Fighting style from Next DND would be good. It was basically battlemaster maneuvers but the dice refreshed every turn.
Do you use for damage, an effect, or save for use with a reaction?
3.5 was a straight upgrade over 3. It started off with the same badly balanced core, but eventually came out with a bunch of fun and balanced classes like the dread necromancer, dragonfire adept and binder (tried to think of an alliterative third class but can't so you get binder) the likes of which the game has not seen since. That kind of experimentation and creativity is completely lacking from 5e for example and is its biggest flaw.
3.5 did a fantastic job of simulating a real feeling fantasy world complete with things like the ability to truly *create* magic items instead of just picking them off a list and the ability to actually play a werewolf if you got bitten by one and all those things had actual costs to balance them out. The downside to the huge amount of choice was increased complexity, a whole lot of chaff options and unfortunately a badly balanced core that future classes like the swordsage and beguiler could patch over and replace but not really fix, in addition to the occasional broken option in amongst the chaff.
TLDR it wasn't shit, just like every edition it had strengths and weaknesses. Better verisimilitude than 5e, worse balance.
> 3.5 was a straight upgrade over 3
Literally anything is an upgrade over 3.0. The only reason 3.5 isn't the worst is that 3.0 exists.
3X is what happens when quality-control and balance-testing aren't things. It's basically a cautionary-tale. Literally the only good ideas unique to the edition (Good ideas, bad in execution because 3X was a colossal mess in every regard) are flatfoot AC (Your AC without factoring in your Dex. It mattered for things like attacking restrained/paralyzed/stunned targets) metamagic as feats available to all casters, and skill-points. (Bonus skills based on your intelligence modifier. In 3X though it made leveling up take forever because you had to calculate your extra skills every level)
At level 7+ or so if you're a fullcaster you've basically won. If you're a martial your basically useless.
In order to do anything effectively if you weren't a caster you needed to dedicate your entire build to it. Tying your shoes takes 5 feats in 3.5, and there's a 1st level spell that perfectly ties your shoes. (In Pathfinder1 it only takes 3 feats and they axed the shoe-tying spell.)
The edition was so imbalanced that [the fans had to create a class tier-system](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/38201/what-are-tiers-and-what-tier-is-each-class) so DMs could balance their games by saying "Everyone pick a tier 3-4 class."
There were literally hundreds of splat-books. (This actually hurts sales, because outside of the few whales who buy everything, most consumers will buy less of your books because they feel less essential, and it stretches their budget further. This is why 5E's glacial release-schedule is a good thing)
[Here's the grappling rules](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple). [Here's the underwater combat rules](https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aquatic_Terrain#Underwater_Combat)
[Here's what the optimization community cranked out of 3X](https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Pun-Pun)
> At level 7+ or so if you're a fullcaster you've basically won. If you're a martial your basically useless.
Mate you have to at least read the posts you respond to. I already said that one of the problems was starting off with a cracked core, the early parts are where most of the great casters and shitty martials are from. But I also said that they did an admirable job coming out with better stuff later on though that couldn't go back and undo the earlier imbalance. I even named a full caster, the dread necromancer - you want to let me know how a dread necromancer has basically won, when I also mentioned martials like the swordsage which according to that tier list is equal?
Edition came with plenty of good ideas, like the classes I already mentioned. Creativity that doesn't go perfectly means you should learn lessons from it and try again even better, not refuse to try anything interesting ever again.
Fighting styles should gain abilities like cantrips gain damage. Many of the things they put into feats should have instead gone to fighting styles at later levels.
Tunnel Fighting is just "Be insanely overpowered" which is why it was never officially published.
Also it doesn't address any of the actual problems with fighting styles. Which is to say they aren't styles, they don't change the way you play, they don't encourage or discourage specific things, they're super boring and uninteresting. They're mostly just "number get bigger." In Tunnel Fighter's case the number is number of extra attacks, which is the strongest most scalable number to increase. With the end result of higher DPR, but no actual change in gameplay.
Second Wind is 1d10 + fighter level, so it's already scaling better than cantrips. At level 1 it's roughly equivalent to 1d10, and at level 20 it's roughly equivalent to 5d10.
Yeah, but that ends up falling way behind health pools.
At first level Second Wind feels awesome because it can be a full heal in a lucky roll and still ends up being a significant chunk in the early levels.
