D&D 5E The Fighter Battlemaster Maneuvers

[cmad1977]

Nope


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you know of any good effort to stratify or tier these manuevers.

So that any given Battlemaster needs to pick some of the less good manuevers and not just the best ones over and over?

I don't know of any. The maneuvers are not designed with any sort of level-gating or stratification in mind, so they don't lend themselves to it at all well. The better maneuvers tend to be better, situationally, for instance, rather than strictly. They're all designed to be reasonably acceptable for a third level PC to have, along-side martial ability that the BM shares with the EK, who gets 1st level spells at the same time.

So taking the 'better' ones and pushing them out would be like making Sleep a higher level spell, if there weren't already higher level spells, rather than introducing Fireball.

Adding a level requirement might be the first solution that comes to mind, but that has the drawback that every low-level Battlemaster has now been nerfed, and that every high-level one will still pick the best ones.

Probably would require more maneuvers, better maneuvers, and further refining the system, so that 'higher level' maneuvers are less available in play, as well as their acquisition delayed.

Making them depend on each other is probably a better solution.

Pre-requisite 'trees' like feats in 3e? It was a nice idea but it led to frustratingly late-blooming 'builds.' I suppose if we want the BM to be a 3.5-style-supporting system-mastery-required class - but then, might as go all the way and have a bonus-feat-heavy sub-class.

Or, we assign a cost to every Maneuver, and say you have a number of points equal to your level to spend, say.

They already have a CS die cost. If you put them into only a few strata, by Tier or roughly corresponding to the spell levels the EK gets, you might have some cost more CS dice, or, instead of getting bigger CS dice as he levels, the BM could get /more/ and bigger dice, while retaining the smaller dice - the more powerful maneuvers only work with the bigger dice, the lesser ones can use any die.

The designers themselves have conceded it makes it very hard to create new Fighter subclasses when the Battlemaster can just pick the best maneuvers every time. I guess I have given up hope they'll ever act on this and issue official errata preventing this.

So far they've completely avoided the issue by never publishing another maneuver. It seems like an odd thing to get hung up on. Casters share most spells across class boundaries, why would different fighter sub-classes sharing most maneuvers be an issue?

You forgot at least one Can't mention it because it will then require not only a subclass, but an entire sub-forum

The Warlord (and if we can't even mention it for fear of overwhelming h4ter bigotry destroying the thread, the forum doesn't deserve to exist, anyway), would never fit into the fighter chassis as a sub-class, anyway.

Maybe, if Extra Attack, Action Surge & Second Wind were exclusive to the Champion, and similar functionality were instead bundled into various maneuvers, the BM would have enough design space for a good selection of level-gated/progressive-cost maneuvers - and maybe that'd even open up enough design space for some Warlord-like sub-classes. But, IMHO, highly-optional full-class is the only way to introduce a Warlord at this late date.

I think a better solution would be to make all of the choices compelling. If there are some that are never picked, give them a boost. (Great place for an ENWorld poll.) Though right now I see most fighter-melee builds that are GWM or Polearm Mastery focused, so that might already be pulling towards making some more common.

More & better maneuvers could maybe open up more viable builds?

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's really nothing we can do about the Fighter/Battlemaster/Champion officially now... the game is out and the BM keeps the Maneuver system open wide. So attempts to make Fighter subclasses that keep Manuevers partially closed (by picking and choosing specific maneuvers based upon the subclass's theme) invariably are going to be looked upon as weaker than the BM that can choose any and all. You would have to add additional subclass features on top of the specially-selected maneuvers to make up for the loss of maneuver selection, and they would have to be better enough that a Fighter player would be okay giving the straight BM's option up. Thus far, the ones they've given us in UA (the Cavalier, the Scout, the Monster Hunter etc.) I don't believe have accomplished that.

At this point, really the only way to "fix" the issue (assuming it's an issue you feel needs fixing) is to create more of these specialized subclasses like the Cavalier and Scout, and then completely remove the Battlemaster as an option after that. This way, every Fighter subclass that uses maneuvers has a small selection that is theirs, and the person designing them can make sure the four(?) maneuvers they get are balanced against the other subclasses they make. And no one subclass will get all the "good ones" (whatever the designer feels those good ones to be.)

That's mainly what I'm trying to put together for my potential next campaign, and I'm curious to see if I can pull it off.

 

[DaviMMS]

So how useful is one of your faves, Riposte, to an archer? How often is another of your faves, Menacing, useful in an adventure where you regularly face creatures with immunity to fear?

An option does not needs to be good for every single build to be good. Sharpshooter does not applies to melee builds, but is an option that people often complain as overpowered in these forums.

And anything can be made useless depending on the campaign.

Fireball is useless on a demon or devil themed campaign.

Hypnotic Pattern is useless when enemies are immune to charm.

Having situations were it is useless applies to any ability of the game.

What you need to see how often you really expect those situations on your game.

