D&D 5E Thoughts on Improving Martials

[DemoMonkey]

Have you considered giving them spells?

 

[Steampunkette]

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

slowly but surely we are heading to 4ed!

Restrained is part of Grappling, so that's covered. I'm talking about through the "Flexible" maneuver option thing.

Stunned doesn't feel appropriate for melee combat without a class feature like Stunning Fist.
Blinded doesn't feel appropriate for melee combat without a class feature, spell, or critical hit. (Deafened is right here)
Frightening someone is not a combat maneuver. Skills (Intimidate) and Spells do that kind of thing.
Incapacitated is when you hit 0HP.
Damage Vulnerability isn't something you can apply by sheer physical acumen. You don't punch someone in the sternum and make them more susceptible to acid damage.

 

[aco175]

Is some of the issue that 4e had several powers that fighter could do that involved an attack and condition like stun or trip? Are the conditions in 4e the same as 5e or are they a bit less in terms of handicap?

I can see some attacks like 4e introduced or make them available at 5th level where you only get one attack and then get to daze for one round or such.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So one of the biggest problems in 5e is how limited Martial type characters (Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger, to a lesser degree Monk, Rogue, and Paladin) can be both in combat effects (not effectiveness) and out of combat interactions. We see this sort of thing discussed obliquely in things like Spellcasting discussion threads, often discussing how OP Spellcasters are.

5e at it's base "Attempts" to offer alternatives by allowing players to sacrifice attacks from their attack action to initiate grapples or push targets, but very little else that doesn't require a Subclass. Advanced 5e provides each class a list of potential Combat Maneuvers from which they can select a handful over the course of their leveling and have a limited number of uses per turn, creating a new, separate, economy.

What if, instead, we made it so that Combat Maneuvers (Like Grapple or Shove) didn't negate your damage potential from a given attack based on your level?

For example, a Shove attempt at level 1 could deal your Strength Modifier in damage. If you have Extra Attack, 1d6+Strength. If you gain 2 or more attacks from Extra Attack, 1d6+Str+Proficiency Bonus. (I chose 1d6 because Monks deal 1d6 with unarmed strikes at level 5, so it isn't stronger for a monk to spend all their attacks on Shoves)

A Fighter might still miss out on bonus damage from their weapon, but it would certainly make combat maneuvers more attractive. Particularly if we expand those combat maneuvers to cover additional situations, or more accurately use a simple method that can be adapted to other options, such as Dirty Tricks, Disarming targets, or Tripping them as the Player makes suggestions and the DM determines whether it's valid. (No disarming a Dragon of it's claws, for example... unless the DM is cool with lopping off limbs!)

Forced movement, temporary shutdown of Legendary Action options, removing the target's ability to perform reactions, throwing sand in their eyes to give them disadvantage on perception checks and attack rolls for a round... Lots of options for Players to creatively use the Combat Maneuver option, and potentially increase the damage die, effect, or saving throw DC through environmental actions. Such as swinging on a chandelier to "Shove" a target resulting in the target getting pushed farther, taking two dice of damage, or having a +2 higher DC for the Strength Save to resist.

This would put a bit more weight on the shoulders of martial characters who intend to do more than strike their target, but so long as the method of handling the maneuvers is simple (A saving throw or skill check against a fixed DC to avoid either the effect or the damage) it shouldn't be significantly troublesome.

You could even create Feats or Class Features that allow a subclass to explicitly use a Combat Maneuver as a Bonus Action, or possibly reaction.

Out of combat functions are trickier. And should probably be tied to individual class identities. If anyone has suggestions, I'd love to hear them. But I think I might include this general improvement to combat maneuvers in my games going forward, including those involving Advanced 5e/LevelUp play, since it has a "Combat Maneuver DC" built in to make the whole matter easier.

Bonus Points: It encourages Strength Martial Builds for people who want to do a bunch of Combat Maneuvers. Including Strong Monks.

Broadly, I think if you perused the PF 2e feats sections for the various martial characters, you'd have a pretty good starting selection.

Obviously, these are more baked in to overall PF2e's character creation methodology, and would be of varying utility between different classes, but there's a lot that could be repurposed.

 

[Redwizard007]

The poor Battlemaster Fighter is standing in the middle of the room shouting, "I exist," but nobody seems to notice.

If I'm not mistaken, there are feats that players, particularly fighters, get access to that greatly enhance their options both in and out of combat (including accessto the Battlemaster maneuvers that you are trying to duplicate.) Adding more for specific effects should be trivial. Simply using the optional rules provided (i.e. feats) and adding a few more feats solves your issue spectacularly.

 

[Shiroiken]

The issue IMO is that giving tactical options to martials while still providing damage will unbalance them against casters. If your group uses fewer than 6-8 encounters per long rest (which is very common, but outside of the game design), then adding these boosts helps to rebalance martials with casters. If you play as expected, however, you instead unbalance the two. The concept of allowing reduced damage with effects would be a good option for the second case, as the player can decide if the effect is worth the loss of damage.

I'll be honest, I miss the martial and skill dice from the early playtests. For those of you who don't know, fighters got a martial die that refreshed every round with various combat maneuvers that could be done with them. Rogue got a small die that was primarily used for ability checks, but also for a few combat manuevers like sneak attack. Eventually these ideas were tossed, replaced by the Battlemaster subclass and Expertise.

If you can find a copy of that playtest packet (which I've long lost), this might be the best method to achieve what the OP is looking for, adding a rage die, and ki die (plus possibly righteousness die and explorer's die if you want to boost Paladins and Rangers). Obviously you want to give enough distinct mauvers between them to avoid stepping on toes.

 

[Nefermandias]

What the OP describe is the 4ed!
Equality of combat effect for all classes!
As well all classes where able to perform equally in skill challenge.
It just went into a dead end.