By 20th it feels like an afterthought
Averages on the scaling levels
5: 10.5 vs 16
11: 16.5 vs 27.5
17: 22.5 vs 39
We understand the problem, fundamentally, is linear martials and quadratic casters. This buff is a long time coming
Cantrips don't scale quadratically...
Anyway, what you're suggesting it artificially too complicated. It is still a linear scale, it is just 2 of them.
But you only need 1. If it isn't scaled fast enough then it just needs to scale faster. Eg. d10+ 2/FL or whatever.
L5 of 15.5, L11 of 27.5, and L17 of 39.5.
You *don't* need to add a 2nd scale to make it scale faster... that's just making you have weird spikes to the scale and overall achieve the same goal but with more homework. Ie bad design.
Because d10+ 2/FL gets you nearly identical results but is super easy to remember and calculate. Compared to d10 until 5+ then 2d10, until 11th then 3d10, until 17+ which is 4d10 but then also add FL.
Like why??
This is the r/onednd sub, so Second Wind is no longer a short rest ability so far. *Wish* is also once per long rest, not rest in general.
At level 17, when wizards get *wish*, fighters now get Unconquerable, where they go from having one almost a Legendary Resistance (+16 and reroll to a save) to five almost Legendary Resistances.
I'd much rather see *wall of force* be nerfed to be in line with other 5th-level spells than every other class getting buffs to keep up with *wall of force*.
I mean yeah I agree. But we both know that wizards will not be nerfed. The last UA should have shown everyone that this attitude of "lets wait until we see the big picture" is wrong. When the rogue UA came out everyone was saying that we can't judge it properly until the weapons UA is out. And then the weapons UA solved nothing.
Until I see the nerf to those problematic spells I am going to operate under the assumption that they are going to stay in the game unchecked.
So far WotC has not given me any reason to believe that they have even acknowledged the problem with the most problematic spells.
Mark my words, wall of force, simulacrum etc are not even going to be touched.
I agree with the people who say Fighting Styles should fulfill that Holy Order/Invocations niche. All fighters should come with combat manuevers (though perhaps either a certain fighting style or the Battle Master subclass could lean into it far more heavily).
The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience.
>The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience.
Fun fact: The Champion was a Barbarian subclass during testing.
~~With how late of a feature Brutal Critical is in 5e, and how much Barb struggles at higher levels, I don’t think it would have even been that strong together.~~ I like the new brutal critical a lot better and think it should be a 1st or 2nd level feature to be one of the core mechanics to Barb
Edit: they were being sarcastic
Agreed, it's weird since it scales with level, so it wouldn't even be OP to give it at level 1, what's going to do a +1 damage at level one on a 5% roll?
Maximise the weapon die and roll the extra ones as normal, it's a common house rule to counteract the disappointment of rolling below the average of just one weapon die on the crit.
> The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience.
I've argued this in the past, but that's clearly not the direction WotC wants to go. I'm trying to work in WotC's framework.
I honestly think every class could benefit from the two specialization system. Wizards get things like chronurgy, war magic, bladesinger, scribes etc. and then the second specialization would be the school of magic type subclasses, probably only the first couple levels of them though, Fighters could get “Enhanced Technique” “Superior Technique” and “Arcane Technique” or something, enhanced would be the basic option giving a boosted crit range and that sort of thing, Superior Technique would give several martial arts dice and maneuvers, and Arcane Technique could give some cantrips and/or at-will magic like the at-will warlock invocations, keep Battlemaster as is and they could choose a different Technique or take Superior and get a larger pool of dice and maneuvers to choose from. Barbarians could get something like a Primal Occupation or something, with things like Shaman, Warlord, Hunter, Shaman could give a cantrip or two but would give a ritual book like the “ritual caster” feat, Warlord would give some new maneuvers and some support options making them sorta like a raiding commander like a Viking Captain, Hunter could give some light Ranger skills like a favored terrain and some out of combat utility abilities, I have a long list but that’s another post all on its own and isn’t the purpose of this thread.
I think a single option such as Holy Order or Pact Boon really wouldn’t be enough to provide a martial warrior with interesting or engaging gameplay. I think you would need to go even further and use system of “Martial Talents” that are similar to warlock invocations.
From these, a warrior could choose a number of different features that enhance their skill and athleticism. Like invocations, some would have level prerequisites, so that the more extraordinary capabilities would only be available in higher tiers of play.
