No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard

[CapnZapp]

I don't see the problem with the Battlemaster. It's obviously a 1/3 subclass of something, much like the Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster. Now all we need is a 1/2 or full Superiority Dice class.

I would say the Battlemaster is the full Superiority Dice class.

Which is the problem - there's nowhere for more design to go.

 

[Yunru]

Nonsense, you only need convert the Paladin to a half-dice class for a rough look at how it'd operate to see that it has more potential than just what's in the Battlemaster.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

In true D&D fashion, we could make all classes have superiority dice and fighter superiority dice would be the worst. Most magic users get ambient magic availability dice: roll a d20, divide by two (round down), natural 1, you are stuck with a cantrip (you can always chose to cast a cantrip instead of rolling dice); 2-19, you can cast a spell at the appropriate level (1-9), natural 20, you cast a no-risk wish spell. Sorcerer's roll to see how many spell points they get. Rangers and paladins do a d12 (so they get a cantrip and 6th level spells). Barbarians roll to see how many minutes of rage they get (d20 divide by five [round down]).....

 

[Olrox17]

I don't see the problem with the Battlemaster. It's obviously a 1/3 subclass of something, much like the Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster. Now all we need is a 1/2 or full Superiority Dice class.

I like the idea of a full superiority dice class. Swordsage, anyone?

 

[DEFCON 1]

We've talked about the BM before. What could have been one possible option towards the beginning was for someone (WotC or something on DMs Guild) designing "fluff subclasses" of the Battle Master, where you come up with a story and then select the fighting style, maneuvers and possibly feats that would best exemplify it. So your 'Myrmidon' would include let's say the Protection style, the Sentinel feat, and maneuvers A, B & C, plus a write-up of what Myrmidons are, what they do, and what their raison d'etre is... the 'Sniper' would include the Archery style, Sharpshooter feat, and maneuvers D, E & F... the 'Samurai' would have other stuff, the 'Cavalier', the 'Banneret', the 'Brute', the 'Mariner', the 'Scout', the 'Brawler' , etc. etc. etc. Someone would put together these "kits" for the Battle Master with both narrative and a pre-selected group of fighter abilities. So people could choose to play specific kits without needing to figure out for themselves how best to build them.

As far as I'm aware, no one ever really did that. WotC kind of started down this path with the Superiority Die subclasses like the Scout and Cavalier, but went further in that they created specific individual abilities for each of them (which of course annoyed some people here on the boards as they questioned why they wouldn't be available to every Battle Master), but didn't go so far as to add fighting styles or feats to help sell the package. Plus, they only made a couple, whereas I think if you were going to build these pre-made story BMs that didn't add new mechanics, you'd just want to make 8 to 12 of them all at once.

WotC didn't do that... they made only a couple "story based" versions using SD and they tried to play them off as "true" subclasses on par with what the other classes got... and thus people rejected them. And which is why we are getting the subclasses we have now... story-based ones with individual concepts and mechanics just like all the Rogue subclasses are. Which means the Battle Master is now the "odd man out" as it were.

Personally I think it was one of the major missteps of 5E's design. They were so focused on creating the simplest "simple fighter" in the Champion that they didn't go all-in on their Battle Master design. They COULD have created the "Basic Rules" Battle Master 'Champion' using the most basic maneuvers and dice (the same way the "Basic Rules" Cleric is just one of their standard but easier to grok domains and the "Basic Rules" Wizard is one of their standard but easier to grok schools) but instead they designed one completely separate from it. And thus they've left what should have been the true and interesting mechanical heft for the Fighters (and indeed many of the weapon-based classes)-- Maneuvers and Superiority Dice by the wayside. It's a shame.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I really need to ask this because I just dont understand. What about Aragorn makes him not a fighter? Everything i can think of about that character is covered in the fighter class. Its bee a long time since i read the books but I just dont recall anything that screams ranger in the D&D sense. I know the was inspiration for the class but his actual actios are no different than any other fighter.

I am sure I am missing something and would appreciate an explanation.

Aragorn was certainly the basis for the ranger class, but it's interesting that the Ranger has grown to be it's own thing form then to include a lot of abilities Aragorn didn't display. We Had Drizzt influence bringing Two Weapon fighting into the ranger package for a couple Editions for example.

As far as Fighters and Aragorn go. It depends on how you describe his abilities.

Is he healing by casting a spell with Athelas as a component? Is he brewing a healing potion? Is he using a healers kit?

When he puts his ear to the ground and can tell you all sorts of information on the Uruk hai, was that primeval awareness or just a really good survival check? Remember Aragorn is the one of if not the premier tracker in Middle Earth at the close of the 3rd age.

Are his skills with a Sword more representative of having extra attacks, or hunter features like Horde Breaker and favored enemy Orcs?

 

[Olive]

Aragorn was certainly the basis for the ranger class, but it's interesting that the Ranger has grown to be it's own thing form then to include a lot of abilities Aragorn didn't display. We Had Drizzt influence bringing Two Weapon fighting into the ranger package for a couple Editions for example.

As far as Fighters and Aragorn go. It depends on how you describe his abilities.

Is he healing by casting a spell with Athelas as a component? Is he brewing a healing potion? Is he using a healers kit?

When he puts his ear to the ground and can tell you all sorts of information on the Uruk hai, was that primeval awareness or just a really good survival check? Remember Aragorn is the one of if not the premier tracker in Middle Earth at the close of the 3rd age.

Are his skills with a Sword more representative of having extra attacks, or hunter features like Horde Breaker and favored enemy Orcs?

I guess there is a question around inspiration vs emulation. The ranger is a very bad Aragorn emulator but has clear Aragorn inspiration (although it's buried pretty deep these days).

 

[Rils]

Go figure. The fighter PC in my game just leveled up last month and we decided he could take the fighter Monster Hunter subclass. Not gonna be happy that its a Ranger gig now...

 

[BookBarbarian]

Go figure. The fighter PC in my game just leveled up last month and we decided he could take the fighter Monster Hunter subclass. Not gonna be happy that its a Ranger gig now...

Just keep using it. the Monster Hunter Fighter UA was by no means something that will break the game.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I guess there is a question around inspiration vs emulation. The ranger is a very bad Aragorn emulator but has clear Aragorn inspiration (although it's buried pretty deep these days).

I think with careful spell selection and Re-fluffing Spells as non-magical or subtle Middle-Earth style magical its certainly possible to make an Aragorn style Ranger.