D&D 5E Why (IMO) fighter maneuvers have gotten worse each packet.

[Obryn]

I personally don't like that parrying kills your OA for the round... I understand wanting to move away from fiddly out of turn actions, but this is a bit much.

-O

 

[LightPhoenix]

The more I think about it, the more I believe there should be two sorts of manoeuvres. Some which you can do no matter how you're equipped. Crazy flipping around to avoid a fireball, say, like a monk or rogue might manage; managing to make even blows that your opponent blocks do some damage, like a fighter. And some which are associated with equipment. You have a shield, you can parry melee or missile attacks; you're a monk with weird martial arts weapon or a rogue with a parrying dagger, you can try to disarm enemies with your MDD.

I think rather than have these be separate maneuvers and punishing the Fighter, it might be easier to expand the use of Parry. If you have a shield equipped, you can use Parry against missile attacks. It's more elegant than multiple maneuvers and doesn't punish the Fighter.

 

[YRUSirius]

And while we're at it, merge the maneuver Protect with the class feature Parry. Parry can now negate any melee damage to yourself or to any ally nearby. If you're using a shield you can even negate ranged damage.

-YRUSirius

 

[Li Shenron]

I think rather than have these be separate maneuvers and punishing the Fighter, it might be easier to expand the use of Parry. If you have a shield equipped, you can use Parry against missile attacks. It's more elegant than multiple maneuvers and doesn't punish the Fighter.

And while we're at it, merge the maneuver Protect with the class feature Parry. Parry can now negate any melee damage to yourself or to any ally nearby. If you're using a shield you can even negate ranged damage.

-YRUSirius

I would prefer these to remain separate abilities. They are strong enough to be well worth a small cost (to be honest, I would be fine even if Parry itself was a Maneuver and not a default to all Fighters), have a strong look & feel which IMHO means they are great options to stylize different Fighters, and the latter adds a layer of complexity that is IMHO better not to impose to all Fighters players.

I understand that if someone (an expert player) has already decided to play a Fighter, getting more stuff on top is only going to be appreciated, but still...

 

[YRUSirius]

Well I don't feel thar negating damage on anyone is too complex.

-YRUSirius

 

[Li Shenron]

Well I don't feel thar negating damage on anyone is too complex.

-YRUSirius

The added bit of complexity during a battle, is having to choose whether to use your reaction to negate dmg to an ally, or to yourself.

Maybe it's a minor complication for non-beginners, but if that's the excuse for adding more tactical options for free and everybody suggests to add one minor complication, you end up with lots of complications...

Anyway IMHO Protect is also a good/useful ability, and something you can use to define a certain fighting style, maybe even a starting point for a whole character concept. These are the main reasons why I think it should be something that a PC chooses to have, rather than making it free for all Fighters.

My 2cp

 

[triqui]

The added bit of complexity during a battle, is having to choose whether to use your reaction to negate dmg to an ally, or to yourself.

Maybe it's a minor complication for non-beginners, but if that's the excuse for adding more tactical options for free and everybody suggests to add one minor complication, you end up with lots of complications...

Anyway IMHO Protect is also a good/useful ability, and something you can use to define a certain fighting style, maybe even a starting point for a whole character concept. These are the main reasons why I think it should be something that a PC chooses to have, rather than making it free for all Fighters.

My 2cp

This.
When deciding if a class feature should be free for all the class, or a chosen player option, I always think three different archetypes and see if it does make sense.

Does Protect make sense for every fighter archetype?
Knights, sure. Myrmido bodyguards, phalanx soldiers or me at arms, too. But why should a sharpshooter be an adept in this? Why should a slayer with an executioners axe, or a hulking brute with a maul? Is a swashbuckling rake really focused in this?

If the answer is not, then it is not a class defining feature.

 

[YRUSirius]

This.
When deciding if a class feature should be free for all the class, or a chosen player option, I always think three different archetypes and see if it does make sense.

Does Protect make sense for every fighter archetype?
Knights, sure. Myrmido bodyguards, phalanx soldiers or me at arms, too. But why should a sharpshooter be an adept in this? Why should a slayer with an executioners axe, or a hulking brute with a maul? Is a swashbuckling rake really focused in this?

If the answer is not, then it is not a class defining feature.

So what about Parry then? Why should a sharpshooter be able to parry?

In my eyes Parry and Protect are nearly the same feature. Both negate damage. Parry negates damage on yourself, while Protect negates damage on your allies.

A combined Parry/Protect class feature would be like a "heal light wounds" spell. Either heal your own wounds or the wounds of your allies.

I feel the distinction between Parry and Protect in the current playtest might be even more complicated for newbies than the merged feature. But it's no biggie.

-YRUSirius

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am pro pretty much everything in the OP.

I like the idea of bigger swings for barbarians and rogues, and fighters having a unique ability, and having to use some resource management and not getting hung up on the rules-laywery distinction between "turn" and "round".

 

[triqui]

So what about Parry then? Why should a sharpshooter be able to parry?

In my eyes Parry and Protect are nearly the same feature. Both negate damage. Parry negates damage on yourself, while Protect negates damage on your allies.

A combined Parry/Protect class feature would be like a "heal light wounds" spell. Either heal your own wounds or the wounds of your allies.

I feel the distinction between Parry and Protect in the current playtest might be even more complicated for newbies than the merged feature. But it's no biggie.

-YRUSirius

PArry is self defense. Even a sharpshooter can learn to defend themselves, and Legolas do a few good defensive movements in the LOTR film for example. Same goes with a vanguard fighter with a big 2h axe.

However, Protect others is a different beast. Not everybody is trained on it (that's why Phalanxes were so good, because they were trained to protect each other). A swashbuckling rake, or a crowsbowman, or a reaper fighter with a scythe all learn to parry. Not all of them learn to protect others. Protect should be something you get when you want to do that role: a knight, a roman legionaire, a man-at-arms... But not with every fighter-