The Warrior: The Champion's love letter to the Battle Master

DaedalusX51

Explorer
[h=1]Warrior v1.75[/h]View here: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJciXPkEl

[h=4]Updates[/h]
  • Rewrote many maneuvers.
  • Removed most additional dice rolling.
  • Added Cavalier and Vanguard kits.
[h=4]Basic Maneuver structure idea[/h]
  • Maneuvers are at feat power-level. With the intention of replacing all of the weapon style feats (GWM, Sharpshooter, PaM) with maneuvers, and allowing you to take Martial Adept multiple times to gain them. (This squarely houses this design into the fighter class as well as allowing any class to pick them up at a feat cost.)
  • Kits contain:
    • One frequently usable maneuver that requires an attack or action use.
    • One bonus action cost maneuver at two-weapon fighting power-level.
    • One reaction cost maneuver at opportunity attack power-level.
Please provide feedback for further testing and development.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I have a couple of nitpicks:

(1) At higher levels, the fact that you can force enemies to make nine or more Wisdom saving throws per turn, or succeed on nine or more grapple checks in addition to your regular attacks, gets a little bit ridiculous. It's better than a Monk using Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike, and it's completely free! It's hard to pretend that this is on the same general power level as the Battlemaster. If you made the bonus effects cost a bonus action, it might still be slightly stronger than the Battlemaster but it would be on the right level, and you'd no longer be better at forcing saves than a monk is.

(2) What is actually, physically happening with a Goading Attack, Feinting Attack, or Maneuvering Attack? What types of creatures would be susceptible to such attacks and which would be immune? I like how the Fighter UA addressed such issues (basing it off condition immunities) and suggest you do the same.

I like the overall approach, but when my powergamer instincts start salivating over the Brawler, I suspect something is off.

BTW I like Parry conceptually but it does have some odd effects, including the fact that it will be almost useless to heavily-armored Fighters because the DC can never be less than your AC. If your AC is 21 and your Dex save is +0, Parry will never save you from a hit. Is that what you want?
 

DaedalusX51

Explorer
All good points. I will have to reconsider some of the action cost I'm sure.

Goading Attack represents you getting in the way of and attracting the attention of the creature you hit.

Maneuvering Attack represents directing the enemy by attacks, movement, and missle fire, or a friendly ally by visual or auditory command, to move to a designated spot. The wisdom save represents whether the enemy is falling for the trick, or that your allies can understand your command mid battle.

Feinting Attack represents using quick reflexes to outwit your opponent. The Wisdom save represents whether the creature was able to guess you're next move correctly.

As for Parry, I didn't revaluate the Dexterity save when I moved it to the Knight kit. I will most likey change it to a Strength save.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

DaedalusX51

Explorer
I have a couple of nitpicks:

(1) At higher levels, the fact that you can force enemies to make nine or more Wisdom saving throws per turn, or succeed on nine or more grapple checks in addition to your regular attacks, gets a little bit ridiculous. It's better than a Monk using Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike, and it's completely free! It's hard to pretend that this is on the same general power level as the Battlemaster. If you made the bonus effects cost a bonus action, it might still be slightly stronger than the Battlemaster but it would be on the right level, and you'd no longer be better at forcing saves than a monk is.

(2) What is actually, physically happening with a Goading Attack, Feinting Attack, or Maneuvering Attack? What types of creatures would be susceptible to such attacks and which would be immune? I like how the Fighter UA addressed such issues (basing it off condition immunities) and suggest you do the same.

I like the overall approach, but when my powergamer instincts start salivating over the Brawler, I suspect something is off.

BTW I like Parry conceptually but it does have some odd effects, including the fact that it will be almost useless to heavily-armored Fighters because the DC can never be less than your AC. If your AC is 21 and your Dex save is +0, Parry will never save you from a hit. Is that what you want?

So I did want to ask, because I may be missing something, but what would be the issue with being able to make that many grapple checks? You need a free hand to grapple an opponent, so at most you could grapple two enemies or grapple and restrain one (since you need to make a successful melee attack to use restraining attack and you are unable to do that without free hands). I do understand that with that many attempts you pretty much ensure that the opponent will be grappled, but this is a good example of how the abilities scale in effectiveness as you level.
 

hejtmane

Explorer
So I did want to ask, because I may be missing something, but what would be the issue with being able to make that many grapple checks? You need a free hand to grapple an opponent, so at most you could grapple two enemies or grapple and restrain one (since you need to make a successful melee attack to use restraining attack and you are unable to do that without free hands). I do understand that with that many attempts you pretty much ensure that the opponent will be grappled, but this is a good example of how the abilities scale in effectiveness as you level.

You can grapple every attack with tavern brawler but it using a bonus action
 

Skyscraper

Explorer
I like the idea behind your approach. Elegant and simple indeed.

I agree with the above comments from @Hemlock.

Here are a few additional details, don't hesitate to correct me if I'm misinterpreting or missing something.

1) The Brawler essentially has a single option at any time. If you are not already grappling, you can grapple (or grab). If you are grappling, you can restrain. The Clinch Fighting is nice little bonus ability, but it is likely to be rarely used. The other kits pretty much offer three useful effects. Of course, being able to grab an opponent is considerable. I'm only discussing player choice here, as opposed to balance.

