D&D 5E What the Weaponmaster needs in 5e, and how to make it happen.

[Tales and Chronicles]

Oh, right, of course. I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but it's starting to sound like it has some stuff worth looking at.

(shilling = promoting .... it's a little negative I'm afraid, but I meant it tongue-in-cheek, sorry if I offended)

Well, if Cubicle 7 wanted my services, I'd be honored

Anyway, you may want to look it up, be it only for the classes and archetypes. There's some cool things in there, even if you skip the LotR theme and specific mechanics.

Barbarian (called Slayers, way better name) get an heavy-armored archetype and one who specialized in mounted charge. Yep, you heard right: a horse-riding barbarian, and it works.

The Warden is a spell-less bard, with martial support.
The Fighters (warrior) gets a Knight, which focus are more or less like a spell-less paladin (spend Inspiration instead of slots to smite) and a weapon master.
There's the Sage, which use spell-less healing and knowledge to better prepare the party for a fight (enemy lore, avoid random encounters, surprise the enemy with a hidden plan). Think like a strategist.

Lets say that knowing your positions from your recent posts, there's some ideas in there you could use or like.

 

[Remathilis]

Close! Someone on the Warlord threads mentioned that 'no one'* had complained for want of a 4e fighter, and it reminded me, "yeah, the fighter wasn't exactly my favorite class in 4e, like it was in 3.5, but there really was a /lot/ cut to squeeze the weaponmaster into the battlemaster...."

Honestly, the problem with the battlemaster is they took the most unique mechanic a fighter has (superiority dice) and siloed it into a subclass, which meant it limited the number of powers, types of powers, and number of dice needed. I get they wanted an "I attack" simple fighter, but forcing all the complex fighter into one subclass was kinda short sighted.

Now, what I think WOULD work is a class that has superiority dice as the *main* mechanic of the class. It gets lots of maneuvers and more Sup dice to use them with. By using the existing mechanic of maneuvers/Sup Dice, you can feed the BM fighter too (and turn him into a "dip-maneuver" class like how Eldritch knight is a "dip-spellcasting" class). Borrowing from the warlock, you could also introduce an "invocation-like" mechanic (stances?) that provide unique benefits a BM can't grab. Finally, since we have a class with a built in superiority dice, we can have subclasses that use them in different ways (kensei for quasi-magical maneuvers, or Warlord for healing/buffing focus. Good way to kill two birds in one class).

It wouldn't be for everyone, but it be a good way to get a 4e-inspired class into 5e without re-inventing the wheel. It could be used as a replacement fighter for those who so choose, or run alongside the PHB fighter if they want. As a bonus, you could build the Warlord into it (you already have Commander's Strike, I could see a "bonus action heal an ally your superiority dice + Cha mod" maneuver as well; with a warlord getting more oomph from it via subclass abilities).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, the problem with the battlemaster is they took the most unique mechanic a fighter has (superiority dice) and siloed it into a subclass, which meant it limited the number of powers, types of powers, and number of dice needed. I get they wanted an "I attack" simple fighter, but forcing all the complex fighter into one subclass was kinda short sighted.

Now, what I think WOULD work is a class that has superiority dice as the *main* mechanic of the class. It gets lots of maneuvers and more Sup dice to use them with. By using the existing mechanic of maneuvers/Sup Dice, you can feed the BM fighter too (and turn him into a "dip-maneuver" class like how Eldritch knight is a "dip-spellcasting" class).

Excellent points.

I'm a little on the fence about maneuvers, OT1H they're a much better name than exploit and a decent mechanic (if only, as you say, they hadn't been so tightly silo'd - as an aside, it seems like CS dice are digging their way out of the silo), they'd also have benefited from not being all de-facto 'low level.' OTOH, they're not wildly innovative. They're approximately encounter powers or Essentials 'power attack' riders. And, like the whole fighter class, they suffer from what Mearls was talking about a while back, of being generic, mechanics-first perhaps, when 5e class design is mostly concept-first.

