D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[MwaO]

Your previous post points to spellcasters as being flexible, varied in ability, and something to envy for your martial idea. Then you take away the cost mechanics associated with all spellcasting classes by giving the proposed idea unlimited access to bennies. I can help but get caught up in the disconnect.

Most of the time, the regular Battlemaster is nearly strictly superior simply because most combats tend to last about 3 rounds and can spend 2-3 points per combat assuming standard short rests. Possibly multiple ones during a turn or on an off-turn and if one particular is best, gain the same benefit rather than halve it.

If you think he's a powerhouse, he's not, simply because with most maneuvers, it is a better mechanical idea to keep spamming the same one again and again.

 

[MwaO]

So select interesting and varied maneuvers which in turn allows you to make interesting and varied choices, I guess?

That's kind of the problem. The Battlemaster choices aren't particularly interesting or varied. To use an analogy, you're comparing a Battlemaster with a Warlock when I'm talking about not having an equivalent in complexity to a Wizard.

And that's assuming that Battlemaster options are as interesting as Warlock spells, which they simply are not.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd like a complex, non-caster based, melee PC for whom the majority of their actions are not "I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage."

Funny. It seems to me that's already in 5E.

"I roll to hit."
"I power-attack."
"I push the enemy prone, then Power Attack him twice."
"I grab the enemy, push him prone, and bash him once with my shield."
"I close the door and then stab the slaad."
"I dodge."
"I ready myself to shoot whoever sticks his head up first."
"I shove him off the cliff."
"I try to disarm him."
"I grab the dragon's wing and climb between his shoulder blades, then hit him with my sword in my free hand."
"I try to run past the chuul and power attack the ghast."
"I attack the ghast twice and then move 40' back out of range."
"I apply poison to my weapons. I cover three darts with drow sleep poison this round."
"I take (half) cover behind the desk and shoot the guards."
"I grab (grapple) the princess and drag her out into the hall with me."
"I stay seated in my wagon so the orcs can't hit my legs, and I ready my greatsword to attack whoever gets within 5' of me."
"I take cover and hide so I can get advantage next turn."

These are all actions which are supported in 5E, in PHB rules or DMG optional variants. Most of them happen at my table on a fairly regular basis. None of them requires any special abilities--they're all built into the core competence of every single 5E character, although special abilities like Mobile or Athletics Expertise can make them more effective.

If all you ever do is, "I roll to hit. I roll to hit," I am sorry for you. Maybe your DM could up the difficulty a bit so you have a reason to play more tactically? If the encounter is already trivialized, using smart tactics feels like a waste. "Who cares about sneaking up on the kobolds to him them on the wrong side of their barricade? They can't hurt us anyway, and if they do we'll just eat a couple of goodberries. Forget about 'optimal approach,' just kill them already with a Fireball."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So a Fighter sub-class or Battlemaster variation. Instead of short-rest recharge CS dice, you can do one maneuver per round? If a maneuver were an action (precluding multiple attacks entirely), or 'cost' a certain number of attacks, you could justify it being more dramatic/powerful, in spite of being 'at will.' And, of course, you could also have mechanisms for enemies to get wise to it. Disadvantage after the first time you use it would be straightforward. INT save each time you use it, with a declining DC, on success the victim figures it out, and the maneuver can't be used on them again, would require more tracking. Both would create some tactical interest from the need to avoid just spamming one 'best' maneuver.

How about instead of one per round, use a recharge mechanic like a Mind Flayer does? Once you use a maneuver, it recharges on a 5-6 on a d6. At higher levels it recharges on 4-6 or even 2-6.

You can "spend" an attack studying your opponent(s) instead of attacking to make a recharge roll. Usually a bad trade but perhaps worth it in some cases, depending on terrain and circumstance.

 

[MwaO]

These are all actions which are supported in 5E, in PHB rules or DMG optional variants. Most of them happen at my table on a fairly regular basis. None of them requires any special abilities--they're all built into the core competence of every single 5E character, although special abilities like Mobile or Athletics Expertise can make them more effective.

I'm looking for a complex PC. This means they have a wide variety of options in combat that are mechanically supported by their choice of class, somewhat unique to the class, and simply spamming a choice repeatedly is very unlikely to be the best option ever.

A list of choices that every PC can do doesn't fulfill any of that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm looking for a complex PC. This means they have a wide variety of options in combat that are mechanically supported by their choice of class, somewhat unique to the class, and simply spamming a choice repeatedly is very unlikely to be the best option ever.

A list of choices that every PC can do doesn't fulfill any of that.

I understand that you're looking for mechanical options and special powers, but the post I was responding to said something different--it implied that the only thing fighters can do in 5E is "I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage."

I was making the point that the 5E fighter is already much more complex than that.

