D&D 5E The Fighter Battlemaster Maneuvers

[Blue]

I'm not sure this solves the issue, adn might have the opposite of what you want. It sounds like there are two cases to what you are suggesting:

Case 1: The BM will still be able to get "enough" of the good maneuvers that they will use them and just ignore the sub-optimal ones. This will likely happen as they level up. In this case, there is no play change over current.

Case 2: The BM will only have one or two "go to maneuvers" and some others. This would more likely happen early on. I can see a lot of players going for the most generally applicable good maneuvers first so that they can use them a lot. This will end up tightening the picks of the used maneuvers even more than now, so there will be even less variety.

Now, this is positing "generically" more and less useful maneuvers like would be needed to rank them. That isn't always true - a GWM BW may get more utility from Precision then a two weapon fighter. But that's somewhat immaterial.

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.

 

[DaviMMS]

Now if only you could objectively determine which are which...

If you really think that is impossible to rate the maneuvers I have nothing to discuss.
If X is better than Y 90% of the time, X is a better option than Y, that is my believe and it applies to this thread on my view on maneuvers.

I do like how you say all these things like they are facts, at least. I'll give you that. Your commitment to your opinions, and your confidence, aren't nothing.

Of course I am presenting opinions.

Were did I say that those are facts?

I am presenting arguments based on my opinion, fell free to disagree with them as much as you like.

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think another huge immeasurable is party composition.

I could see lunging attack being useful. If you are in a group that has a couple tank-style warrior types in front of you who like to plug up, or bottleneck, choke points. With you behind them getting a few stabs in when it really counts. It may also come up as useful combined with a reach weapon, or even the polearm master feat, once and awhile.

I think every single maneuver in the PHB can be seen to have substantive value, given a combination of the playstyle of the table and party composition. Without exception.

Yep, without exception, every maneuver can be seen as optimal in a certain situation. The problem is though... how often will those situations arise? And if a situation arises less frequently, does it gain more on its use to compensate?

If certain maneuvers can be used almost all the time, regardless of party composition, regardless of playstyle, then they have greater value overall to most tables and games. Since you only get to take a couple of them, a player will tend to take the ones they can use more often, so that they aren't "wasting" a slot on one that might come up eventually, but not nearly often enough to feel as though spending one of the precious slots is a good idea. Especially if what you get out of the most specialized maneuver isn't anything appreciably better than what you can get elsewhere.

It's the same issue that Sorcerers go through with Metamagic. Careful Spell or Extended Spell can see exceptional use in the right situation, but if that situation only arises every eighth session (arbitrary number selected) due to playstyle, story and party composition... is it worth spending one of your two choices on? Especially if it's decided that "exceptional" use in that right situation doesn't actually gain you enough of a bonus? Because if it doesn't, a player will usually end up taking a choice that can/will be used most sessions.

Now there are definitely ways to work around these potential hazards. Spending "extra" superiority dice or sorcery points to use maneuvers/metamagics that aren't on your known list is one way to do that. A PC knows a set of maneuvers/metamagics of their choice for their normal cost, but all the others in the table are also available for a higher cost. So a player could then decide that perhaps Subtle Spell is not one that will come up enough to be worth one of their known metamagics, but they could still use it by paying a bit extra in that one or two times when it ends up being VERY useful. Same is true for the maneuvers. Or... the other option is to just either up the power of less-often-used maneuvers/metamagics, or widen their usage so they can be used in more situations. Both of which can make them more likely to be seen as useful enough to warrant spending a precious slot on them.

How any table feels as though these balances might or might not be necessary and what is the best way to balance them, is up to them. But to suggest that no balance is necessary AT ALL is just as much of an "opinion not fact" as the supposition that a balance was necessary.

 

[Cyrinishad]

The problem is that almost every single optimized melee build has both hands occupied.

If you use one handed + shield, you need to drop your weapon to pick your enemies weapon.

If you use twf you need to drop your weapon too.

If you're GWF or Archery you can pick it, but then you also can't use your weapon.

Only some casters and monks usually don't use their 2 hands while fighting.

But lets say you coordenate with your ally and pick the weapon. (needs someone to be close and between you and the enemy in the turn order)

Disarming only applies if your enemies use weapons. That means humanoids and some large and huge brutes.

Large brutes generally have High Str scores to not be easily disarmed.

Humanoids have no excuse to not carry side weapons, even if just a dagger or two. It will probably make them less effective, but does not make it useless.

That said, I probably was to harsh putting it besides sweepping and lunging, but it has some really big problems from my point of view

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

Disarming Strike is situational, but it is very, very good... Because it forces creatures to drop an object (not just a weapon). You get to Interact with an Object as part of movement (and your movement can be used both before & after your action), so you should be able move & attack & loot whatever "Item" they were carrying all in the same turn... And definitely don't underestimate the use of Mage Hand as a Readied Action to loot at distance.

