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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Opinion about a given visualization is a matter of taste. Which visualization you use is a matter of choice.

Whether visualizations are merely cosmetic is itself a matter of taste.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] would probably have something to say at this point about process-sim vs. narrativism.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Flushing is nothing like the princess-with-bodyguard situation being discussed.

(Tangent: Not that bodyguarding works super-well as it is. But consider if the bodyguard is a Knight archetype fighter, and just hit the archer - with, IDK, a rotten egg (all he has to do is hit) - so has him marked. Now the archer has disadvantage to hit the princess, even if he maneuvers the bodyguard away. If all the bodyguard had was Sentinel, moving him would have completely foiled his defense of his charge.)

Whether visualizations are merely cosmetic is itself a matter of taste.

If you're asking 'how do you explain this mechanical resolution?' You've already gotten to it being cosmetic. If you're asking "what should this do in mechanical terms?" Then, it's not cosmetic, it's a question of modeling, most appropriate when designing a mechanic or ruling on how to resolve an action the rules don't cover.

We're discussing the former. Possible rationales for an existing mechanic.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] would probably have something to say at this point about process-sim vs. narrativism.

And I'd have something uncharitable to say about GNS.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Flushing is nothing like the princess-with-bodyguard situation being discussed. Flushing is about making someone else break cover; it's not about making the cover (bodyguard) run away from the individual hiding behind cover (the princess).

Well the Archer probably has Sharpshooter anyway and it doesn't even matter! That princess should learn to take real cover and hide!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well the Archer probably has Sharpshooter anyway and it doesn't even matter! That princess should learn to take real cover and hide!

Princess School is a disgrace. They need standardized testing or something....









(...OK, now I'm missing 'Princess Build' Warlords...)

 

[pemerton]

Whether visualizations are merely cosmetic is itself a matter of taste.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] would probably have something to say at this point about process-sim vs. narrativism.

I'm not sure I really need to get dragged into another argument about mechanics vs fiction, sim vs metagame etc . . .

But I probably want to! (Because I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.)

I've got no problem with melee forced movement vs players, because that's what skilled fencing or martial arts involves.

Once you're getting forced movement via ranged attacks, goading, etc - it's a matter of taste. I like it, because it makes things a bit more dynamic. (And if I want my bodyguard to be unable to be goaded away from the princess, I need to build in fear immunity or resistance to forced movement or some similar defence.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

(And if I want my bodyguard to be unable to be goaded away from the princess, I need to build in fear immunity or resistance to forced movement or some similar defence.)

Or the Princess needs to stop him....


Don't Leave Me! Princess Utility 2
You hang onto your Hero for dear life!
Immediate Interrupt
Trigger: An adjacent ally moves away from you involuntarily.
Effect: You drop prone and both you and the triggering ally are restrained* until the start of his next turn.









*preventing involuntary movement, in case you didn't catch the 4eism.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Once you're getting forced movement via ranged attacks, goading, etc - it's a matter of taste. I like it, because it makes things a bit more dynamic. (And if I want my bodyguard to be unable to be goaded away from the princess, I need to build in fear immunity or resistance to forced movement or some similar defence.)

That's why important to define how the forced movement works. Otherwise there's no way to say when it's appropriate to say, "No, I'm fearless, I can't be moved by threats."

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's why important to define how the forced movement works. Otherwise there's no way to say when it's appropriate to say, "No, I'm fearless, I can't be moved by threats."

There is no forced movement in the sense of a general rule or defined concept, in 5e. How individual instances of it, like Thunderwave, work is presumably based on the text of those instances each taken individually, with DM rulings as needed. FWIW.

 

[pemerton]

That's why important to define how the forced movement works. Otherwise there's no way to say when it's appropriate to say, "No, I'm fearless, I can't be moved by threats."

In 4e this is done via keywords. Just as damage has keywords, so do effects. So in my 4e game (just to pick a random example!) the paladin's epic destiny makes him immune to charm and fear, which means that he does not suffer forced movement from fear attacks. In the fiction, this means that he isn't scared and hence doesn't recoil or run away.

A system like that is not going to give you the most granular carving up of the fictional space imaginable, but it works OK.

An alternative is to go much more into natural language territory for both effects and resistances, but then you need some way to handle circumstances where player and GM differ over their interpretations of the fiction. "The GM is always right" is of course one time-honoured solution, but has its own well-known issues.

EDIT: I just saw [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s post upthread of this one. My restatement of what he has said: 5e uses natural language for both effects and resistances as far as "forced movement" is concerned, and the rule for deciding cases of disagreement is "the GM is always right"!

 

[DaedalusX51]

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?

Thanks for your comments! I have some responses below.

1) That is true and I should probably rework them in order to give the kit more versatility.

2) While it is not clearly stated in the maneuver, the rules for grappling do require you to have a free hand and once you have a creature grappled that hand is no longer considered free.

3) I like this idea. I'll look to making some changes based on it.

4) I think I've cleared the intent and mechanics up on Maneuvering Attack now. Let me know if it's clearer.

5) Sweeping Attack requires that the enemy is within your reach and 5 feet of your target (small target area). In addition, it requires the use of your reaction (No opportunity attacks) and will only deal damage if your original hit would hit the other targets AC as well anyway. I don't think this one is really that imbalanced.

6) I could see that being an option.

7) It only increases your reach for that particular attack. No expanded threat range.