Be careful when mentioning "that" edition.

 

[Steampunkette]

The poor Battlemaster Fighter is standing in the middle of the room shouting, "I exist," but nobody seems to notice.

If I'm not mistaken, there are feats that players, particularly fighters, get access to that greatly enhance their options both in and out of combat (including accessto the Battlemaster maneuvers that you are trying to duplicate.) Adding more for specific effects should be trivial. Simply using the optional rules provided (i.e. feats) and adding a few more feats solves your issue spectacularly.

Not everyone uses feats.

That said, while this would advance tactical combat for martials who aren't the battlemaster, the battlemaster would still be the unrivaled ruler of it.

Because the Battlemaster can initiate all kinds of maneuvers on an attack roll with their weapon damage, magic bonuses, etc, then add 1d8 on top of it (increasing in level, of course). Where everyone else deals 1d6+str and gains no magic weapon bonus, no increased dice size from other sources, and no additional damage dice from things like Sneak Attack or Divine Smite because it's a combat maneuver that doesn't use an attack roll.

The issue IMO is that giving tactical options to martials while still providing damage will unbalance them against casters. If your group uses fewer than 6-8 encounters per long rest (which is very common, but outside of the game design), then adding these boosts helps to rebalance martials with casters. If you play as expected, however, you instead unbalance the two. The concept of allowing reduced damage with effects would be a good option for the second case, as the player can decide if the effect is worth the loss of damage.

I'll be honest, I miss the martial and skill dice from the early playtests. For those of you who don't know, fighters got a martial die that refreshed every round with various combat maneuvers that could be done with them. Rogue got a small die that was primarily used for ability checks, but also for a few combat manuevers like sneak attack. Eventually these ideas were tossed, replaced by the Battlemaster subclass and Expertise.

If you can find a copy of that playtest packet (which I've long lost), this might be the best method to achieve what the OP is looking for, adding a rage die, and ki die (plus possibly righteousness die and explorer's die if you want to boost Paladins and Rangers). Obviously you want to give enough distinct mauvers between them to avoid stepping on toes.

I've seen it, yeah. It's not a terrible design, but with the battlemaster as it is, now, this would absolutely either step on toes or require the battlemaster to be removed from contention.

I dunno. This is still a rough draft scenario, so maybe we can find other options to increase tactical combat.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

So one of the biggest problems in 5e is how limited Martial type characters (Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger, to a lesser degree Monk, Rogue, and Paladin) can be both in combat effects (not effectiveness) and out of combat interactions. We see this sort of thing discussed obliquely in things like Spellcasting discussion threads, often discussing how OP Spellcasters are.

Simply put... I think this is all based on individual experience and play style.

In my 5e game of Genericka, for example, I've had three clerics, a druid, two warlocks and two sorcerers (iirc) (and maybe one "Fey" Paladin...for a single session? Maybe?). After that, everyone else were of the "Martial type" character classes. This is for over 6 years of play. Nobody playing any of the Martial classes ever felt "weaker" or "less effective" or that they had "less things to do outside of combat".

The reason, I think, is simple: I'm an Old School DM. I don't "build encounters/adventures" to suit my Player's Characters other than the absolute minimum (e.g., "Ok, 5 PC's, about level 3"; I don't care what races they, what alignments they have, what backgrounds they have, or what classes they are...and neither does my world). Because of this, there is a very distinct "flavour" to the whole game that simply involves all of the "3 Pillars". Averaged out, I'd say about 40% Combat, 30% RP and 30% Explore. Because of this, PC's are usually doing "stuff" that any PC can do.

Next would be that our 'style' of play is more along the line of "What would make sense for my Character to do?", and not so much "What would make sense for ME to do?". It's the equivalent of a PC caster with only 1 spell left saying "We need to press on. We don't have time to sleep right now...he's going to get away if we do, and who knows what he'll do during those 8 hours!", versus "We need to do a long rest to get spells back. Then we can cast Spells XYZ and ABC to pick up his trail; we can then deal with anything he did because we'll be at full strength". The first is purely "RP and narrative driven from a Characters perspective". The second is purely from the perspective of "We will have these mechanical things available".

Combine those things... my Old School Style DM'ing where I do not "build to the PC's" and with the Players thinking as their PC's, not as Players trying to "mechanically optimize for success", and you have Fighters being every bit as 'viable' out of combat as anyone else...and being a bit MORE viable throughout the adventuring day (because a Fighter never runs out of attacks). If I was to "build to the PC's" and I DM'ed with the assumption that the PC's were "heroes and supposed to win"...then I'd agree, and the "mechanical based decisions" would make more sense; because the Players would know that the bad guy would 'pause' his bad-guy plans as the PC's rested for a day. Or at least, nothing REALLY bad would happen...because "that would be unfair to the Players". Hogwash to that I say! If the Bad Guy needs 4 hours to unleash the Undead Plague Vial into the towns water supply, and the PC's decide to take a long rest before they confront him...well...that's bad news bugbears to that poor town! And yes, before you ask... No, the Players do not need to know they have a 4 hour 'time limit'. That's the ENTIRE POINT of why my players would likely decide to push on, despite lack of spells/abilities; because they KNOW that the world/adventure isn't "built around them"...ergo, they wouldn't take the risk.

Wow. That was a long way to say: "I disagree. I think the usefulness of any Class is primarily based on the DM's style".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Redwizard007]

Not everyone uses feats.

Sure, but people are more likely to use feats than invent entirely new subsystems to accomplish exactly what feats already provide. That being said, I understand it's not what you are looking for, so I'll go be quiet unless I find something constructive to add. There are already some ideas I may poach for custom feats.