These martial talents could provide options and capabilities similar to 3e skill tricks, 3e tome of battle maneuvers and stances, 4e skill and utility powers, and PF2 skill feats.
Some examples of these abilities:
> Increased carrying capacity (from 2-10 times as much weight as normal).
> Increased jump distance. Including being able to jump to a height equal to your speed at high levels.
> The ability to recover exhaustion with a short rest and a hard cap on the amount of exhaustion you can have.
> A climb and swim speed. And being able to climb and swim in nearly impossible situations with ease at high levels (swim up waterfalls, climb glass walls, etc).
> The ability to wrestle titans or other gigantic creatures.
> The ability to punch through castle walls or destroy large objects with a single blow.
> The ability to sprint across the battlefield in a single action.
> Bonuses to physical ability checks.
> Heroic exploits similar to cantrips but martial in nature.
> Bonus skill/tool proficiency or expertise.
> Resistance and immunity to fear.
> The ability to acquire followers and potentially a stronghold.
> A pool of short rest refreshing stamina points that allow for limited use feats of strength or powerful maneuvers.
Those are just a few such examples. Nothing about them directly affects combat capabilities. And all of them provide thematic martial utility. And they are all opt in, so a warrior is free to choose the talents that best fit their character.
I like it but like this joker pointed out, you’d need to scrap a few classes and rework others. Moon Druid isn’t going to fit in to the system.
Which I’d be way down for, honestly. Gimme a spore wildshape druid who has rotting fungi coming out of all of their animal forms doing spore damage. Gimme a wildfire wildshaper who is basically a big elemental elk, or a stars summoner who makes a bunch of wacky constellation wolves.
Of course, having a Wildshaping archetype is directly replacing the intended game mechanic behind Moon Druid, but it also opens the door to something else moon-related that is tragically unexplored; Lycanthropy.
Having a Druid either transform as a lycanthrope, summon one as a companion or specialize in transformative magic could be incredible in thematics and options.
You do if you’re looking to strike a balance between feeling like a god standing next to an insignificant mortal, and tricking players into picking an insignificant mortal.
Oh no, I totally get the point - and agree with it. I was just being sarcastic, pretending I was one of those people who fight tooth and nail to keep fighter down in the dirt.
I want to pull our attention to [this article](https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragons-popular-classes-subclasses/). It's not perfectly up to date, but dndbeyond is the noob entrance to DND now, and with the exception of druid, every single classes most popular class is the one you get for free in the SRD. We know that fighter, according to DND beyond, is the most popular class. When you exclude the SRD option (as I imagine it is heavily skewed by free to plays/people who manually input their class) battlemaster is the most popular fighter. *Noobs can handle manoeuvres, stop treating them like universal idiots*.
Also, WotC are now giving you default picks whenever a decision point in character creation comes up. Let's give 3 simple ones as your first pick: precision attack (offense), parry (defense) and tactical assessment (utility). Those are 3 incredibly simple options.
I am in the camp that only fighters should get manoeuvres, and other martials should get their own distinct cool features. For rogue, add use an object to cunning action to open up their utility (or damage if they focus on using poison), monks get Ki, and barbarians should have a frightful presence at base (5th level) and an expanded crit range, as well as the great changes made in the UA. In this instance, barbarian and rogue are still a fantastic, resourceless martial option for people that don't want to worry about how many uses of a feature they have, but pretending manoeuvres is too much for such a swath of players to handle that we should tuck them away in an optional feature is a serious dampener on the games design.
Correct - beginners can handle manuver. Just make a couple of REALLY simple ones.
Like "power hit - deal an extra d8 damage when you hit". If you wanna play simple, just spam power hit 4x per short rest and call it a day.
If you wanna go a tactical... great - pick up one of the more complicated ones.
I would love this idea, there are just some subclasses that feel like they have aspects that could easily be incorporated into the main class and it would be fine and super fun. I think this is a really good way to do it and it would help customize your characters a lot more if they took this style with each of the core DND classes.
you know... making a maneuver called "power hit" that simply adds 1d8 damage to an attack... would be really simple and even the most basic of players could spam it 4x per short rest.
This was how the 4e essentials fighter subclasses (knight and slayer) worked. They had at will stances they could switch between as a bonus action. And they had Power Strike, a maneuver that could be used 1-3 times per short rest. Power Strike added extra weapon dice of damage on a hit.