A major difference we can easily see between these two maneuvers (Menacing and Lunging) is that, the 1st is useful unless certain specific conditions (not very common ones IMX) happen, while the other is only useful in certain specific conditions happen (Not very common ones IMX), and has questionable uses outside those situations.

Both use the same resources and one is widely applicable while the other is extremely specific.

Of course a DM can make that needind +5 extra reach is more often important, but in that situation we would probably see more people tanking ranged weapons or polearms instead of taking the lunging maneuver.

Your unequivocations were glaring enough for me to feel like pointing them out. So maybe don't sound so adamant, and authoritative, when talking about subjective topics? Just a suggestion... <shrug>

So the problem is that you think I am being too assertive with my comments?

I think that it has more to do with the tone you're giving my text on your mind than what I actually wrote and my intention was never to sound "...adamant and authoritative..."




Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[Leatherhead]

I've been halfway tempted to just let the Battlemaster learn all of their maneuvers at level 3.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been halfway tempted to just let the Battlemaster learn all of their maneuvers at level 3.

Hmm. I'd toyed with the idea of re-training maneuvers during downtime.

The obvious downside of BMs just learning all maneuvers wouldn't be so much one of making the BM OP, as moving towards making all BMs 'the same.' (Though, really, all Champions are already 'the same' to that same degree...)

There's really nothing we can do about the Fighter/Battlemaster/Champion officially now... the game is out and the BM keeps the Maneuver system open wide. So attempts to make Fighter subclasses that keep Manuevers partially closed (by picking and choosing specific maneuvers based upon the subclass's theme) invariably are going to be looked upon as weaker than the BM that can choose any and all.

What would be wrong with letting all sub-classes (with CS dice) learn any maneuver? The BM could choose any, other classes could have some defined and some they choose, or have a particular advantage with certain maneuvers. Or, on the other extreme, why couldn't new sub-classes introduce new maneuvers, some of which remain unique to their maneuver list, which, in turn, does not include all BM maneuvers?

 

[Jester David]

There's really nothing we can do about the Fighter/Battlemaster/Champion officially now... the game is out and the BM keeps the Maneuver system open wide.

Agreed. It's a largely pointless discussion unless you have access to a time machine or are writing a replacement fighter.

And, really, if writing a variant fighter, I don't think I'd stop at just rearranging the battle master maneuvers. There's so much else I'd do...

 

[Corwin]

An option does not needs to be good for every single build to be good. Sharpshooter does not applies to melee builds, but is an option that people often complain as overpowered in these forums.

And anything can be made useless depending on the campaign.

Fireball is useless on a demon or devil themed campaign.

Hypnotic Pattern is useless when enemies are immune to charm.

Having situations were it is useless applies to any ability of the game.

What you need to see how often you really expect those situations on your game.

Now you're getting it.

A major difference we can easily see between these two maneuvers (Menacing and Lunging) is that, the 1st is useful unless certain specific conditions (not very common ones IMX) happen, while the other is only useful in certain specific conditions happen (Not very common ones IMX), and has questionable uses outside those situations.

You should build a spreadsheet to factor in all the possible variables. Then you could tout your newly confirmed "proof".

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you play with a battlemat and 5' squares/hexes. Are you telling me you haven't encountered instances where your 30' (example) of movement brought you within 10' of your opponent, and if only you had 5' more you could tear them a new one with your GWF fighter? I know I have. Heck, our DM will sometimes move the monsters within 40' of the fighter to benefit from this very mechanical benefit. Forcing the fighter to either switch to a vastly inferior ranged option (one javelin vs. multiple feat-enhanced swings), or taking the dash action to get into melee range for next round. I'm sure such things are completely foreign to you. So I completely understand your issue.

Both use the same resources and one is widely applicable while the other is extremely specific.

I love that, nowhere in your analysis, do we even broach the notion that a maneuver like menacing might not fit a plethora of character concepts. In some cases anathema to a character's particular personality. But then, certain playstyles don't bother with such inconsequential minutia, amIright? Take the thing the spreadsheet tells you to take and be happy knowing you are winning D&D.

Of course a DM can make that needind +5 extra reach is more often important, but in that situation we would probably see more people tanking ranged weapons or polearms instead of taking the lunging maneuver.

That's weird. I was almost positive I had already given at least one quick party composition idea where lunging could be put to decent use. I realize it was a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example. But I was sure it was there somewhere.

So the problem is that you think I am being too assertive with my comments?

I think that it has more to do with the tone you're giving my text on your mind than what I actually wrote and my intention was never to sound "...adamant and authoritative..."

I humbly recommend you take a moment to go back and re-read what your post actually said. Rather than what you think you wrote. Let me know your thoughts on how your thoughts were presented. Let me know if they come across as opinions, or instead as sweeping facts that everyone should just accept as gospel. Its cool if you'd rather not. I get it. Are we done here?