I've toyed with ideas like tactics or 'stratagems' or maneuvers or 'secret techniques' that use some other, less mechanical-resource, more conceptual way of limiting usage. Something like, you can use a surprise maneuver once in a given encounter, but if you try it again, it's much more likely to fail - 'cause it's not a surprise anymore. Or each time you use a 'secret technique' there's a chance it'll get out...

IDK.

Borrowing from the warlock, you could also introduce an "invocation-like" mechanic (stances?) that provide unique benefits a BM can't grab. Finally, since we have a class with a built in superiority dice, we can have subclasses that use them in different ways (kensei for quasi-magical maneuvers, or Warlord for healing/buffing focus. Good way to kill two birds in one class).

Nod. There's actually less ground to cover in resurrecting the Weaponmaster than the Warlord, so it's occurred to me before that, if there were no sufficiently-defendery fighter sub class (and the Knight, following in the footsteps of the Essentials and 3.5 Knights, seems to be just that sub-class) the Bravura Warlord could be adapted as marking type defender sub-class. One with an expanded maneuver system, so much the better.

It could be used as a replacement fighter for those who so choose, or run alongside the PHB fighter if they want.

I could certainly see them side-by-side. The 5e fighter's 'best at fighting' thing is all about the sustained DPR through Exta Attack. A maneuver-based weaponmaster could concievably bring a lot more flexibility, without challenging that supremacy.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's a nice homebrew on the Dmguild called Tome of Battle (based on the book of nine sword). Its pay what you want. The concept of the class is a fighting-man who can ''concentrate'' on one stance (with the same rules as the spellcasters), and while in this stance they can spend ''focus'' to do cool manoeuvers, more or less like the Mystic UA. There's 3 archetype: Warmaster (master more maneuvers), Crusader (defender that just wont die) and Swordsage (mix of elemental monk, eldrith knight, bladesinger etc).

There's 9 school of combat (think manoeuver famillies) specializing in different fields. Devoted Soul and White-Raven maneuvers were included as warlord powers in 4e.

The concept can be poached for your idea of a maneuver warrior.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's a nice homebrew on the Dmguild called Tome of Battle (based on the book of nine sword). Its pay what you want. The concept of the class is a fighting-man who can ''concentrate'' on one stance (with the same rules as the spellcasters), and while in this stance they can spend ''focus'' to do cool manoeuvers, more or less like the Mystic UA. There's 3 archetype: Warmaster (master more maneuvers), Crusader (defender that just wont die) and Swordsage (mix of elemental monk, eldrith knight, bladesinger etc).

Hmm... except for 'Warmaster' instead of Warblade, that sounds exactly like Bo9S....

The concept can be poached for your idea of a maneuver warrior.

I do recall Focus from Bo9S. Equating it with Concentration is a neat idea. It occurred to quite recently that the main feature of a stance is really locking out other stances, which is a bit like Concentration.

Interesting.

 

[Eric V]

***

 

[mflayermonk]

How about having the Weaponmaster emulate feats and paladin smite spells. Your stances would essentially be a wildcard feat you could change by the stance.
Another option would be effects similar to paladin smite spells (branding smite etc) with the paladin spell slots available as a guidepost to design.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Is this something that can be done using the Battlemaster/Superiority Dice mechanic but with a different set of maneuvers?

 

[Bacon Bits]

To me the 4e Fighter (I never played Essentials so it's not Weaponmaster to me) was, at it's core, two abilities:

Combat Challenge
1. You mark any opponent you attack (hit or miss) until the end of your next turn.
2. When an enemy that is marked by and adjacent to the Fighter chooses to attack someone other than the Fighter, the Fighter gets a free attack against the marked enemy as an immediate interrupt (i.e., as a reaction).

Combat Superiority
1. If you hit with an opportunity attack and movement provoked the attack of opportunity, the target stops moving (i.e., the target's speed is reduced to 0).

