Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7043649" data-attributes="member: 996">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.'&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Or each time you use a 'secret technique' there's a chance it'll get out... IDK.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; One with an expanded maneuver system, so much the better.&nbsp;I could certainly see them side-by-side.&nbsp; The 5e fighter's 'best at fighting' thing is all about the sustained DPR through Exta Attack.&nbsp; A maneuver-based weaponmaster could concievably bring a lot more flexibility, without challenging that supremacy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7043649, member: 996"] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification