Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7355717" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7355717, member: 7006"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard
Top