2) I think that Brawler would benefit from some restrictions. First, having at least one hand free to attempt a grab. Or, do you see allowing the shield-bearing fighter attacking with his sword also attempt a grab? And then, can the Brawler wielding a two-handed weapon make an attack when it is already grabbing someone? I would also restrict the further attack to being made with a one-handed weapon, or unarmed strike (such as a head-butt).

3) In view of the above, I'd consider amending the Brawler to: (a) allow unarmed strikes to be made as a bonus action; OR (b) allow a grab to be made as a bonus action; (a.k.a. player choice!) AND (c) give him some additional efficiency with unarmed strikes; AND (d) restrict grabbing to being doable only if one hand is free, and then further attacks to being doable only with one-handed weapons or unarmed strikes if the warrior is already grabbing someone. So the Brawler would be good punching AND grabbing, and could use his punches or headbutts or kicks while he grabs, essentially allowing a warrior using a two-handed weapon to grab and then put that knee where it hurts before he restrains.

4) The Manoeuvering Attack appears difficult to visualize in some instances, to me. Let's say that the stealthy enemy archer behind his 20 melee allies is firing arrows at your party from 100 feet away, behind his cover. How do you manoeuver to force him to move? I would suggest limiting the manoeuvering attack to enemies that are adjacent or within very short range; and additionally allowing the power to be used on an ally instead, then automatically succeeding. Although, it is then closer to a tactical warlord's powers instead of a scout. Perhaps you could consider switching the Distracting Strike with this Manoeuvering Strike.

5) Sweeping Attack allows damage to be automatically dealt to a second opponen when you hit a first opponent. I'm unsure this is balanced. Having this power, I would most certainly use the low-AC minion next to the high AC Big Bad Evil Guy to attack with Great Weapon Master to deal a maximum of damage to the minion and then apply that damage to the BBEG. This would require the DM to use artificial strategies to avoid this kind of situation.

6) Trip Attack: Knocking a creature prone normally allows the creature to resist by a Strength OR Dexterity saving throw (creature's choice). I would also allow either.

7) Lunging Attack: does it increase your reach? Does it change the threat range for OAs?
 
Last edited:

So I did want to ask, because I may be missing something, but what would be the issue with being able to make that many grapple checks? You need a free hand to grapple an opponent, so at most you could grapple two enemies or grapple and restrain one (since you need to make a successful melee attack to use restraining attack and you are unable to do that without free hands). I do understand that with that many attempts you pretty much ensure that the opponent will be grappled, but this is a good example of how the abilities scale in effectiveness as you level.

Well, for one thing, you could Push an enemy prone and then just attack him a bunch of times at advantage until he's grappled to keep him prone and at disadvantage. Normally there'd be a difficult tradeoff there ("how many attacks do I save for grappling") but with Brawler that tradeoff vanishes and you get to do both with every attack.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
(2) What is actually, physically happening with a Goading Attack, Feinting Attack, or Maneuvering Attack? What types of creatures would be susceptible to such attacks and which would be immune? I like how the Fighter UA addressed such issues (basing it off condition immunities) and suggest you do the same.
What's happening is, generally, choosing your actions to manipulate your opponent's (re)actions. Any opponent that is able to react to your presence could be subject to such things - (opponents who can't react to your presence are essentially defenseless, so there's little need to pull sophisticated maneuvers on them). The kinds of enemies D&D tends to give immunities to fear and charm to - 'mindless' critters like undead, golems or oozes, for instance - would actually be the most vulnerable to such things, since they're that much more predictable, rather like beating a video game, really.
 

What's happening is, generally, choosing your actions to manipulate your opponent's (re)actions. Any opponent that is able to react to your presence could be subject to such things - (opponents who can't react to your presence are essentially defenseless, so there's little need to pull sophisticated maneuvers on them). The kinds of enemies D&D tends to give immunities to fear and charm to - 'mindless' critters like undead, golems or oozes, for instance - would actually be the most vulnerable to such things, since they're that much more predictable, rather like beating a video game, really.

I could live with that rationale, but I'd like the rationale to be explicitly outlined in a sidebar or Designer's Notes or something so that the DM running the game knows how to narrate the effects.

Also, I'm not sure that rationale works for Maneuvering attack. In particular, an NPC using Maneuvering Attack on another PC, especially on a non-abstract map like a battlegrid, seems not-unlikely to draw objections from the player who is being mentally manipulated. The player would probably want to know how he is being manipulated and the consequence if he chooses not to react "properly".
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I could live with that rationale, but I'd like the rationale to be explicitly outlined in a sidebar or Designer's Notes or something so that the DM running the game knows how to narrate the effects.
IDK, leaving it open means we can each come to whatever rationale or visualization works for us. Rather like visualizing hp damage (so a side-bar on that level, maybe?). I was just going for the most expansive one I could think of.

Also, I'm not sure that rationale works for Maneuvering attack. In particular, an NPC using Maneuvering Attack on another PC, especially on a non-abstract map like a battlegrid, seems not-unlikely to draw objections from the player who is being mentally manipulated.
IMX, involuntary movement hasn't raise a lot of objections, even in 4e (which had a lot of it), where positioning was more important than in 5e.

And, it's not being directly mentally manipulated - no telepathy or magic nor even verbal communication is involved. It could be something as simple as a big, obvious attack that's easily avoided by stepping to that side. You could have stood there, but you'd've gotten pasted. Also, while we can think things through and weigh options, acting and reacting in HTH is presumably more a matter of instinct & training than deliberation.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top