D&D (2024) The Battle Master Paradigm

[Tony Vargas]

There are twenty options, and they're not all gold, admittedly. Nevertheless, I feel there's good options (though some I've never seen played, marked untested). I'll rank them as Tier 1 (definitely consider for level 3), tier 2 (maybe take one at level 3, for a quirk or utility option; probably take one at level 7), and tier 3 (probably not consider unless central to character concept).

However you rank them, you're taking your best options at level 3, and they're not exactly overpowered for that level, and then worse options at higher level.

Level 3: 3 maneuvers, 4xd8
Level 7: 5 maneuvers, 5xd8
Level 10: 7 maneuvers, 5xd10
Level 15: 9 maneuvers, 6xd10 plus unlimited d8s (relentless)
Level 18: 9 manuevers, 6xd12 plus unlimited d8s (relentless)

That is steady growth

That's like a wizard who can only ever know 1st level spells, but, hey, you can upcast them!

 

[Undrave]

Why does this cost not one, but TWO subclass abilities? Why is this acceptable to people?

The Capstone should just be ‘At the start of your turn, if you have no superiority dice: gain 1 superiority dice’ (Same thing should apply to the Monk and possibly Bard btw). Not as powerful as having multiple dice but it lets you do stuff all the time.

It’s a CAPSTONE ability, at level 18, now is not the time to get subtle about it! When you reach those levels, you should be designing for COOL and stop worrying about balancing the challenge level and all that. You’re on your way to fight GODS for Pete’s sake! Go nuts! You only get to use it for a few level anyway! If a capstone doesn’t make you giddy at the thought of using it, you’ve failed to design a good capstone.

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.

Biggest flaw from day 1: the choice of maneuvers just get worst as time goes on.

 

[Kobold Stew]

However you rank them, you're taking your best options at level 3, and they're not exactly overpowered for that level, and then worse options at higher level.

That's like a wizard who can only ever know 1st level spells, but, hey, you can upcast them!

We disagree.

In the games I play, we encounter different and increasingly diverse opponents, who require more complex tactics, as we go up in level. Flexibility (having more options) is an advantage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, he's right. The primary problem with a LOT of subclasses is the class feature that is 'pick from a list of things you didn't want the first time or were designed to work at 3rd level and never scales'.

 

[mellored]

We disagree.

In the games I play, we encounter different and increasingly diverse opponents, who require more complex tactics, as we go up in level. Flexibility (having more options) is an advantage.

More options is better than nothing.

But there is diminishing returns.

 

[Kannik]

Unfortunately I got really swamped and missed responding to the last playtest survey, as I wonder and am concerned that with the Rogue's new ability to swap SA dice for an ever increasing pool of tactical options, which they can do every round, that they have become a more interesting, flexible, and tactical fighter than is the Battlemaster. The BM may win out in terms of raw damage, but a limited resource to do neat things prevents those neat things from feeling all that major of a part of the class' identity and flavour.

 

[Undrave]

We disagree.

In the games I play, we encounter different and increasingly diverse opponents, who require more complex tactics, as we go up in level. Flexibility (having more options) is an advantage.

Except the options don’t really offer new tools to overcome those new challenges, because those tools were available at level 1 when you didn’t face those challenges at all. If the maneuvers scaled they would offer new opportunity where picking niche options would be very valuable while your level 3 maneuvers remain your bread and butter. For exemple: Here's a maneuver that really punishes flying enemy. It's not universal enough for level 3 but by the time you reach the 10s it becomes a valuable tool in the right situation.

Unfortunately I got really swamped and missed responding to the last playtest survey, as I wonder and am concerned that with the Rogue's new ability to swap SA dice for an ever increasing pool of tactical options, which they can do every round, that they have become a more interesting, flexible, and tactical fighter than is the Battlemaster. The BM may win out in terms of raw damage, but a limited resource to do neat things prevents those neat things from feeling all that major of a part of the class' identity and flavour.

Oh yeah, that’s an issue that makes it so the Battlemaster is not a Warlord replacement: he’s only a Warlord a few times a day.

I really need to get around to playing a Rogue. Sounds fun!

 

[mellored]

Unfortunately I got really swamped and missed responding to the last playtest survey, as I wonder and am concerned that with the Rogue's new ability to swap SA dice for an ever increasing pool of tactical options, which they can do every round, that they have become a more interesting, flexible, and tactical fighter than is the Battlemaster.

Rogues don't have multiple attacks.

A fighter 11 can prone + push + cleave, for instance. Not including battlemaster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We disagree.

In the games I play, we encounter different and increasingly diverse opponents, who require more complex tactics, as we go up in level. Flexibility (having more options) is an advantage.

I don't believe we do, actually - not about flexibility, anyway. More options is better than fewer, even if some of those options are marginal or situational, or even, arguably, 'bad' - so long as they're not strictly inferior.

For instance, casters having hundreds of spells is far better than BMs having 20 maneuvers.

By the same token, those expanding array of choices becoming far more powerful & versatile as you level, is also a tremendous advantage, that the BM doesn't get.

But, if you just meant to disagree specifically, with "That's like a wizard who can only ever know 1st level spells, but, hey, you can upcast them!" - well, yeah, it's not exactly like that, even 1st level spells cover more of a range than maneuvers. I just meant in a relative sense. Like, the battlemaster needs to better than what it is now, the way the wizard is better than that hypothetical 1st-level-spells-forever wizard.
If you don't agree that hypothetical wizard would be inferior, then, by all means, play a wizard in your next campaign, from 1st to 20th level, without ever learning a spell higher than 1st level, and report back on how it was in no way inferior to the guy casting Wish towards the end of the campaign...

 

[Kobold Stew]

No, he's right. The primary problem with a LOT of subclasses is the class feature that is 'pick from a list of things you didn't want the first time or were designed to work at 3rd level and never scales'.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, e.g., in the case of the Hunter Ranger, where there are only three options, and the ones you don't choose at level 7 are given to you at 11 and 15. That is disappointing. With the Battlemaster, in my exeperience, you're not hurting for choice (cf above)and there are (additionally) extra dice that gradually increase in size.

The OP isolated the die steps, but not the additional maneuvers and the additional dice. My purpose was to identify those (substantial, in my view) omissions. We can disagree on the relative value of these additional vectors.