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

[W'rkncacnter]

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.

this is a certified stunning assault moment

 

[lichmaster]

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.

Yes, it's kinda sad when all the interesting options get overshadowed by one combination that's clearly the best.

 

[Anonymous3]

Agreed.

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.

I still think that CMs provide much needed versatility beyond swinging a sword. There are very good defensive and utility CMS that can very impactful. These could have more strength depending on the type of game/DM you are playing with. If a CM is "just strong in any situation" then I think it is a problem. However, I think the problem exists within the "kill the monster to win the encounter" paradigm.

I think this is more of encounter design issue. If players are overwhelmingly strong at killing enemies then perhaps the encounter needs other elements that cannot be solved with damage. Most games I've played have been "stick it-to hit" games where damage is the overwhelming factor in determining success and was achieved by simple standing and banging. However, the most fun I have had was when "the environment was the encounter" where movement and ability checks were key to overcoming the encounter rather than simply standing still and dishing out damage.

 

[thuter]

Don't get me wrong, I really like the CM system. It's just a problem of rewarding Fighters for sticking to a very narrow action pool, instead of rewarding them for embracing their enormous versatility. This leads to Fighters very rarely picking niche options for their specialization/combat maneuvers/fighting style because their selections are very limited, instead they will pick and boost the stuff that is useful most of the time, or just the strongest in general. They get access to any and all CM's in the game, can use all weapons to great effect, etc. So why make them select numerical bonuses for a very specific subset of them?

For example (and this is not specifically a problem of A5E): Take the Dueling Fighting Style. Once selected, no one will switch to a two-handed weapon ever again, because why would you when you gain negligible damage but lose the ability to wield a shield? Would it not make more sense to have a Fighter select two or three fighting styles, which they can switch between as a stance, so they can use the stance that is useful for the specific challenge they are facing? You could even let them pick more of these stances as they gain levels, as well as/or improve stances at certain levels to make them even more distinct. You could even tie stances to bonuses for using a certain Combat Tradition, or that are thematic to them, to completely seal in the interaction between CM's and Fighters, as well as the flavour aspect of the traditions, which at least in my campaigns get overlooked entirely. Sure, the Fighter will probably still have a "default" stance, but it will also be able to - if the need arises - use thrown weapons to great effect, or switch to the stance that boosts Tempered Iron in that one case where you come across a group of evil sorcerers.

Now, all this would require a complete Fighter rework so it is probably out of the picture, but a man can dream

 

[Anonymous3]

I like this thinking. The system is young and will likely improve with these types of suggestions. Fighters getting more fighting styles might be a good ASI or feat option or just including them into the fighter level progression specifically as a homebrew rule. I support utility improvements over niche builds.

Damn, if fighters got all traditions and CMs it would be amazing. Then you have to prepare (focus your body and mind) for what you want to do the next. Similar to wizard spells. But.. then people would complain that fighters are just combat wizards ... and too strong.

The benefit of Dueling does seem underwhelming for a straight fighter. For multiclass warlock and wizards I think it is a good option. It's difficult to make these styles equal but with Dueling I think a way to improve parity would be to give it the Parrying property. This fits my idea of what a Duelist does without too much of a power increase.

 

[Anonymous3]

In trying to find CMs that are for utility or movement I came across this gem:
Blinding Diversion: Basic maneuver; no exertion; Bonus action:

You hamper your enemy’s vision by throwing dirt in their face, poking at their eyes, or utilizing some similar tactic. The target makes a Dexterity saving throw against your maneuver DC. On a failure, they are blinded until the beginning of their next turn. You must have one free hand to attempt this dueling maneuver.

Amazing use of a bonus action.

 

[thuter]

Yes, but...

Context-specific maneuvers, considered to be basic maneuvers, but only available during duels.

...makes me believe that the Dueling Maneuvers are not meant for general combat

 

[Anonymous3]

Yes, but...



...makes me believe that the Dueling Maneuvers are not meant for general combat

I knew it was too good to be true. Please help. Where are "Dueling Maneuvers"?

 

[thuter]

Added in one of the GPG's, but the site links are somewhat wonky: Dueling Maneuvers | Level Up and Gate Pass Gazette | Level Up for reference

 

[Anonymous3]

Thank you. GPG is where I originally quoted from.

Is a "Duel" a specific event specified somewhere?