Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

[evildmguy]

Having thought about this more, here are more thoughts.

The other suggestion was more complicated but it involved needing to do more damage in a series of attacks greater than the target's CON score before they need to save v stun. It might mean that they get to one attack before a save due to a lot of damage but will take more effort.

More thoughts and options.

What if after they are stunned by Stunning Assault once they are immune to it for ten minutes? It's still effective once per combatant per fight.

Equally, what if subsequent attacks with SA first give Advantage on the CON save on second or subsequent attempts? It's not guaranteed but could help.

My thinking with these is that they do some special hit as part of the attack that causes the stun and the defender, having seen or experienced it, can defend against it.

Not reading back through this to know if we discussed this, don't forget that with Mastery, what seems a reasonable cost at 3 can be reduced to at least 2, if not 1. I don't remember for sure. As the fighter gets exertion points back after short or long rest, this is going to come up every combat.

I'm not sure if we discussed this but if the move action was done once the character did another action, this also stops SA except for a group of enemies standing together. In other words, they must complete an action before doing the next one. If desired, could bring back the feat, or maybe a maneuver allowing a character to move between actions.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Anonymous3]

Having thought about this more, here are more thoughts.

The other suggestion was more complicated but it involved needing to do more damage in a series of attacks greater than the target's CON score before they need to save v stun. It might mean that they get to one attack before a save due to a lot of damage but will take more effort.

More thoughts and options.

What if after they are stunned by Stunning Assault once they are immune to it for ten minutes? It's still effective once per combatant per fight.

Equally, what if subsequent attacks with SA first give Advantage on the CON save on second or subsequent attempts? It's not guaranteed but could help.

My thinking with these is that they do some special hit as part of the attack that causes the stun and the defender, having seen or experienced it, can defend against it.

Not reading back through this to know if we discussed this, don't forget that with Mastery, what seems a reasonable cost at 3 can be reduced to at least 2, if not 1. I don't remember for sure. As the fighter gets exertion points back after short or long rest, this is going to come up every combat.

I'm not sure if we discussed this but if the move action was done once the character did another action, this also stops SA except for a group of enemies standing together. In other words, they must complete an action before doing the next one. If desired, could bring back the feat, or maybe a maneuver allowing a character to move between actions.

Thanks for the discussion!

If you are considering options around minimum damage ranges perhaps you could consider minimum max health as a prerequisite to apply SA. Eg, only bloodied creatures are now vulnerable to SA.

This gives some time before SA is effective and your monsters and others players benefit.

 

[Anonymous3]

I think Adepts with stunning assault may even be worse. At lvl 12 with Unlikely Wield and Addtional Attack they make 6 attacks each turn via two-weapon fighting. They gain additional exertion from their class as well as +1 to maneuver DC's. Adepts don't get the Tempered Iron tradition at level 2, but can get it via the Warrior Monk archetype (which replenishes Exertion on crits as well) or with a dip in Fighter. If you really want to go all out stunning machine, 3 levels of Figher nets you the Technical Fighting Fighting Style and Maneuver Specialization (though Two-Weapon Fighting Style deals more damage), for another +2 to maneuver DC, as well as +4 damage for each attack made with Stunning Assault (though I would say only during the action part of it, so 3 attacks at best, though a case can be made to extend this to all attacks you make until the start of your next turn), and reducing the Exertion cost of Stunning Assault to 2.

Case report: Garoul Lvl 12 Adept Warrior Monk | Lvl 3 Fighter (any)
15 Exertion points (5 from Adept, 10 from PB)
3 Attacks per action, 3 attacks as a bonus action
Garoul natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes with dual wielding and finesse properties. Due to Adept these deal 1d8 damage. We have +2 to attack and damage rolls with these due to paragon gift.
As our action, we use Stunning Assault and attack 3 times at +12 to hit, for 1d8+11 damage, stunning on a DC21 (!) con save.
Then we use a bonus action to attack twice with our "other" unarmed strike, and once with a third dual-wielding weapon we wield (not sure if DM lets you make another unarmed strike here, I will assume a dagger wielded between our toes, as per the feat's suggestion) for another 2 attacks at +12 to hit, for 1d8+2 damage, and a third attack with said dagger at +10 for 1d8 damage. Each of these also stun on a DC21 con save. All this does not take magical weapons into account, although our unarmed strikes count as such due to Garoul Paragon gift.

Were we to crit with any of our unarmed strikes, we regain 2 exertion from Warrior Monk, but even without it we should be able to Stunning Assault for 7 continuous rounds without resting. Toss in the Death destiny fullfillment gift, and enemies will be making those con saves with disadvantage.

I have yet to see it in play, but I am slowly getting convinced this may be a problem... Even though casters get their 8th level magic at this point as well, and their spells are getting to ridiculous levels too.

Specifically addressing this:

Technical Fighting Fighting Style and Maneuver Specialization (though Two-Weapon Fighting Style deals more damage)

I ran numbers on this and Two Weapon Fighting [fighting style] did a lot less than I had anticipated compared to Technical Fighter [fighting style].
Assumptions: 20 Strength; Longsword and dagger held; Average damage; 100% hit rate; 0% crit.

TWF - Technical fighter	Maneuver	Exertion	Attacks	Avg damage
Action	Extra attacks	0	2	13
Bonus	Bonus attacks	0	2	9
Reaction		0	0	0
Totals		0	4	22

TWF - Two weap.fight	Maneuver	Exertion	Attacks	Avg damage
Action	Extra attacks	0	2	9
Bonus	Bonus attacks	0	2	15
Reaction		0	0	0
Totals		0	4	24

Furthermore, this is with a Strength mod of +5. At anything below that, then Technical Fighter outperforms TWF fighting style given that the latter provides a DC boost as well.

