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

[Pauln6]

Yes….? I’m not sure what point you intend this to make or support or underline or whatever.

I do.

We can’t have the whole game designed around multiclass combinations being good.

It’s just not needed, and every time someone has an idea for martial characters, people so worried about “cheese” and want every single thing to have an additional cost, even when the idea doesn’t put the class into the top of the class power bandwidth, much less above it.

Besides, you could just as easily include language that prevents stacking masteries and at-will maneuvers.

It's not the class I worry about, its other classes. And while you say that we can't build the game around broken multiclass combinations is the way to design it, about a third of the changes in the playtest are trying to fix exactly that. No point of fixing them and then breaking a whole load of others.

 

[Scott Christian]

Whether or not it was your intent, you were not phrasing things to say "Most players don't do X. For some players, choosing the Champion allows them to do X, but other players might not need the champion to do X". No, instead what your phrasing said was "People play the Champion to do X. Most players don't do X." And since we know most players don't play the champion, it is trivially easy to see that as a claim that only people who play champions do X.

How does me saying this:

This is a very narrow viewpoint. Here are a few players that aren't fat, old, drunkards that enjoy a streamlined fighter that doesn't have knobs and gears and dials to turn:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

not present this as a player by player thought? I then went on to say many times, in my experience, some players have a harder time multitasking these things, especially doing them well. Again, my experience. And I even gave examples of times I've seen where this is not true. How is this unclear and not supportive of my claim?
You know what, you don't even have to answer. We can move forward, as you said, to chalking it up as a failure in communication.

Let us additionally assume that the removal of the Champion is a serious possibility going forward.

Why would the Warrior class not be a good fit for people who would otherwise play the Champion? It is an even simpler martial class, so would it not fulfill their needs to an even greater degree?

If it were a simpler martial class, then I'd be all for it. Again, for the fifth time, my claim was refuting the removal and/or complication of the champion class. The statement I have been replying to was:

They likely want to insure there is an option for players who just want to spam basic attacks every turn and not have to make additional decisions beyond which enemy to target.

To which Ruin replied:

It's a such a weird dumb pointless goal.

The noobiest players in D&D consistently go for some of the most complex classes, and pretty much never go for Fighter, so it serves no purpose there. Rangers, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers and the like attract infinitely more interest from new players.

There is an ageing beer-and-pretzels crowd who do like the simple Fighter, but like, what % of D&D players are they? 3%? 4%? Something like that.

The problem I think is that the designers themselves are stuck in a deeply Gen-X mindset on Fighters, and unable to escape, or to see that a more modern design would serve the bulk of their customers better.

So my response and claim were to keep the champion specifically for the players that utilize it for the reasons I listed. That's it.

Now, if it were a simpler class, and it was streamlined for players that like to cater to other factors rather than text boxes full of powers, then I am all for it. But none of that, on any of the forums that have discussed the fighter, have given that. The goal, as I have read, is always to give it more dials and knobs. More "choices" during combat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If it were a simpler martial class, then I'd be all for it. Again, for the fifth time, my claim was refuting the removal and/or complication of the champion class. The statement I have been replying to was:

To which Ruin replied:

So my response and claim were to keep the champion specifically for the players that utilize it for the reasons I listed. That's it.

Now, if it were a simpler class, and it was streamlined for players that like to cater to other factors rather than text boxes full of powers, then I am all for it. But none of that, on any of the forums that have discussed the fighter, have given that. The goal, as I have read, is always to give it more dials and knobs. More "choices" during combat.

Because we do want more options. We do want more "dials and knobs" as you say, because the lack of those in the fighter class holds it back. Sure, yes, for some specific players their role-playing goals are easier to meet with less mechanical power, but for those of us who that is not true, we want the fighter to shine and be on par with the other classes.

So, why not remove the Champion, rebuild the fighter, and then just keep the Warrior class that is already in print, already available, and already super simple for those people who want that super simple class without options?

 

[mellored]

Man, if they make the Battlemaster into the Warlord that will be.... interesting....

They already have a few good warlord maneuvers. Some litterally from 4e (commanders strike).

Just fill it out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not the class I worry about, its other classes. And while you say that we can't build the game around broken multiclass combinations is the way to design it, about a third of the changes in the playtest are trying to fix exactly that. No point of fixing them and then breaking a whole load of others.

A third? Nah.

And the example in question won’t break anything.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because we do want more options. We do want more "dials and knobs" as you say, because the lack of those in the fighter class holds it back. Sure, yes, for some specific players their role-playing goals are easier to meet with less mechanical power, but for those of us who that is not true, we want the fighter to shine and be on par with the other classes.

