Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7043374" data-attributes="member: 996">For those who don't recall, the Weaponmaster was the early name of the Battlemaster in the playtest, and the de-facto sub-class name retroactively applied to all 4e fighters when they were superseded by the Essentials Knight &amp; Slayer.&nbsp; (It was also a Dragon Mag fighter build with a few powers that did different things depending on what weapon you used, but I'm guessing that's not important).So, as the title suggests, the Battlemaster ain't the Weaponmaster.&nbsp; For one thing, the Weaponmaster had sub-classes of it's own - Defender, Greatweapon, Battlerager, Tempest, Brawler, &amp; Arena builds.&nbsp; For another, of course, it was stuffed in the Martial/Defender 4e-Role box (so effective ranged combat was oddly out).&nbsp;&nbsp; (Getting away from that last parenthetical is a good thing, given that 5e doesn't have roles, and makes it (finally!) seamless to go STR v DEX for attack.)&nbsp; But, the depth possible with the Weaponmaster isn't possible with the Battlemaster, and the Battlemaster has given up both that and a lot of the Weaponmaster's 'Defender' functionality in exchange for a big pile of DPR.&nbsp;&nbsp; As with the Warlord, that pile of DPR makes it hard to wedge the Weaponmaster concept into the very limited remaining design space of a fighter sub-class.I see two obvious ways to address the DPR-crowding issue with the fighter.1) Divert Extra Attack, somehow.&nbsp; That is, the sub-class(es) that take up the Weaponmaster's mantle have a feature that makes extra attack do something other than a bland extra attack.&nbsp; Like, oh, each round you're entitled to Extra Attack you get a free CS die?&nbsp; IDK.&nbsp; Still not a game designer, me.2) New class!&nbsp; It's not like there are way too many non-casting classes in 5e!&nbsp; I wouldn't mind hearing some others.Then there's the depth-of-play/flexibiliity/etc provided by 'exploits' (martial powers) in 4e.&nbsp; 5e comes up short in several ways.&nbsp; One is that it's all relative - to the depth/flexibiity/power/resources of spells, that is.&nbsp; A 4e Weaponmaster had a set of attack options and resources that were only slightly inferior to the typical caster's.&nbsp; By contrast, the Battlemasters handful of maneuvers and CS dice don't even stack up favorable to its &quot;1/3rd caster&quot; sibling, the Eldritch Knight, who gains 4 levels of spells over his career.&nbsp; By the same token, the Eldritch Knight is essentially a cut-rate fractional wizard, like a pre-measured Fighter/Wizard multiclass.&nbsp; The Battlemaster's features, then, is analogous to a multiclass-like fraction of an implied maneuver-based class.&nbsp; One that's as far ahead of the battlemaster in maneuvers as the Wizard is beyond the EK in spells.&nbsp; That'd be something.&nbsp; Possibly a basis for the Weaponmaster.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7043374, member: 996"] For those who don't recall, the Weaponmaster was the early name of the Battlemaster in the playtest, and the de-facto sub-class name retroactively applied to all 4e fighters when they were superseded by the Essentials Knight & Slayer. (It was also a Dragon Mag fighter build with a few powers that did different things depending on what weapon you used, but I'm guessing that's not important). So, as the title suggests, the Battlemaster ain't the Weaponmaster. For one thing, the Weaponmaster had sub-classes of it's own - Defender, Greatweapon, Battlerager, Tempest, Brawler, & Arena builds. For another, of course, it was stuffed in the Martial/Defender 4e-Role box (so effective ranged combat was oddly out). (Getting away from that last parenthetical is a good thing, given that 5e doesn't have roles, and makes it (finally!) seamless to go STR v DEX for attack.) But, the depth possible with the Weaponmaster isn't possible with the Battlemaster, and the Battlemaster has given up both that and a lot of the Weaponmaster's 'Defender' functionality in exchange for a big pile of DPR. As with the Warlord, that pile of DPR makes it hard to wedge the Weaponmaster concept into the very limited remaining design space of a fighter sub-class. I see two obvious ways to address the DPR-crowding issue with the fighter. 1) Divert Extra Attack, somehow. That is, the sub-class(es) that take up the Weaponmaster's mantle have a feature that makes extra attack do something other than a bland extra attack. Like, oh, each round you're entitled to Extra Attack you get a free CS die? IDK. Still not a game designer, me. 2) New class! It's not like there are way too many non-casting classes in 5e! I wouldn't mind hearing some others. Then there's the depth-of-play/flexibiliity/etc provided by 'exploits' (martial powers) in 4e. 5e comes up short in several ways. One is that it's all relative - to the depth/flexibiity/power/resources of spells, that is. A 4e Weaponmaster had a set of attack options and resources that were only slightly inferior to the typical caster's. By contrast, the Battlemasters handful of maneuvers and CS dice don't even stack up favorable to its "1/3rd caster" sibling, the Eldritch Knight, who gains 4 levels of spells over his career. By the same token, the Eldritch Knight is essentially a cut-rate fractional wizard, like a pre-measured Fighter/Wizard multiclass. The Battlemaster's features, then, is analogous to a multiclass-like fraction of an implied maneuver-based class. One that's as far ahead of the battlemaster in maneuvers as the Wizard is beyond the EK in spells. That'd be something. Possibly a basis for the Weaponmaster. [/QUOTE]

Verification