Pretty much everything else was gravy. Yes, even Come and Get It, even Tide of Iron. These two abilities were the core structure of the class.

Critically, opportunity attacks were limited to once per turn, so Combat Superiority could be used to prevent multiple opponents from running past you. Also critically, you could use both Combat Challenge and an AoO in the same turn against the same creature. Quite honestly, opportunity attacks are so rare in 5e that I question whether they should be once per turn in 5e already. I understand the desire to simplify and use reactions for everything, and I understand why reactions are limited to once per round, but it's pretty easy to game the system currently.

There's two abilities people call out to mimic the 4e Fighter: the Sentinel feat which punishes attackers, and Protection Style which penalizes attackers.

SENTINEL

* When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
* Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
* When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Now, this is close. Bullet point 1 is actual Combat Superiority. However, since only punishes (triggers an attack) and doesn't penalize, it means you can only Sentinel against one creature a turn. So, in order to punish a creature for attacking whom you're defending, you have to sacrifice punishing any other target that you might have attacked. Additionally, you have to give up any ability for opportunity attacks.

The second ability is the one that can actually penalize attacks is the Protection Fighting Style:

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.

Here we're applying a bonus instead of a penalty. That's perfectly fine. I'm not a huge fan of requiring that you and your ally be adjacent to each other, but it's acceptable. However, this ability is consuming our Fighter's reaction again! We have to choose between being able to punish an attacker, shielding your allies, or making opportunity attacks.

The 5e DMG does have alternate rules that it calls "marking" on p271:

MARK
This option makes it easier for melee combatants to harry each other with opportunity attacks.

When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target. Until the end of the attacker's next turn, any opportunity attack it makes against the marked target has advantage. The opportunity attack doesn't expend the attacker's reaction, but the attacker can't make the attack if anything, such as the incapacitated condition or the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn.

However, other than automatically applying on hit, it's exactly nothing like a mark in 4e. It's like they took everything that was bad about Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority and made it into one ability. It will essentially never come up because you have to attack before you can mark, and even when it does trigger all it does is grant advantage on one attack. It does nothing to actually taunt the attacker, nor does it do anything to punish an attacker for ignoring the Fighter, nor does it prevent enemies from rushing past the Fighter unless they've already engaged. The Fighter is still unable to keep his enemies stuck to him. Even the fact that they change opportunity attacks to once per turn instead of once per round, as well as changing opportunity attacks to not consume your reaction doesn't make a significant difference.

Worse, even if you're using the "mark" alternate rule, once you use Sentinel to attack or Protection to shield, you can no longer use opportunity attacks because Sentinel and Protection consume your reaction! Mark's opportunity attacks don't consume a reaction, but you still need to be able to take a reaction to take one... which you can't once it's been spent.

What I would like to see is a 5e subclass of Fighter that gets a proper mark, and -- instead of getting any other benefits -- has trained to be a Defender Fighter.

The problem with the subclass option, of course, is that you need all these options at level 3 and level 7 to really duplicate it. 4e characters basically start at level 3, so I'm not irritated by the fact that the Defender Fighter has to wait until level 3 to get going. However, I don't like the idea that they have to wait until level 7 to get a full Combat Challenge. I need to think some on how I'd structure the subclass.

My ideal 4e Fighter in 5e would be:

Fighter + Sentinel + Protection Style + unlimited reactions for Sentinel, Protection Style, or opportunity attacks. I'd probably take Shield Master as well.

Hm....

 

[Hussar]

No, he's looking for vindication that the 4e fighter* needs to be its own unique class in 5e because the 5e fighter cannot possibly do what it did. Agree with him or face a one week ban.

* I look forward to threads on why the Templar, Scoundrel, and Arcanist need to be their own classes as well.

/edit - Sigh. Sorry. Letting my own personal hobby horse take over my posting. My bad. Going to let this one go. Better for all involved.