No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard

[AmerginLiath]

I’m curious about approaching this debate from a different perspective. It seems almost certainly the case that (aside from the martial adept feat), combat superiority dice have been decided to be the sine qua non of the battlemaster. As such, I’m curious what is the non-mechanical appeal of playing these subclasses as a fighter that could thus be used in possibly creating a different fighter subclass that implements a different mechanic than superiority dice and tells a slightly different story. My own observation on looking over both subclasses in their UAs is that each are skilled fighters in a way that existing subclasses aren’t (scout in particular having mechanics to increase those skill checks further). Given the usual complaints about fighters being unable to properly contribute in the non-combat pillars of the game, is part of the issue here that both of these subclasses are built for strong roles in the exploration pillar (and the monster hunter a specialized role in the social pillar)?

I begin to wonder if we’re actually seeing the same argument here in a way over the “warlord,” the absence of the support soldier in the fighter matrix (think beyond officer corps to those specialists is signal, quartermaster, artillery corps and beyond). Creating a fighter subclass with a better focus on skills and tools and perhaps a tree of options similar to the Hunter Ranger or Totem Barbarian strikes me as a way to possibly solve a lot of missing pieces without stepping on the Battlemaster’s mechanical toes. But that might be a debate for a different thread, so feel free to ignore this aside if you wish!

 

[BookBarbarian]

I’m curious about approaching this debate from a different perspective. It seems almost certainly the case that (aside from the martial adept feat), combat superiority dice have been decided to be the sine qua non of the battlemaster. As such, I’m curious what is the non-mechanical appeal of playing these subclasses as a fighter that could thus be used in possibly creating a different fighter subclass that implements a different mechanic than superiority dice and tells a slightly different story. My own observation on looking over both subclasses in their UAs is that each are skilled fighters in a way that existing subclasses aren’t (scout in particular having mechanics to increase those skill checks further). Given the usual complaints about fighters being unable to properly contribute in the non-combat pillars of the game, is part of the issue here that both of these subclasses are built for strong roles in the exploration pillar (and the monster hunter a specialized role in the social pillar)?

I begin to wonder if we’re actually seeing the same argument here in a way over the “warlord,” the absence of the support soldier in the fighter matrix (think beyond officer corps to those specialists is signal, quartermaster, artillery corps and beyond). Creating a fighter subclass with a better focus on skills and tools and perhaps a tree of options similar to the Hunter Ranger or Totem Barbarian strikes me as a way to possibly solve a lot of missing pieces without stepping on the Battlemaster’s mechanical toes. But that might be a debate for a different thread, so feel free to ignore this aside if you wish!

I think this is a great train of thought. I was disappointed that XtGE gave us yet another generic fighter in the Samurai, but very happy that we got something more specialized in the Cavalier, which started out as a Superiority dice user in UA.

I would love to see the Scout and Monster Hunter follow the path the Cavalier took.

 

[Pauln6]

I rather liked the sub classes with other uses for superiority dice. They were easily customisable with martial adept. Purple Dragon Knight / Banneret can be made to feel more warlordy with the right manoeuvres too.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

All fighters should have got Superiority Dice,

Completely disagree.

The reason they didn't do this was because it was important for many players and potential players to have a simpler option. Now, a good number of people weren't very impressed with that option (so they are working on a second simple fighter in the unfortunately narrowly themed Brute), but it was better for the game than requiring all fighters to superiority dice.

Now, I suppose it *might* have been simple enough to make an option that only used the dice for damage and didn't get maneuvers, but that still would probably not have gotten the job done.