Chaosmancer
Legend
So, I know that the fighter survey is done, and it likely won't matter but I was watching the Treantmonk Fighter video (link below) and... I'm a mix between baffled and frustrated about some of the discussion of the Battle Master design. So, I figured I would get it off my chest. Figure many people will disagree with me, but maybe I can at least get people thinking about this differently.
Why is the Battle Master Popular?
So, I don't want to bury the lead too much, but I think there is a point to discuss first. After all, the Battle Master is undeniably popular, so how can I have problems with the design? It likely hit high marks on the survey. Well, I think part of it is that the Battle Master has momentum on its side. Take a look at the Fighter Subclasses, and when they were released.
2014: Battle Master, Eldritch Knight, Champion.
2015: Purple Dragon Knight
2017: Arcane Archer, Cavalier, Samurai
2020: Rune Knight, Psy Warrior
So, when the Battlemaster was released, it was the undisputed best option. The Champion was clearly last place, and the Eldritch knight was just too clunky to meet the gish fantasy, along with the Gish fantasy not being everyone's cup of tea. Purple Dragon Knight didn't do any favors. Arcane Archer was bad. Cavalier was limited, and Samurai was decent, but niche. So, there wasn't any major competition for the Battle Master for anywhere between three and six YEARS. That is a lot of time for everyone to keep repeating "this is the best fighter" and not notice the flaws. I know myself it wasn't until around 2020 that one of the most egregious parts of the Battle Master registered with me.
So, have we always been wrong about the Battlemaster? No, but I think the lack of quality in Fighter subclasses really obscured the problems in the Battlemaster. And that blind-spot persists.
Basic Structure
Okay, so I have an opinion, and there are two major categories to that opinion. And I'm going to start with the biggest issue that plagues the Battlemaster.
Fighter's recieve Five Subclass abilities. Lv 3, Lv 7, Lv 10, lv 15, and lv 18. And I bet many of you know exactly where I am going with this. What are the Battle master abilities?
Lv 3 --> Battlemaster Maneuvers (Pin this for later), Student of War (+1 Skill, +1 Tool)
Lv 7 --> Know your Enemy (this sucks, I'll explain why later)
Lv 10 --> Die step up
Lv 15 --> Relentless (really, really, really good)
Lv 18 --> Die step up
So... what's up with this? Why in the world are TWO of the Battle Master's subclass abilities a basic +1 to a limited resource? People generally agree that a +1 to damage is not a GOOD ability, maybe acceptable at low levels, but as a capstone?! And look to the bard or the Psi Warrior. Both of these have die resources that recharge and can be used for similar abilities to maneuvers, and both get scaling dice FOR FREE. Why does this cost not one, but TWO subclass abilities? Why is this acceptable to people?
Before I get into that, I also want to touch on Know Your Enemy. There is a serious issue with this ability in my opinion, and that is that the fighter can't benefit from it. Right now the ability is a bonus action, once per day, to learn the damage resistances, Immunities, and Vulnerabilities of a creature. So, here is a question, you are a fighter and you use this ability to determine the creature has resistance to fire and vulnerability to lightning. What do you do with this information?
You tell the wizard.
That's it, that's your best use of this ability, because you don't HAVE variable damage types. Sure, MAYBE you are facing a creature that has some vulnerability to B/P/S but not only are those rare, most of them are sub-CR 5, and you get this at level 7.
Well, what if you have a flametongue sword? Then if you have information that the enemy is resistant to fire you can swap weapons, right? Well... no. That'd be stupid of you.
Normal weapon: 1d8+5
Flame Weapon: 1d8+5+1d6 (effective halfing) is still BETTER
Heck, the Flametongue average is 13. Even if you swapped to a Greatsword you will only average 12. It is still better. So you would need to not only use this ability, but also have TWO magical weapons dealing different damage types and the enemy only resist one of them. Now, sure, it is still very useful for the Battlemaster to help the wizard or the druid be more effective... but that also means that this ability is little more than a ribbon. So, we are very potentially looking at the Battlemaster having only TWO subclass abilities that are generally going to be effective.