Am I missing something?

 

[thuter]

Are you adding the bonus damage from Technical Fighter to the bonus action attacks? Because I am not entirely convinced that is appropriate because those attacks are not technically part of the maneuver action... Though you could argue that the attacks still make use of the maneuver. But that would change expected dps a bit.

 

[Anonymous3]

Are you adding the bonus damage from Technical Fighter to the bonus action attacks? Because I am not entirely convinced that is appropriate because those attacks are not technically part of the maneuver action... Though you could argue that the attacks still make use of the maneuver. But that would change expected dps a bit.

To your question: Yes.

You are right. In my examples a maneuver is not specified.
However, in typical play an "action" maneuver would typically be used for TWF (any of the Assault maneuvers) and they apply to all attacks made including reaction attacks.

Wouldn't Technical Fighter damage apply to all these attacks?

 

[thuter]

Wouldn't Technical Fighter damage apply to all these attacks?

Well, that is what I don't know The relevant meneuvers state something like:

When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack.

And the Fighting Style states:

Whenever you use a combat maneuver any damage dealt by attacks using it deal an additional 2 damage, and your maneuver DC increases by 1.

So, I don't know. Would they? Arguments for either case can be made and I don't know what was intended by the authors. From a balance perspective, letting all attacks during a maneuver benefit from it massively overshadows Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting and Thrown Weapon Fighting in my opinion, as you can be expected to use combat maneuvers every turn, especially later in your career, and the best ones usually give benefits on all attacks until the start of your next turn. Given that you get the most bang for your buck when using maneuver specialization on assault maneuvers, there feels little reason to ever take a different fighting style, unless you play a ranged character perhaps.

 

[Anonymous3]

Thanks @thuter !

It seems clear me but I am not the best at rules interpretation. I don't mind that TWF gets a bit of love - extra attack using your bonus action (BA) is great but you are really starved of doing anything other than using attacking with your BA if you want to be comparable with your piers. Trying to understand how TWF works in comparable numbers to Two-handed Weapons (THW) has been quite a task for me.

@Stalker0 posted this in which it was indicated that all attacks would benefit from Maneuver Specialization and uses THW in his example.

Maneuver specialization (MS) states:

Any attack you make as part of a mastered maneuver (including triggering attacks) deals 2 additional damage.

Technical fighting (TF) states:

Whenever you use a combat maneuver any damage dealt by attacks using it deal an additional 2 damage, and your maneuver DC increases by 1.

They both reference multiple attacks when "using it" (a combat maneuver). Given that Fighters are the only class that get this fighting style is really neat because it means that are the "king" of maneuvers from both the DC and damage perspective.

If you used Stunning Assault and attacked four times and hit four times that DC benefit from both MS and TF would apply (based on previous discussions on this). It seems consistent then that the damage would too.

Is there anyone in the community is considered an "authority" on things like this?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

They both reference multiple attacks when "using it" (a combat maneuver). Given that Fighters are the only class that get this fighting style is really neat because it means that are the "king" of maneuvers from both the DC and damage perspective.

If you used Stunning Assault and attacked four times and hit four times that DC benefit from both MS and TF would apply (based on previous discussions on this). It seems consistent then that the damage would too.

that all sounds about right to me. though your comment about the fighting style making fighters the "king of maneuvers" kind of makes me wish it was just baked into the class as a mandatory feature ala reserves instead of being a fighting style. i guess it sort of is via maneuver specialization (since that's basically the same thing but with a decreased exertion cost on top), but that only applies to a few maneuvers until level 20, and like you said, they can stack. maybe that'd be busted, though...

Is there anyone in the community is considered an "authority" on things like this?

uh...right here. hmhm. hm (i'm kidding, obviously, you'd probably want to ask morrus for a definitive answer).

 

[Anonymous3]

Thank you.
I hope me asking for an "authority" didn't undermine the contributions to my questions so far. All your input is valuable.
If this is contested at a table I just go with a what the DM decides is best for the game. If they decide to look into further I know they will want an "authority" to help with their decision.

 

[thuter]

that all sounds about right to me. though your comment about the fighting style making fighters the "king of maneuvers" kind of makes me wish it was just baked into the class as a mandatory feature ala reserves instead of being a fighting style. i guess it sort of is via maneuver specialization (since that's basically the same thing but with a decreased exertion cost on top), but that only applies to a few maneuvers until level 20, and like you said, they can stack. maybe that'd be busted, though...

The main problem I have with the Fighter design is that while most of the maneuvers are situationally awesome, some are just strong in any situation. These are the meneuvers Fighters will select for their maneuver specialization, and because of the added value of the specialization, the Fighter will likely end up using that maneuver all the time. So while combat maneuvers were added to give martials more versatility and to have their turn be slightly more engaging than just making an attack roll (twice), making Fighters the "best maneuver users" in this way ultimately results in the same thing: Fighters making an attack roll (twice) but with more damage and a saving throw against stunned. If you can add +4 to damage +2 to DC and reduce cost from 3 to 2 to dish out multiple saves vs stunned (arguably the strongest status after Dead, Unconscious, Dominated and Paralyzed) It's hard to even consider using your action for anything else at that point.