D&D (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master


log in or register to remove this ad

If they use a similar model to cunning strike.

Battlemaster adds +1d6 to damage, can instead spend this to do maneuever X. Something similar to cunning strike.
Yep, I’m wondering if superiority dice become s pool of dice that get traded. But maybe they stack and/or some more powerful options are available at higher levels.
 

Imagine taking the sneak attack but make it 1d4 at 3rd level then 1 more die every 3 levels (6,9,12,15&18) limit it to 1 hit per turn.

Give them cunning strike like the rogue but with all the battle master maneuvers at level 3 but more as you level that are more powerful.
that could work but I fear 2 or 3 attacks action surge and this extra even if it's once per turn
 

warlock is just as fast. and the Hexblade warlock can be everybit as cool as a champion and have more options that are limited to situational as to not bog down round by round... same with artificer.
Mostly agreed. They can be simpler than most classes, but not as simple as the champion. I was responding to the claims where people want to remove the champion style subclass.
um, why would a spell caster not be able to come up with a creative out of the box idea?
Nothing, I have seen wizards do creative stuff with spells, and it boils down to DM's permission, just like it does with a champion that utilizes something in their environment. But there is a difference between the two: one specifically states what it can do (wizard spell), the other does not. Once you have a stated text, rules or flavor, I think what you will find is most players use the stated text as is. Some don't and that is cool. But most of the time when I see someone cast sleep, it is specifically to make a group of baddies sleep. Sure, the clever one uses it to put to sleep the orphan kids so they don't wake up when the battle wages outside their window. But, most, even if given that opportunity, do not. They think, how can I kill the aggressor, not how can I make sure these kids don't witness this. The reason is because the spells tell you to do this or that.
no one should be flipping through the book most turns, I mean sure it happens from time to time, but you should know your stuff not have to disengage from the story to find your stuff... again this is all things I was taught in my first campaign.
I am not going to throw any player under the bus, or wagon in this case, but based on my experience, I have never not seen it happen. Heck, even the so called "professionals" are constantly scanning their character sheets and resources for the things they can do. Now, take into account that:
  • Many players just don't (or can't) memorize their character
  • Players that decide they want to do "the best" thing so given how combat changes not per round, but per turn, they adjust and readjust, which might involve looking
  • Some players face analysis paralysis
I think it's fair when you take these things into account that not all tables and players are the same. Heck, even one of the Critical Roll cast had to constantly look up their attack modifier - every single time. So it seems to me to be a very unfair statement that players should simply "know their stuff." Should they? Yes. Do most? No.
I know I am new, but do people that play the most complex multi classed caster/pt spending not deliver puns speeches and one liners in most games?
Of course they can deliver these things. The point is - some players choose to craft these more carefully. Most players can make a joke or come up with a line to say. In my experience, most players don't weave foreshadowing or directly tie it to their personality, bond, ideal, or flaw. For most, that takes some mental effort. As far as speeches go, I do not believe most players try to think of them while playing, and it often shows. But, if you give them a scenario and let them craft something - it shows.

That was the point.
 

Nothing, I have seen wizards do creative stuff with spells, and it boils down to DM's permission, just like it does with a champion that utilizes something in their environment. But there is a difference between the two: one specifically states what it can do (wizard spell), the other does not. Once you have a stated text, rules or flavor, I think what you will find is most players use the stated text as is. Some don't and that is cool. But most of the time when I see someone cast sleep, it is specifically to make a group of baddies sleep. Sure, the clever one uses it to put to sleep the orphan kids so they don't wake up when the battle wages outside their window. But, most, even if given that opportunity, do not. They think, how can I kill the aggressor, not how can I make sure these kids don't witness this. The reason is because the spells tell you to do this or that.
I don't understand this, I see it over and over again in every thread about magic and non magic. My first character was a fighter, and everything she did was written down. Since she died every character I have played has been some form of caster, multiclass or half cast something. I know I am new and only have less then a dozen character for my experience, but not once ever have I seen a player 'loose the ability to improvise or outside the box thinking' from one class to another, you either have that with every character or none.
 

I don't understand this, I see it over and over again in every thread about magic and non magic. My first character was a fighter, and everything she did was written down. Since she died every character I have played has been some form of caster, multiclass or half cast something. I know I am new and only have less then a dozen character for my experience, but not once ever have I seen a player 'loose the ability to improvise or outside the box thinking' from one class to another, you either have that with every character or none.
Its an older mindset. SOmething that I have never found anyone that started in 4e or 5e to have, but did when I first started in 3.5.
I hear it alot too "The fighter can improvise, no one choosing to play the wise or intelligent character would ever think there character can improvise."

