter that might be more interesting.


Fights be tricky, as the flavour of the class doesn't touch the subclasses. They really failed that design. So many options could be condensed into a battle master or champion. Like the swashbuckler/duelist, archer, etc.
Looking at roles is is a good way.
A more tanky defender would be a good option. A heavily armoured fighter that's sticky and knows how to take advantage of second wind. Another idea would be a fighter focused around using a shield. (I did my own attempts at these for the Guild, so I'm personally less interested, but someone might dig them.)

An unarmed brawler/ pugilist might be cool as well: a monk without mysticism.
A related concept might be a wrestler that focuses on grappling, fighting with a free hand to grab opponents.

A dragoon/ lancer/ spear fighter might be cool. Either like Oberon Martell or a Spartan. Hopefully able to do both.

I don't really see that there is that much overlap between a Domain focused one-third caster with the full Fighter progression, and deity-agnostic Oath powered knights; at least not more overlap than we see all over the newer subclass options.

I also suspect we will see a Clericy Rogue, a Roguish Wizard, and perhaps some other overlapping pseudo-multiclass character concepts...Arcanist Paladin, perhaps?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DEFCON 1]

Feels like that's approximately one-fifth of the conversations that people have here.

Heh heh, yep! Players want the mechanical breadth and expanse of 3.5 (with all the options they could possibly desire in order to make the exact type of character they want)...

...but it be a simple system that is easy to use, isn't confusing, and does not make things overpowered.

They basically want option breadth to be inversely proportional to game simplicity... but unfortunately it is not. They are directly proportional. The more options you put out there for players to select from and use, the more things get out of hand, are confusing, and potentially overpowering. And that's just the way it works.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. But whether you call them 'Battlemaster kits' or 'Subclasses' doesn't really matter, because they are accomplishing the same thing, which I think we are both high on.

I am a firm believer that the Battlemaster is not in fact a "subclass", but is in fact what the Fighter class was supposed to be. The same way that Clerics and Wizards have "spells" as their main defining and mechanical function... I think "maneuvers" are supposed and meant to be that for Fighters. Which is why the Battlemaster doesn't have any fluff attached to it... the fluff is supposed to come out of deciding what type of Fighter you are, and then which maneuvers are selected and used to best exemplify it. The same way you are an Illusionist by selecting a whole crapload of illusion spells, and then the School that gives you some additional illusion features on top of it.

The only problem is... in an effort to not make things "complicated" for certain types of Fighter fans, they created the "simple" Champion, which basically entirely removed what were meant to be the mechanical underpinnings of the class. Basically it'd be the equivalent of them making "simple" Clerics and Wizards by taking away their spells altogether and instead giving them a couple unchanging "magical" features. The Champion basically breaks the mold they were trying to set, and now people just don't think of the Battlemaster the way its supposed to be. Which is The Fighter.

As a result, we have people here asking for "Defender-like" subclasses. Or "Dual-Wielding" subclasses, or "Kensai (Sword saint) subclasses. All of these these things which should and could be designed and made through the Combat Maneuver and Superiority Dice system. Someone said they wanted a Fighter subclass that uses CHA? We already have that first step with the Rally maneuver. The Defender subclass? We already have the Goading Attack maneuver. Both of those are good first steps towards giving us what we want... but we can't just stop there.

Rather than creating specialized subclass outside of the Battlemaster chassis... we should be treating maneuvers like we do spells-- if there's something missing in spellcasting, they make new spells. Likewise... if there are gaps in our Fighters' abilities and the types of Fighters we can make, create new maneuvers.

Truth be told... I'd much prefer the Maneuver system to be built up to be somewhat on par with the Spellcasting system, such that you could give some classes "Minor Combat Superiority" as a subclass, the same way we give "Minor Spellcasting" to them. So just like for the Fighter we take out the Maneuvers system and give them Minor Spellcasting to create the Eldritch Knight archetype... they should have the system robust enough that for (for instance) the Ranger and Paladin, they could create a conclave and an oath that takes out their spellcasting and replaces it with Minor Combat Superiority. Rogues should be able to take Minor Combat Superiority with a subclass the same way they get Minor Spellcasting with the Arcane Trickster. The systems should be interchangeable so that players can create the types of characters they want.