But Maneuvers Are Really Good
Well... are they? See, this was another thing I noted in Treantmonk's video. It was actually the thing that really got me chewing on this post. He goes through the manuevers, and he talks about how useful they are. In the playtest doc, there are a total of 20 manuevers. At one point he is talking about how Manuever design is poorly balanced, and he lists a number of manuevers he's never seen people take in fifty different builds. Add in his questioning if Trip is obsolete or not, and how many manuevers do you think are on this list?
Eleven.
Over half of all manuevers are in the "I've never seen them taken" camp or otherwise considered a bad choice. Of the Nine left, how many did he have positive things to say about? Four. Precision attack, Menacing Attack, Goading attack (which is a worse version of menacing), and Bait and Switch.
Now, I know. His word isn't law, everyone has their own opinions, but think about this for a moment. We can easily narrow the Battlemaster's ONLY redeeming feature to THREE OPTIONS. Which is everything they learn at 3rd level. Everything after 3rd level is just going down hill. And you are taking entire subclass abilities to simply get a +1 on these manuevers. So... are we really dealing with the peak of Fighter design here? Is this truly THE best option we can aspire to?
Okay, so what do you wanna do about it?
At the end of the day, honestly? My bare minimum is getting actual subclass abilities for levels 10 and 18. I'll accept the crappy level 7 ability, we don't even need to argue about buffing your favorite manuever that is actually under-rated. End of the day, I will accept not having to tell a player that there capstone is to roll a d12 insteand of a d10 when using their limited resource that they can sue for free if they use a d8.
If I was bold?
I'd rebalance manuevers, I'd move Relentless to level 10, and then add level 15 and level 18 abilities, and I have some suggestions from my homebrew. I gave them an ability that allowed them, once per short rest, to allow their allies to move when they roll initiative. Or to have it so enemies cannot have advantage on attacks against them. We could come up with a dozen different things. But I just want something.
And maybe, maybe get people to start wondering if the Battle Master has design issues we can fix.
Why is the Battle Master Popular?
So, I don't want to bury the lead too much, but I think there is a point to discuss first. After all, the Battle Master is undeniably popular, so how can I have problems with the design? It likely hit high marks on the survey. Well, I think part of it is that the Battle Master has momentum on its side. Take a look at the Fighter Subclasses, and when they were released.
2014: Battle Master, Eldritch Knight, Champion.
2015: Purple Dragon Knight
2017: Arcane Archer, Cavalier, Samurai
2020: Rune Knight, Psy Warrior
So, when the Battlemaster was released, it was the undisputed best option. The Champion was clearly last place, and the Eldritch knight was just too clunky to meet the gish fantasy, along with the Gish fantasy not being everyone's cup of tea. Purple Dragon Knight didn't do any favors. Arcane Archer was bad. Cavalier was limited, and Samurai was decent, but niche. So, there wasn't any major competition for the Battle Master for anywhere between three and six YEARS. That is a lot of time for everyone to keep repeating "this is the best fighter" and not notice the flaws. I know myself it wasn't until around 2020 that one of the most egregious parts of the Battle Master registered with me.
So, have we always been wrong about the Battlemaster? No, but I think the lack of quality in Fighter subclasses really obscured the problems in the Battlemaster. And that blind-spot persists.
Basic Structure
Okay, so I have an opinion, and there are two major categories to that opinion. And I'm going to start with the biggest issue that plagues the Battlemaster.
Fighter's recieve Five Subclass abilities. Lv 3, Lv 7, Lv 10, lv 15, and lv 18. And I bet many of you know exactly where I am going with this. What are the Battle master abilities?
