Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
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.
D&D 5E Why everyone think that Battlemaster is better than Samurai?
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
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
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
Adventurer
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.
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
Legend
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.
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:
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I'm not sure if BM is better than Samurai, but I do think BM makes a better Samurai than Samurai does.
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.
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
(they/them)
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.
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
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?
I feel the same. Maybe, this is why BM is more popular than Samurai, even for people want to play a Samurai, like me.
Similar Threads