Then once you add more maneuvers to the game (just like you keep adding more spells to the game)... you can begin creating true fluffy Fighter subclasses that have some pre-selected maneuvers that help define what it does, plus then a feature or two that is unique to that one specific one. Like what we received in UAs previously with the Scout, Monster Hunter, and Cavalier. Those are the subclasses we should be making (or "Battlemaster kits" as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] defined them just to avoid confusion). And where we can then get our defender-like "Knight", or our dual-wielding "Tempest", or our unarmored "Gladiator", or our weapon-specific "Kensai", etc. etc. etc.

This is what the Maneuvers system was built for. Let's not forsake it to history as just a single subclass's special mechanic. It's too flexible of a combat system to just give up on it like that.

I don't entirely buy the idea that Battlemasters are the fighter class, and especially not that the Champion is then somehow not a fighter.

But I agree to the part where you lament the risk of having maenuvers walled off to the "maneuver subclass".

In an ideal world, the PHB should have contained the Champion, the Eldritch Knight and one maneuvers-based subclass, not the maneuvers-based subclass.

Just like metamagic should not have been walled off to be a sorcerer exclusive.

 

[Jester David]

I don't really see that there is that much overlap between a Domain focused one-third caster with the full Fighter progression, and deity-agnostic Oath powered knights; at least not more overlap than we see all over the newer subclass options.

It depends how you describe it. They're both heavily armoured religious warrior filling the holy knight or templar archetype.
Unlike the wizard (no armour, few weapons) there's already less difference between the cleric and the fighter. It's a smaller jump. And there's an entire class that fills it.

If you really want to be a paladin with slightly less spellcasting, and fighter powers... just multiclass. Or multiclass cleric and fighter.

 

[CapnZapp]

It depends how you describe it. They're both heavily armoured religious warrior filling the holy knight or templar archetype.
Unlike the wizard (no armour, few weapons) there's already less difference between the cleric and the fighter. It's a smaller jump. And there's an entire class that fills it.

If you really want to be a paladin with slightly less spellcasting, and fighter powers... just multiclass. Or multiclass cleric and fighter.

On the other hand, if enough people want a "devoted fighter" subclass, I don't see any harm in... giving them that.

Just as long as the team doesn't get overly creative and hands that subclass an ability that make you go "why can't my paladin/cleric do that?", nothing should actually break...

 

[Aldarc]

Well, not to pick on you (you just happened to make the comment), but this is the cycle-

Feels like that's approximately one-fifth of the conversations that people have here.

No offense taken. I see your point, but the thematic pattern around the crunch released so far does not bode well for any real fan-speculation outside of that thematic pattern.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Rather than creating specialized subclass outside of the Battlemaster chassis... we should be treating maneuvers like we do spells-- if there's something missing in spellcasting, they make new spells. Likewise... if there are gaps in our Fighters' abilities and the types of Fighters we can make, create new maneuvers.

Truth be told... I'd much prefer the Maneuver system to be built up to be somewhat on par with the Spellcasting system, such that you could give some classes "Minor Combat Superiority" as a subclass, the same way we give "Minor Spellcasting" to them. So just like for the Fighter we take out the Maneuvers system and give them Minor Spellcasting to create the Eldritch Knight archetype... they should have the system robust enough that for (for instance) the Ranger and Paladin, they could create a conclave and an oath that takes out their spellcasting and replaces it with Minor Combat Superiority. Rogues should be able to take Minor Combat Superiority with a subclass the same way they get Minor Spellcasting with the Arcane Trickster. The systems should be interchangeable so that players can create the types of characters they want.

I think that's a fantastic idea. I would especially like to see maneuvers treated more like cantrips or like 4E's at-wills.