D&D 5E Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[Sacrosanct]

yes... because you didn't like it that colors your ability to help people who did... I mean the fact that I liked parts of 4e, and consider it the best D&D pre 5e so I want to see 5e improve on 4e (it was far from perfect).

Regardless of his bias against it, or your bias towards it, doesn't change the fact that yes, you in fact can do most of the stuff you were saying you can't do in 5e with battlemaster maneuvers or following EK path, especially if you're using the epic healing module.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Regardless of his bias against it, or your bias towards it, doesn't change the fact that yes, you in fact can do most of the stuff you were saying you can't do in 5e with battlemaster maneuvers or following EK path, especially if you're using the epic healing module.

no you can't... not even close... There is no martial healing (and I don't care that you think only magic can heal) there is no way to reliable grant attacks (you only get 2 or 3 times per short rest) the other inspirational bonus don't exsist.

 

[Sacrosanct]

no you can't... not even close... There is no martial healing (and I don't care that you think only magic can heal) there is no way to reliable grant attacks (you only get 2 or 3 times per short rest) the other inspirational bonus don't exsist.

I think you need to read the battlemaster again. Because there are maneuvers that grant allies an attack and a way to grant hp as well. And then you've also got feats like Inspiring Leader which grant HP as well. All of these are martial forms of granting HP.

Just because it doesn't mirror 4e, or doesn't fit your personal expectations, doesn't mean they don't exist. They absolutely do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think you need to read the battlemaster again. Because there are maneuvers that grant allies an attack and a way to grant hp as well. And then you've also got feats like Inspiring Leader which grant HP as well. All of these are martial forms of granting HP.

Just because it doesn't mirror 4e, or doesn't fit your personal expectations, doesn't mean they don't exist. They absolutely do.

ok let me try again, maybe you didn't read what you responded too..

yes there is very limited commander strike at level 3 you get 4 uses of any maneuver per day, but can refresh if you take an hour off. at levels 7 and 15 you get one more use...

Commander’s Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll.

so it costs you an attack (witch does mean at level 5+ you still get your own attacks) and a bonus action and costs your ally a reaction... how much would it break the game to make that (already cost 3 thing) at will... but instead you must spend 1 of 4,5,or6 superiority dice... you can't see a difference here?

in 4e I had at 1st level the following options:

basic attack
2/encounter heal target 1/4hp+1d6hp
Wolf pack tactics (Make an attack and me or an ally move)
Commander strike (Grant an extra attack to an ally
Warlord's strike (attack then grant ally's bonus to hit target till my next action) 1/encounter
Leading the Assualt (Attack grants ally's bonus to hit until end of encounter)1/day

in 5e at 3rd level I have the following options:

basic attack
commander strike (As above)
rally (spend a superiority die to grant temp hp equal to 1d8+cha mod)
maneuvering assault (a lot like wolf pack tactics but costs a die)

all 3 of the special options cost a resource that only comes back with an hour rest...

so with 3 extra levels, the 5e version has less options, and can use them less often...

I am not saying *You can in no way do x ever"
what I am saying is "You are less effective and way more costly to use abilities and I fear that may cause some problem with game balance."

 

[Rhenny]

I am not saying *You can in no way do x ever"
what I am saying is "You are less effective and way more costly to use abilities and I fear that may cause some problem with game balance."

It is hard to say if you are less effective. 5e features can only be evaluated vs. 5e monster/adventuring day math. It is impossible to judge 5e using 4e as a lens. 4e features can be evaluated vs. 4e math.

It may just feel different, but in gameplay it may or may not be as effective.

If most combats are 2-3 rounds (so far, for easy and average encounters that's pretty much been it). Using a maneuver 1 time may be enough to turn the fight. This means that the battlemaster fighter can go 4 combats and contribute mightily in all 4. Then, it is rest time.

My suspicion is that since combat took much longer in 4e (and would run 6-7 rounds each), it was more necessary to grant Warlords more "at will" and encounter powers that refreshed each encounter. Besides, many people also believed that the Warlord in 4e was overpowered.

 

[Remathilis]

Additionally, Battle Masters can take Martial Adept to gain another two maneuvers and one superiority dice. At fourth level, a BM with MA could have 5 abilities and 5 dice per rest; certainly on par with a sorcerer or warlock.

 

[Grainger]

As far as I'm concerned, RPGs are meant to be about house rules, optional rules and differing game styles. Every table is playing a different game anyway, due to GM style and mix of player personalities. All this talk about everything being "balanced", and of following CRs slavishly, is over-rated.

Whatever the system, all GMs have to tailor the campaign to their players' tastes, strengths and playing styles anyway. For example, if the players are finding everything a pushover because they're doing large amounts of damage, then it's time to throw hardier monsters at them. Who cares if the monsters have the official stats or follow the guidelines for CR? These mechanics are only there to help the GM anyway - not force them to follow.

And I don't buy the complaints of "we paid for a finished system, and we didn't get it!". You did get a finished system with 5e - and it's a very good system that's smooth as butter to play. It's just one that requires a modicum of common sense and GM flexibility (I don't even think it requires much - I don't consider myself a very flexible GM, really, and I manage fine). What I love about 5e is that it just lets you get on with the game - probably even more so than BECMI, which I used to know like the back of my hand. It may not provide a more competitive-board-game-like, crunchy experience, but that's not what the aim was.

TL;DR - 5e may not be to your taste, but it does what it set out to do very, very well. What you see as its weaknesses are actually its strengths. There's no shame in that - no game system can please everyone.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It is hard to say if you are less effective. 5e features can only be evaluated vs. 5e monster/adventuring day math. It is impossible to judge 5e using 4e as a lens. 4e features can be evaluated vs. 4e math.

It may just feel different, but in gameplay it may or may not be as effective.

If most combats are 2-3 rounds (so far, for easy and average encounters that's pretty much been it). Using a maneuver 1 time may be enough to turn the fight. This means that the battlemaster fighter can go 4 combats and contribute mightily in all 4. Then, it is rest time.

My suspicion is that since combat took much longer in 4e (and would run 6-7 rounds each), it was more necessary to grant Warlords more "at will" and encounter powers that refreshed each encounter. Besides, many people also believed that the Warlord in 4e was overpowered.

This is an important point that shouldn't get lost. Also, in 5e, you can use the epic rest rule (short rests are 5 minutes), and basically you're getting all of your superiority dice back after every encounter. Does 4e really give you up to 8 maneuvers you can do each encounter? I have a hard time seeing how 5e's options "aren't even close" to 4e when you factor in everything.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am not saying *You can in no way do x ever"
what I am saying is "You are less effective and way more costly to use abilities and I fear that may cause some problem with game balance."

Thank you for clarifying, because that is exactly what you said when you said they don't exist. For your second sentence up there, I think you are mistaken. Run a BM fighter for a while, and see how it actually plays. I've done it. In fact, my halfling BM fighter is one of my favorites. And it seems to do everything you're asking for.

 

[MechaPilot]

Martial healing is just magic using a different UPC code.

Martial abilities are not magic; that's sort of part of the definition.

Now one can say they have similar effects, but similar effects has never stopped D&D before. I mean, how many fire spells are there. How many weapons and armor are identical in functional mechanics (damage and properties) but have different weights and costs (see 5e's spear and trident), or are virtually identical in functional mechanics apart from one minor difference (see 5e's flail and warhammer, and 5e's padded and leather armor).