D&D 5E Thoughts on Improving Martials

[Vaalingrade]

Pathfinder's CMB and CMD work well as 'Martial Saving Throws'.

My system gives martials Techniques, abilities that they can spend a resource on to make Combat Maneuvers easier/more effective. So 'Bring Them Down' lets you make a melee attack and if it hits, immediately roll CMB vs CMD to trip for example.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My feeling on this is: 5e has these issues (assuming you consider them issues), but anything you do to fix them will be very un-5e in feel.

PF2 and 4e DnD both present elegant, balanced, workable fixes to these problems, because the basic idea is both completely in line with the design philosophy and baked-in to the core rules. Frankly all the suggestions you're taking are already in PF2, but better defined and supported.
PF2 might have overcorrected (casters can feel a bit weak), but that's the only core flaw (as opposed to 'design decision not everyone will enjoy')

But, in the interest of being positive: you can add maneuvers to martials if you like. I don't think there's a ton of subclasses that don't have complexity that aren't right next to sufficiently complex options - ie Champion might not work for you but Battlemaster probably will - and if you allow combat stunts you don't need a ton of rules to handle every special case.

Social encounters don't seem to be as bad - most people don't rely on class features for those anyways. They rp, lean on backgrounds and reputation, and so on - if there's a 'balance' problem, it's most often players talking over each other.

The issue I actually see sometimes is exploration being horribly unbalanced - rangers just win (boring), casters have a bunch of toys to play with, fighter hope Athletics will somehow be useful. I don't know how to solve this, but making trips slightly easier to pull off won't do it.

 

[Stalker0]

Frankly, my players use the Shove and Grapple manuevers all the time. The opposed rolls means that many monsters are just not great at them, and so players can accomplish them with ease.

Getting advantage on all attacks for the party (shove) can effectively do lots of damage. Grapple can shut down certain monsters and let the "defenders" really defend their fellows.

I don't think adding damage there is going to fundamentally change anything. If you think spellcasters are OP, you still will after this change.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the point of adding damage is due to the fact that damage is always preferable to adding an effect, especially with such narrow design space as 5e where everything is non-stacking advantage/disadvantage. So damage + effect is an incentive to actually using effects.

 

[Steampunkette]

@Vaalingrade got it in one.

The intent is to make doing things other than "I hit him 4 times" attractive. To make tactical choices somewhat more engaging.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The first problem isn't a real problem. It's an internet problem. It exist only on chat threads
Far and away the most popular class is the fighter. The simplest martial. With the rogue next. And the cleric and wizard last of the base four. In the secondary classes, ranger and barbarian are at the top along with the simplest spellcaster, the warlock

Nope. I've seen it IRL.

The thing is that at low level fighter-types are fine. No one truly cares that the fighter's stabbing people while the wizard moves up from firebolt and burning hands to fireball. Both are cool in their own way and do different but related things. And the casters have few enough spells that the non-casters can keep up.

It's when the wizard starts restructuring things that there are problems. To me the spell that marks the beginning of the end is Wall of Stone. It's when the wizard gets the ability to make permanent changes to the environment and to do useful things that can't be matched at all under lightly pressured conditions. (Under heavily pressured ones skills work and dead is dead - things just differ as to how).

So for most of the single digit levels things are fine and the rogue and fighter get excellent features at level 11. It's really when the levels hit the teens that we have problems. Most games do not, however, go that far.

But this is entirely independent from the issue:

• Some people like mechanically simple characters and others like mechanically complex and tactical ones
• Some people like martial characters and others like spellcasters
• The people who want to play characters that are both martial and simple and the people who want to play characters that are both castery and complex are fine
• The people who want to play simple spellcasters tend to gravitate towards the warlock although this could be made better
• The people who want to play complex tactical fighters struggle.

This thread is about that last group.

 

[ART!]

On that, @Krachek you might be right.

We'd need to create a short list of possible combat maneuver results.

1) Make the target Prone
2) Push or Pull the target 5ft
3) Disarm the target of a manufactured weapon
4) Impose disadvantage to their next attack roll
5) Cannot take reactions 'til the start of your next turn
6) Impose Disadvantage on a specific type of skill or ability check (Concentration Checks, Perception Checks)

And I think that about covers them all...

Imposing certain Conditions should be another one (Blinded, by sand in the eyes; Deafened, by a blow to the head; Prone; Stunned)

 

[Weiley31]

But the best I can think of is explicitly allowing Martials to use Strength for Investigation Checks instead of Wisdom as they "Toss a Room". Literally flipping tables and yanking out dresser drawers to make a big mess. Which could work, I guess? But it just feels so very -narrow-.

Sometimes ya gotta be the Bad Cop.

 

[Weiley31]

One idea/house rule I've thought about/allowed is allowing Martials to gain access to the Battlemaster's Combat Maneuvers via spending Downtime/Training. However, only the Battle Master can learn the amount that the Battle Master can learn. At most, I'd only allow a Martial to learn two or three. That way the Battle Master isn't overshadowed if a player is one.

Some Subclasses, like the Scout, Monster Hunter, Cavalier/Knight, have Combat maneuvers basically. But like only 3 specific ones for them IIRC. So letting martials access to a few Combat Maneuvers don't seem like it would break anything tooo much.

 

[Krachek]

On that, @Krachek you might be right.

We'd need to create a short list of possible combat maneuver results.

1) Make the target Prone
2) Push or Pull the target 5ft
3) Disarm the target of a manufactured weapon
4) Impose disadvantage to their next attack roll
5) Cannot take reactions 'til the start of your next turn
6) Impose Disadvantage on a specific type of skill or ability check (Concentration Checks, Perception Checks)

And I think that about covers them all...

Still missing
stunned
restrained
blinded
frightened
incapacitated
vulnerable to a specific damage type

slowly but surely we are heading to 4ed!