Why everyone think that Battlemaster is better than Samurai?

Everytime that I see a guide about fighter, BM is better rate than Samurai. For while, I just think that people overrated the subclass. Can anyone explain it to me?
 

flametitan

Explorer
The most simple reason is that the BM manoeuvres can be used to boost your Damage when you hit, make a miss into a hit, add special effects on a hit, be used to take special actions in exchange for foregoing an attack... It's more versatile, and while each one is limited to affecting one attack, it also recharges on a short rest, so at the lower levels, it's just straight better.

It's possible that the fact that it affects all of your attacks on that turn might bring it up at higher levels (especially once Rapid Strike comes into play), but the BM still has the advantage of the bonus effects granted by the dice.
 

unknowable

Explorer
Samurai is fine. Battlemaster is just more versatile in what it can do and because it gets it's four dice back on a short rest.

Heck most of it's abilities trigger after an attack hits or after you roll, so you aren't ever wasting your limited ability. And then you have fun stuff like commanders strike if you have a sneak attack rogue or sharpshooter archer in the party. Oh and many manuvers give extra damage to boot.

It is an objectively better subclass, but 5e works in such a way that a samurai will still be happy with their frequent advantage, especially at later levels with gwm feats.

That said, if you are in a party that grants a lot of advantage then a samurai will lament at times. Like any party with a swashbuckler shield master rogue.
 

Valetudo

Explorer
Most the fighter subclasses are pretty close on the balance factor in actual play. Even the champ is close behind despite the complaing. Im not so sure about the purple dragon though. But I wouldnt worry about which ones better or stronger. Just play the one you like.
 

unknowable

Explorer
Most the fighter subclasses are pretty close on the balance factor in actual play. Even the champ is close behind despite the complaing. Im not so sure about the purple dragon though. But I wouldnt worry about which ones better or stronger. Just play the one you like.
Purple dragon is pretty awful. For a support fighter it offers little in the way of support. Still very playable though, the core fighter is a strong combat class.
 

guachi

Visitor
It's too bad that maneuvers have been relegated solely to the battlemaster as they provide a useful platform for building subclasses.

The result is subclasses where you end up saying "I'd rather play a battlemaster"
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
It's too bad that maneuvers have been relegated solely to the battlemaster as they provide a useful platform for building subclasses.

The result is subclasses where you end up saying "I'd rather play a battlemaster"
Have you seen the Bard: College of swords? :)
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Purple dragon is pretty awful. For a support fighter it offers little in the way of support. Still very playable though, the core fighter is a strong combat class.
I believe the Cavalier is an upgraded version of that - any comments?
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Nothing alike, as similar to each other as the eldritch knight is to the champion.

The analogue will be whatever mike mearls ends up with with his warlord.
Huh. Clearly I was mistaken then, I will have to look again.

But in the meantime, what do you think of the cavalier. The name suggests a mounted combat focus, but it's a very defense oriented build above all else.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Because precision attack is better than advantage, and that's only one of the options that the Battle Master has. Samurai archer with Elven Accuracy and Sharpshooter is pretty good, especially once they get 3 attacks per round, and even better with Rapid Strike. Up till then, though, I'd rather have Battle Master.
 

AmerginLiath

Visitor
Something to keep in mind is who you’re asking. Boards such as this are generally going to prefer the crunchier, more optimizable classes like the Battle Master, simply because online discussion of gaming has always been a draw for mechanics — logically because you can discuss but can’t compare storylines in the same way as rules. The Battle Master is the most mechanical subclass of the Fighter (depending on how the Eldritch Knight is considered), so a D&D message board is naturally going to be considering and analyzing it more (especially in build guides, which are explicitly mechanical and “white room”). The Battle Master is the subclass which one can take apart and get one’s hands dirty over, but “better” is a loaded term outside the walls of build guides and forums (compare for example the debates on rangers versus surveys on how popular the class is — neither is wrong, both sides are simply approaching the matter differently).

If you held a d20 primed to roll a critical to my head, I’d say I’d rather play a samurai because the class just feels more interesting to me, but maybe that’s a combination of the fallacy of novelty and the classic player’s sense of fighter-as-generic tacked onto the BM. Nevertheless, I don’t feel that the particular metrics of build guides necessarily determine that one is better than the other (contrary to what they claim) versus being interesting reads on how mechanical elements of the game work synergistically. So, just play what subclass you think will make for a better realization of your character’s story.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
Forgot to quote. So I add something to the title of the thread.
I think battlemaster should have started with only 3 dice. The 4th was added after playtest and set the bar a bit high for every other subclass.

The purpledragon is not as awful as you might think. It is about as powerful as the champion. He has healing on a short rest base. My feeling is that he would be better if level 3 and 7 abilities would have been switched. 3 hp for 3 people is lousy. 7 not so much. I also think he vould have added cha to some abilities. Would have been a nice twist.
 
Last edited:

Pauln6

Explorer
Forgot to quote. So I add something to the totle of the thread.
I think battlemaster should have started with only 3 dice. The 4th was added after playtest and set thr bar a bot high for every other subclass.

The purpledragon is not as awful as you might think. It is about as powerful as the champion. He has healing on a short rest base. My feeling is that he would be better if level 3 and 7 abilities would have been switched. 3 hp for 3 people is lousy. 7 not so much. I also think he vould have added cha to some abilities. Would have been a nice twist.
I always feelthe purple dragon knight could be made a bit better by giving them a free martial adept feat limited to a choice of the warlord style manoeuvres.
 

guachi

Visitor
I'm not sure if BM is better than Samurai, but I do think BM makes a better Samurai than Samurai does.
Honestly, my first thought on reading the Battlemaster thoroughly when I got my PHB and imagining what to play as one (because, let's face it, "Battlemaster" isn't particularly evocative on its face) was that it would make a great samurai. I actually loved many of the classes in the PHB because the fluff isn't forced.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
I believe the Battlemaster has 1 more Superiority Die than they should have. It's fine, just makes them better than other Fighter subclasses.

The Purple Dragon Knight's Rallying Cry should, at the very least, revive characters at 0. It would be nice if it healed more too. CHA+Fighter level would be good. Ideally up to 3 creatures get the full Second Wind and Second Wind gets upgraded to add CHA as well.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Nothing alike, as similar to each other as the eldritch knight is to the champion.

The analogue will be whatever mike mearls ends up with with his warlord.
Ah - I was thinking of the Knight from Unearthed Arcana, which is *clearly* the predecessor to the cavalier.

I have honestly no idea what the purple dragon knight does. What's the source?
 

Advertisement

Top