Obviously, TWF and Sword/Board characters should be using other manuevers, but it is definitely effective for GWF and Archery characters, and Fighters that understand the value of teamwork.

 

[Corwin]

If you really think that is impossible to rate the maneuvers I have nothing to discuss.
If X is better than Y 90% of the time, X is a better option than Y, that is my believe and it applies to this thread on my view on maneuvers.

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?

At least you put a qualifier on another of your personal faves, Commander's. I'll credit you with that foresight. Because it could be a total waste if you happen to be in a party with: a paladin, bard, druid, and life cleric. All of which can heal better, and more often, than what you can realistically provide with your little maneuver.

Of course I am presenting opinions.

Coulda fooled me in your third post in this thread, for starters.

Were did I say that those are facts?

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>

 

[Corwin]

Since you only get to take a couple of them, a player will tend to take the ones they can use more often, so that they aren't "wasting" a slot on one that might come up eventually, but not nearly often enough to feel as though spending one of the precious slots is a good idea.

I'm sure there are plenty of players like that. Players abound who hand-wring over their spreadsheets to make sure they have the "best" whatevers. Me? I take maneuvers that make sense and enhance the feel and type of character I want to portray. And regardless of which maneuvers those happen to be, I would make efforts during play to bring them into the spotlight and make them useful. After all, I took them for a reason, right? I don't see any combination that would negatively impact a BM's chances of making it through the average adventuring day in any measurable way.

Especially if what you get out of the most specialized maneuver isn't anything appreciably better than what you can get elsewhere.

I'd need some kind of example to figure out what you mean here.

 

[CapnZapp]

And we would not even need that many subclasses. One focusing on one or couple of Fighting Styles would already be enough.

Slayer = GWM
Knight = Protection and Dueling
Archer = Archery
Duelist = 1 one handed weapon (no shield) and TWF.

Leave defense as a generic FS for anyone. That would already cover the basics pretty well without subclass bloat.

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

 

[Blue]

Disarming (The problem with it is not the maneuver, but the enemy being able to just pick his weapon on the ground with no penalty it it hits. It should make the weapon fly a few feet away, maybe superiority dice x 2 feet, odd numbers make weapon fly to the right, and even numbers make it fly to the left.)

You can interact with an item for free on your turn (PHB 190). If you have a free hand, pick it up. If you don't, kick it away. You suggestion is already handled by the existing rules by the general case, and it also give you the option what to do (pick it up, which way to kick it).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd need some kind of example to figure out what you mean here.

For example, Lunging Attack gives you an extra 5' reach on your melee weapon attack. The boon of this maneuver is you can now reach a target that you otherwise couldn't get to (because perhaps you are in a corridor behind a pair of your allies and thus can't get adjacent to the target.)

Now, had it been impossible to attack that target except with this maneuver, then we could say this maneuver had great value (because it'd be turning a 0-damage non-attack into a potential damaging attack.) However, if that fighter can't reach the target with his melee weapon, he can still pull out a javelin and attack the target at range. Yes, there will be slight negatives to doing that (target gets a +2 bonus to AC due to cover, the weapon damage is probably less than what the melee weapon would give etc.), but it's still an attack you get to make. One that you still can potentially add one of your other maneuvers to.

So the question is... is the gain from getting to use your melee weapon on this target because of the Lunging Attack maneuver you decide to take, more than enough to offset the much smaller amount of times you actually would find the need to use it? Or does just using a ranged attack (plus potentially another one of your maneuvers) make the Lunging Attack relatively unnecessary for how you fight? That I can't answer, it comes down to individuals as you suggested... but indeed most those individuals will probably make a "spreadsheet" analysis of its usefulness even if it's just casually. We can't help ourselves.

I mean, we might SAY "I'm going to make my character a knife-fighter" (even though daggers are the lowest-damage weapons out there)... but I'm pretty sure that even if we do, we're going to end up dual-wielding them, and will probably make ourselves a Rogue to boot. And then we'll justify it to ourselves why this character concept we came up with now fights with daggers in both hands, and is actually a Rogue, not a Fighter.

And it's by that same token why we would look at the gains from having Lunging Attack as an option versus what our potential would be without it, and determine whether or not we would bother taking (or using) Lunging Attack. And in truth, there's nothing wrong with making that determination, or determining that Lunging Attack isn't worth taking over another option.

And then at that point, we can ask ourselves... what gains would Lunging Attack need to have to change our determination? And how easy would it be to make that change? And there's nothing wrong with asking ourselves that either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Well, I added 'Inspire' to my Maneuvers list above, so a Fighter in my potential system who has that, Direct (Commander's Strike), Maneuver (-ing Strike) and Rally, can get even closer to creating the mythical 'class that which shall not be named.'