Lv 3 --> Battlemaster Maneuvers (Pin this for later), Student of War (+1 Skill, +1 Tool)
Lv 7 --> Know your Enemy (this sucks, I'll explain why later)
Lv 10 --> Die step up
Lv 15 --> Relentless (really, really, really good)
Lv 18 --> Die step up
So... what's up with this? Why in the world are TWO of the Battle Master's subclass abilities a basic +1 to a limited resource? People generally agree that a +1 to damage is not a GOOD ability, maybe acceptable at low levels, but as a capstone?! And look to the bard or the Psi Warrior. Both of these have die resources that recharge and can be used for similar abilities to maneuvers, and both get scaling dice FOR FREE. Why does this cost not one, but TWO subclass abilities? Why is this acceptable to people?
Before I get into that, I also want to touch on Know Your Enemy. There is a serious issue with this ability in my opinion, and that is that the fighter can't benefit from it. Right now the ability is a bonus action, once per day, to learn the damage resistances, Immunities, and Vulnerabilities of a creature. So, here is a question, you are a fighter and you use this ability to determine the creature has resistance to fire and vulnerability to lightning. What do you do with this information?
You tell the wizard.
That's it, that's your best use of this ability, because you don't HAVE variable damage types. Sure, MAYBE you are facing a creature that has some vulnerability to B/P/S but not only are those rare, most of them are sub-CR 5, and you get this at level 7.
Well, what if you have a flametongue sword? Then if you have information that the enemy is resistant to fire you can swap weapons, right? Well... no. That'd be stupid of you.
Normal weapon: 1d8+5
Flame Weapon: 1d8+5+1d6 (effective halfing) is still BETTER
Heck, the Flametongue average is 13. Even if you swapped to a Greatsword you will only average 12. It is still better. So you would need to not only use this ability, but also have TWO magical weapons dealing different damage types and the enemy only resist one of them. Now, sure, it is still very useful for the Battlemaster to help the wizard or the druid be more effective... but that also means that this ability is little more than a ribbon. So, we are very potentially looking at the Battlemaster having only TWO subclass abilities that are generally going to be effective.
But Maneuvers Are Really Good
Well... are they? See, this was another thing I noted in Treantmonk's video. It was actually the thing that really got me chewing on this post. He goes through the manuevers, and he talks about how useful they are. In the playtest doc, there are a total of 20 manuevers. At one point he is talking about how Manuever design is poorly balanced, and he lists a number of manuevers he's never seen people take in fifty different builds. Add in his questioning if Trip is obsolete or not, and how many manuevers do you think are on this list?
Eleven.
Over half of all manuevers are in the "I've never seen them taken" camp or otherwise considered a bad choice. Of the Nine left, how many did he have positive things to say about? Four. Precision attack, Menacing Attack, Goading attack (which is a worse version of menacing), and Bait and Switch.
Now, I know. His word isn't law, everyone has their own opinions, but think about this for a moment. We can easily narrow the Battlemaster's ONLY redeeming feature to THREE OPTIONS. Which is everything they learn at 3rd level. Everything after 3rd level is just going down hill. And you are taking entire subclass abilities to simply get a +1 on these manuevers. So... are we really dealing with the peak of Fighter design here? Is this truly THE best option we can aspire to?
Okay, so what do you wanna do about it?
At the end of the day, honestly? My bare minimum is getting actual subclass abilities for levels 10 and 18. I'll accept the crappy level 7 ability, we don't even need to argue about buffing your favorite manuever that is actually under-rated. End of the day, I will accept not having to tell a player that there capstone is to roll a d12 insteand of a d10 when using their limited resource that they can sue for free if they use a d8.
If I was bold?
I'd rebalance manuevers, I'd move Relentless to level 10, and then add level 15 and level 18 abilities, and I have some suggestions from my homebrew. I gave them an ability that allowed them, once per short rest, to allow their allies to move when they roll initiative. Or to have it so enemies cannot have advantage on attacks against them. We could come up with a dozen different things. But I just want something.
And maybe, maybe get people to start wondering if the Battle Master has design issues we can fix.
A ranger would be too complicated! Favored terrains, enemies, so many decisions. (Come to think of it, I'm kinda shocked there isn't an all-in archer subclass for ranger.)
