On the other hand, you can play a Fighter who has all the brain power of a slice of Swiss cheese, takes a subclass with no real decision points, and has no tactical acumen beyond "swing big sword at bad guy"...
That doesn't give the number of options, though. You're gimping fighters by doing that. But if you reaaaaaaly want to do it that way. Wizards get spellcasting as their feature, so the number of spells per level aren't part of that. So all of their spells from levels 1-20 = 1 feature. You would have to count that as only 1 feature at level 20, not 27(number of spell slots). See what I mean?
I don't see how anyone can in all honesty say that spellcasting is just one feature.
Yeah I would count each level and ritual casting as 1 feature each, and Extra Attack is just 1 feature.I agree.
While I won't count every single spell or spell slot, I do think counting access to each spell level and ritual casting works as 10 features (cantrips would make it 11, which I didn't count before).
IMO it is like counting Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) as separate from Extra Attack.
I wonder if the issue is 5E isn't tactical enough for the intellectual take on combat to work really?
Yeah I would count each level and ritual casting as 1 feature each, and Extra Attack is just 1 feature.
Should there be more maneuvers learned, though feats or in the base class? If there are extra maneuvers, should be take into account the subclass, or simply layer it on?
Ya know, I’m not a big fan of superiority dice… I just feel like they focus too much attention on sheer damage instead of the interesting effects found in the maneuvers. Damage’s not exactly a department the Fighter is missing out on, but it’s valued so much that they only get a handful of dice. I’d rather get the maneuvers at-will without the extra damage.
The problem I have with such ideas is it involves another die roll, either contested or not, which slows things down--but then some people don't like the idea of a maneuver (such as Feint) being automatic either.This is a maneuver that is screaming for a Wisdom save from the target just to keep it balanced with the other options rather than something more generic like spending your bonus action, especially if you are already paying currency for it. Then at least there is some flavor to it.
That's unfortunate. I'm not that proficient with the Wayback Machine.Someone was talking about having them in a post a few months ago. They're not available from WotC anymore though.
Having messed around with Lancer a bit (fun game!), I appreciate how they manage their Advantage / Disadvantage system. Their rolls use a d20, but it is not a d20 system. Each level of Adv/Dis grants you a +/- d6 to the roll. They cancel out as you would expect. If you gain more advantage, you would, say, roll 2d6 and apply the highest, not the total, to the d20. That could be a useful application of "tactical" dice, and be able to add to attack, damage, AC, saves, movement (1 corresponds to 5', 2 to 10', &c.).Ya know, I’m not a big fan of superiority dice… It’d be a lot more fun if superiority dice were just completely divorced from maneuvers and just be a different thing where the Fighter can throw some extra D6/D8/D10 to their damage in a similar way to a Paladin’s Smite (call it ‘extra effort’ if you want).
Right, I can see that. Both the fighter with his glave and the wizard with his staff can trip a goblin. But, the fighter with his greater strength and higher skill (attack bonus) is more likely to succeed. Those who have trained in polearm tactics (knows the maneuver) can do so with greater skill (and can potentially apply dice, do some damage along with tripping, and so on).My preference is to have a big pool of maneuvers and to have a fighter know all of them with maneuvers the fighter doesn't know just cost an extra dice to perform. Most maneuvers should represent rather generic combat abilities, which for the battlemaster they already do so that's good. So in my system it would be much less a matter of 'maneuvers known' than maneuvers you are proficient in.
I can see that. I do have subclasses do the heavy lifting for my fighting guilds (Order of the Gorgon, &c.), but I can see feats be useful for fighting styles or upgrading to uncanny physical feats.I've had a lot of success with Feats that represent some sort of martial tradition such as "Skirmisher", "Heavy Infantry", "Gladiator", "Duelist", "Hoplite", "Assault Trooper", "Legionnaire" or whatever. Among the things I like about them is that they are not only descriptive of the fighter's experience and have mythic resonance through referencing some real world fighting style, but they make imagining low level armies pretty straightforward. Typically they give relatively small circumstantial bonuses in two or three areas.
Honestly, I don't know why rolling multiple dice like this annoys me, but it does.Why can't people just roll their maneuver dice at the same time as the attack?
The Pearl d20 is attack, the Jade is maneuver. Done.
It makes design more difficult: which way do you go?