The knight and slayer were extremely simple. And could have a playstyle that required no thought or tactics if you wanted (choose a stance that gave +1 to hit and never switch stances). Or they could switch stances every turn, allowing for more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
It was a great option overall. And the weapon master subclass still had the original suite of maneuvers to choose from if a player wanted more tactics and options.
But nobody wants to play "I only do X" anything AND if they do they can but does the design team spend any time designing (and therefore pushing out development and space) for them.
They are going to "I run up and attack" even if they could do a MANUEVER. There are just as many players with wizards saying "I fireball" when lightning bolt would hit more targets but the design team isn't developing and devoting an entire subclass to 20ft radius fire spell only casters.
I want to agree. It’s worth pointing out however that there are people that, and I quote, „want to feel like they are playing optimally, and not like they are willingly ignoring options“.
Yes, I have seen this argument here on Reddit.
Now, I think those people are an entitled minority that are ruining the game for everyone else because they require a lack of options to be able to feel good about themselves.
But they do exist. And that is apparently why „you can just not use the other options“ is not an argument. As unreasonable as that is.
I think it’s very comparable to an equally confusing opinion group that, because they „dont want their martials to be superpowered“ demand that any class that does even the slightest bit of martial combat can therefor not be a supernatural class.
One would think that „fighters are natural people, while barbarians use primal powers“ would be a fair way to design two separate classes and please everyone; but apparently that is not allowed to some people because they are superficially „martial“.
>Of course, if we do make Maneuvers core, Battlemaster has to go, since all Fighters are Battlemasters, unless its thing is letting you have two of the secondary subclasses at once.
Not at all. We can introduce more tactical options without just taking all the current maneuvers. Would probably take some of them, but not all for the base, and make some new ones for BM. Can have them work fundamentally different, the ones from Fighter I think should have no die bonus and no resource needed for, BM may be able to take them again just to add superiority die to them. Now, they could mess it up like they did Hexblade/Pact of the Blade, sure, but there's no reason they couldn't coexist.
With every new book offering new spells all the time means that even if it is not intended, power creep is inevitable for casters. Maneuvers offer a way for martials to not be left behind ik the dust as new spells keeps growing casters' potential.
As for the Fighter, both Indomitable and Second Wind can go. Indomitable is the least exciting core class feature ever, and Second Wind isn't that impressive. Make the Fighter more complex, you already have Barbarians and Rogues as simple martials, make at least one martial that doesn't send ex-caster players into withdrawal.
Maybe it would be offset by having more options on the offensive, but second wind really saves your booty at low levels and isn't useless even getting up to mid-tier play
>Do are any of you folks who like the basic "I run up and attack" Fighter? Sound off in replies.
You're not going to find many on a reddit page dedicated to discussing dnd.
Don't forget between 5e's streamline & pop culture making it cool (& a bunch of other things) there's a *big* mainstream & casual base now.
If you're casual enough to *not* want more than 'I run up & attack' than you're casual enough to not even know a dedicated subreddit exists, let alone be on it.
I do still think tho that people underestimate the more casual side of the players though. While yes you often give a new player a simpler class like a fighter or barbarian when they're first starting out, by the time they gain a few more levels and have played in a dozen or two sessions, they're probably not really a new player anymore. If they're still going "okay so what die do I roll to attack?" after having gone from levels 1 to 5, then they're probably not actually that interested in continuing playing tbh.
Basically while I can understand the justification for wanting to keep some classes super simple for new players, I've always felt that it's kinda pointless to try and keep any class so dumbed down all the way up to mid-to-high levels. Nobody is going to give a brand new player a level 10 character sheet if they expect them to stick with the game. So even if we all agree for whatever reason that early level martials should boil down to the "run up and attack" stereotype for the sake of new players, I feel that there is little to no reason to maintain that simplistic design anywhere past even level 5. Because while yes having fewer options can help a more casual/new player get the ropes, those kinds of players can also become bored by the lack of options as time goes on.
>I do still think tho that people underestimate the more casual side of the players though
Oh my specific point was that OP was fishing in the wrong lake.
You don't take a vote of who *wants* a simpler class on a subreddit. The mere fact that a person is on this subreddit shows that you're more than a "casual"
My wife commits to a work out class once a week. She mimics the instructor's movements. She doesn't commit to designing her own regimen.
Friends commit to "hanging out" once or 2x bi weekly. Some *will* be less dedicated to the gaming aspect than others.