Meanwhile every martial noncaster I see improvised 1 or 2 times a campaign, when every artificer bard cleric druid warlock and wizard play like they are MacGyver, if anything it is the opposite reason.

see the casters have these "cool stuff" cards they can play, but they have a limited amount of them, so they try to come up with cool things to do BEFORE spending those cards. Fighters just have "tap attack card, untap at end of turn" and don't think beyond that because they have nothing to save up.
 

HammerMan

Legend
Its an older mindset. SOmething that I have never found anyone that started in 4e or 5e to have, but did when I first started in 3.5.
This goes back before that. I herd it in 2e and laughed it off then. I have always had people who are interested in playing caster also be interested in improv and “skirt the letter of the law” thinking. Not to say I never saw a fighter go for it but I never saw wizards not do it.
Meanwhile every martial noncaster I see improvised 1 or 2 times a campaign, when every artificer bard cleric druid warlock and wizard play like they are MacGyver, if anything it is the opposite reason.
Especially in 5e I feel like people forget having more buttons and options to use to improvise isn’t a hindrance to improvise for everyone.
see the casters have these "cool stuff" cards
I am so calling spells “cool stuff cards” at least once at my game this week
 

A player (and DM for that matter) that enjoys a pace of combat faster than glacier movement. What class does this? Not the wizard? Not the druid? Not the ranger? Not the sorcerer? Not any on them, except the champion.
Combat pace is determined by the party, not a single player. I don't see that as valid. And others pointed out, classes like Warlock are about equally individually fast.
A player that enjoys having the freedom to come up with creative ideas using the description of their environment and the tools in their bag, as opposed to a text box that says exactly what will happen.
Absolutely no reason to pick Champion Fighter to do this. Absolutely any class can do that. That's a way of playing, not something that requires or even benefits from a pared-down class. You'd probably be better off with a Rogue, anyway (Thief, particularly).
A player that actually enjoys listening to the other players and hearing what they're doing (Egad! No!) as opposed to flipping through a book or looking online for that most perfect combo-scenario that will squeeze out every bit of damage.
That's just cheap trolling, so you're trying to destroy your own argument? No class requires you to do that, and nothing stops a Champion Fighter doing that. Indeed, the only Champion Fighter I've actually seen played in 5E was absolutely flipping through books during everyone else's turns. So obviously both not valid and actively unhelpful to your argument.
A player that is roleplay heavy and would rather spend the time crafting their next-best line, pun, or speech for their turn, instead of deciding whether to spend points to trip an opponent, and if they do, how much of a disruption will that cause, and will the rogue be able to get over there to get advantage, etc.
Again, this doesn't require Champion Fighter nor particularly benefit from it.

These examples are so weak (and one actively just trolling) that you're genuinely pointing out how unneeded the Champion is.
 

Meanwhile every martial noncaster I see improvised 1 or 2 times a campaign, when every artificer bard cleric druid warlock and wizard play like they are MacGyver, if anything it is the opposite reason.
This is my experience too - for the most part.

Generally people who like coming up with wild plans and improvisations also like complicated and/or weird classes - Bard, Warlock, Wizard, and so on.

However there was one exception - the guy who ALWAYS plays Fighters or Barbarians in my main group is also a very heavy improviser/wild planner - but let's be real, he isn't picking Champion Fighter. He would never. He's usually picking fairly complicated and/or OP Fighter/Barbarian subclasses. One time he played a Long Death Monk. He's a triple-threat because he's also a very strong and willing RPer.
 

Combat pace is determined by the party, not a single player. I don't see that as valid. And others pointed out, classes like Warlock are about equally individually fast.

Absolutely no reason to pick Champion Fighter to do this. Absolutely any class can do that. That's a way of playing, not something that requires or even benefits from a pared-down class. You'd probably be better off with a Rogue, anyway (Thief, particularly).

That's just cheap trolling, so you're trying to destroy your own argument? No class requires you to do that, and nothing stops a Champion Fighter doing that. Indeed, the only Champion Fighter I've actually seen played in 5E was absolutely flipping through books during everyone else's turns. So obviously both not valid and actively unhelpful to your argument.

Again, this doesn't require Champion Fighter nor particularly benefit from it.

These examples are so weak (and one actively just trolling) that you're genuinely pointing out how unneeded the Champion is.
the need for the champion is that some people want it. I know, I played with them and have for the last 8 years! Now that argument can be made for any class I guess, but a simple fighter does have history in the game.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top