My bias is showing of course--I come from a background (AD&D, GURPS: Martial Arts 4e) in which there are no special combat powers at all. Anyone can attempt a flying roundhouse kick, and anyone can attempt three headshots with a pistol at long range in a single turn. Only certain characters are actually competent enough to be effective at these stunts, but anyone can try it. Since the 5E fighter is actually markedly more effective than others at many of the maneuvers I listed (by virtue of more attacks, high Athletics, and the ability to survive in melee as well as at range), 5E provides what I'm looking for, at least in combat. (Outside of combat 5E is woefully incomplete, but you can pull from old-school material to fix that.)

I understand you're looking for something more like modern GURPS, where combat options are modeled as powers exclusive to the characters who have paid for them. Not to my taste, but good luck finding it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How about instead of one per round, use a recharge mechanic like a Mind Flayer does? Once you use a maneuver, it recharges on a 5-6 on a d6. At higher levels it recharges on 4-6 or even 2-6.

My only reservation about recharge mechanics is that 5e combats tend to be so short. Recharge takes some time to happen. I suppose that's an issue with any attempt at tactical depth, as well - it simply doesn't have time to develop.

You can "spend" an attack studying your opponent(s) instead of attacking to make a recharge roll. Usually a bad trade but perhaps worth it in some cases, depending on terrain and circumstance.

'Spending' an attack for some benefit - like being able to use a more potent maneuver, perhaps, does sound like an idea, though.

I understand that you're looking for mechanical options and special powers, but the post I was responding to said something different--it implied that the only thing fighters can do in 5E is "I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit, I roll to hit. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage. I roll for damage."

When you're talking viable options based on the class itself, not really. But, yes, /everyone/ has options in 5e, particularly the option to go 'outside the box' and declare an action the rules don't cover - a good DM will take advantage of that to make the game more fun and interesting, especially if it gives a neglected PC a shot at a little spotlight time. That a fighter PC is more likely to benefit from that sort of DM beneficence, though, only highlights how limited the class, itself, is.

Ultimately, in a well-run 5e game, it's not an insurmountable issue. If you want a lot of options that don't require a great deal of DM buy-in, you simply play a caster. If you have a good raport with the DM and are on the ball, you can get a less monotonous experience, even from a Fighter (Champion). In the mean time, the Champion is there for anyone who does want a very simple character.

My bias is showing of course--I come from a background (AD&D, GURPS: Martial Arts 4e) in which there are no special combat powers at all. Anyone can attempt a flying roundhouse kick, and anyone can attempt three headshots with a pistol at long range in a single turn...I understand you're looking for something more like modern GURPS, where combat options are modeled as powers exclusive to the characters who have paid for them. Not to my taste, but good luck finding it.

I haven't looked at GURPS in a long time. Has it really changed that much? I recall it as a heavily skill-based point-buy system with combat options as you describe in the first sentence. The idea of combat options as 'powers' in GURPS seems quite alien to me. Powers as powers - as in GURPS:Supers, sure, but combat options as powers?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's kind of the problem. The Battlemaster choices aren't particularly interesting or varied.

This is entirely an eye-of-the-beholder issue. My experience (having played one) is that they are both. You could have all BMFs at a table, with none of them playing the same because of their choice in maneuvers.

To use an analogy, you're comparing a Battlemaster with a Warlock when I'm talking about not having an equivalent in complexity to a Wizard.

Oh, I know. I get it. You don't want to compare to a warlock (short rest reset) and also don't want the complexity of a wizard (long rest reset). You want always on powers. Without seeing what kinds of maneuvers you think are appropriate for this concept, I can't really say how broken it could be. But I can guess.

And that's assuming that Battlemaster options are as interesting as Warlock spells, which they simply are not.

They shouldn't be. The BMF can use them far more often. If they were comparable, we'd have a balance problem.

 

[MwaO]

I was making the point that the 5E fighter is already much more complex than that.

Are you honestly saying that the non-casters in your group don't spend at least 75% of their total attack actions making to-hit rolls that do approximately the same damage every round?

I get that Fighters have other options, but the title of the thread is 'What classes do you want added to 5e' - a non-caster class with mechanical incentives to not spam the same action every round seems a reasonable thing to ask for and doesn't exist at the moment.

 

[MwaO]

Oh, I know. I get it. You don't want to compare to a warlock (short rest reset) and also don't want the complexity of a wizard (long rest reset). You want always on powers. Without seeing what kinds of maneuvers you think are appropriate for this concept, I can't really say how broken it could be. But I can guess.

I already told you the maneuvers and explained how they're not always on - because the maneuvers are only usable once a round(instead of potentially 6 in the 1st round of one combat) and when used more than once, become less effective because they're expected.

Given that you should generally see 2 short rests and approximately 20-24 rounds of combat per day, your example of someone who gets to use 18 uses of whatever maneuver they want whenever they want at full effectiveness is going vs my example of someone who will get to use 20-24 uses of maneuvers in a significantly more limited fashion.

I'm struggling to see how anyone would find this breakable unless you're thinking about out of combat uses - which this BMF variant wouldn't be able to do.