So, why not remove the Champion, rebuild the fighter, and then just keep the Warrior class that is already in print, already available, and already super simple for those people who want that super simple class without options?

The better question in my mind is why not have both, champion and warrior? Then make three other subclasses with many options.

 

[Composer99]

The problem with leaving the champion subclass as is, is that then the rest of the fighter base class has to be designed to accommodate both it and the subclasses that give players interesting knobs/dials/buttons/what-have-you. And as we have already seen that is awkward.

What is more, most (all?) other classes have the cleaner design of providing their primary shtick in the base class, with subclasses supplementing that primary shtick and/or adding some alternate features. A mechanically-complex fighter that has to share design space with the champion can't have that, which is also unsatisfying.

It would be easier and more elegant design to ensure a fighter reminiscent of the TSR-D&D fighter (which Champion comes closest to emulating) is its own class for them as want it, while having a distinct martial class that can actually satisfy the tastes of people who want to play with the kind of mechanical complexity that they enjoy.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem with leaving the champion subclass as is, is that then the rest of the fighter base class has to be designed to accommodate both it and the subclasses that give players interesting knobs/dials/buttons/what-have-you. And as we have already seen that is awkward.

What is more, most (all?) other classes have the cleaner design of providing their primary shtick in the base class, with subclasses supplementing that primary shtick and/or adding some alternate features. A mechanically-complex fighter that has to share design space with the champion can't have that, which is also unsatisfying.

It would be easier and more elegant design to ensure a fighter reminiscent of the TSR-D&D fighter (which Champion comes closest to emulating) is its own class for them as want it, while having a distinct martial class that can actually satisfy the tastes of people who want to play with the kind of mechanical complexity that they enjoy.

So what you want is the champion to have everything it already has and have the knobs and dials of something else. Is that an accurate statement?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The better question in my mind is why not have both, champion and warrior? Then make three other subclasses with many options.

As @Composer99 points out, the issue with that is that you cannot alter the fighter class, if you must keep the Champion as is, with few to no options. Any complexity you build into the fighter, cannot be avoided by the champion.

Take an example of the new Rogue. The Cunning Strikes feature is amazing! And every subclass plays with that feature, adding new layers to it, and new interpretations to it. You cannot have a rogue subclass though that removes the cunning strikes from the base class. That doesn't make sense.

If we wish to rewrite the fighter, but not change the champion, then shifting our expectations to the Warrior Class which is not the fighter, is a clean and elegant way of doing it. Now, you don't need to alter the "simple class" but you can take "the fighter" and make it more complex with interesting abilities.

So what you want is the champion to have everything it already has and have the knobs and dials of something else. Is that an accurate statement?

That would be great, but people like you have stated, vociferously, that any change to the Champion that would add knobs and dials would be a deal-breaker and leave the proposal dead-on arrival.

So, if we instead move that simple class with no knobs and dials to the Warrior, then that allows you and people like you to keep what they want, an already published, simple class, with no complex mechanics, and frees the rest of us up to alter the baseline fighter to match what we desire.

 

[Pauln6]

As @Composer99 points out, the issue with that is that you cannot alter the fighter class, if you must keep the Champion as is, with few to no options. Any complexity you build into the fighter, cannot be avoided by the champion.

Take an example of the new Rogue. The Cunning Strikes feature is amazing! And every subclass plays with that feature, adding new layers to it, and new interpretations to it. You cannot have a rogue subclass though that removes the cunning strikes from the base class. That doesn't make sense.

If we wish to rewrite the fighter, but not change the champion, then shifting our expectations to the Warrior Class which is not the fighter, is a clean and elegant way of doing it. Now, you don't need to alter the "simple class" but you can take "the fighter" and make it more complex with interesting abilities.



That would be great, but people like you have stated, vociferously, that any change to the Champion that would add knobs and dials would be a deal-breaker and leave the proposal dead-on arrival.

So, if we instead move that simple class with no knobs and dials to the Warrior, then that allows you and people like you to keep what they want, an already published, simple class, with no complex mechanics, and frees the rest of us up to alter the baseline fighter to match what we desire.

I'm not wholly convinced that the champion's simple niche could not be in some way preserved. Some of the additions should be skill or tool related, or some can be basic passive benefits, which the Champion needs as much as anyone else. You could give the main class 3 options, including a simple suggestion, a tactical one, and one to help allies. Any players who want to keep it simple just picks the simple one.