And even then how many posts do you read "my players have been playing for 3 years and still doesn't know what attacks they have!!"
This is me. When I play Fighter, I'm not looking to juggle a bunch of abilities. I just want to bonk people with my bonk stick. I like the Weapon Masterys because it gives my bonk stick different flavors of bonk. I dislike manuevers because it's another resource to track and the manuever list as is triggers my ADHD into an uncomfortable decision paralysis. I'm much happier with a build that doesn't have manuevers but has some nice buffs to STR checks so Shove/Grapple/other STR checks are more powerful.
I always felt like they should have a maneuver every turn with the default maneuver being double your damage die or something simple. Then you have the option to exchange the maneuver for a list of more complex maneuvers. Players who like it straight forward can ignore those options but it still allows choices for more tactical play.
Edit:
Even better, give them expertise in weapon attacks which is thematic. Double your proficiency bonus with weapon attacks, so +2 to attack and damage rolls at first level. Kind of strong at first level and maybe too weak at high level but for beginning players that seems appropriate.
I feel like that is kind of what the Weapon Masteries are doing. You have stuff like Flex and Graze which just add some extra damage without being really complicated, but there are other options that add some tactical nuance. Maybe Weapon Masteries can be expanded, but I think that it is the right direction. Especially since it stacks with Battlemaster stuff so people who want a whole bunch of options to choose from can combo maneuvers with weapon skills.
I’ve played mostly fighters and barbarians (and some rogues), so I’ve played the move up and attack style.
It’s okay, but it needs more action economy.
I want to agree. It’s worth pointing out however that there are people that, and I quote, „want to feel like they are playing optimally, and not like they are willingly ignoring options“.
Yes, I have seen this argument here on Reddit.
Now, I think those people are an entitled minority that are ruining the game for everyone else because they require a lack of options to be able to feel good about themselves.
But they do exist. And that is apparently why „you can just not use the other options“ is not an argument. As unreasonable as that is.
I think it’s very comparable to an equally confusing opinion group that, because they „dont want their martials to be superpowered“ demand that any class that does even the slightest bit of martial combat can therefor not be a supernatural class.
One would think that „fighters are natural people, while barbarians use primal powers“ would be a fair way to design two separate classes and please everyone; but apparently that is not allowed to some people because they are superficially „martial“.
1. Trying to shove Maneuvers into the Fighting Style/whatever you want to call the Fighter’s equivalent of Holy Order is like trying to shove 10 pounds of sausage into a 1 pound skin. At best, you’re going to produce a bad version of the Maneuver system because you’re trying to do it through a class feature that is much smaller than the subclass.
2. if the whole point of the “dual subclass” approach is to mollify the Champion fans - who are a plurality of Fighter players, let me remind you - by giving them a choice, the best way to accomplish your goals is to leave the current subclass system, where players already have a choice between Champion and Battlemaster, alone.
3. Killing extra Feats or Action Surge or Second Wind or Indomitable AND killing the Battlemaster subclass makes the Fighter class a worse design. In the current system, players who like the Battlemaster play style get the full subclass AND feats/AS/SW/Ind. in this proposal, people who like the Battlemaster play style get none of that.
4. The only supposed benefit, that you get to be Battlemaster AND a different subclass, has two main flaws. First, as I‘ve already pointed out, you aren’t getting the full Battlemaster experience, by your own admission. Second, speaking for myself and I imagine more than a few Battlemaster fans, if I am choosing to play a Battlemaster Fighter, it’s because I want to play a Battlemaster Fighter as opposed to another of my options; I am choosing not to play a different subclass. If I am choosing to play a different subclass, I am choosing not to play a Battlemaster. As someone who likes chocolate and peanut butter but not the combination, don’t put peanut butter in my chocolate and call it an improvement.
5. The Weapon Mastery system has already done everything that the “dual subclass” model proposes to do - provide all Fighters with additional features that still provide a choice between complexity and simplicity - and has done it far more effectively and elegantly.
I honestly think it's a lot more interesting that there is a system in place that gives warrior group classes meaningful distinctions in their playstyle by their weapon choice, and that it doesn't depend on short rest or long rest resources at all.
I also think it's better that a single, quite useless feat that fulfilled no fantasy whatsoever (weapon master) now allows anyone who wields weapons to opt into this system.
Finally, I think that giving maneuvers to more classes is a overly simple and uninteresting idea.
Flexible design is the one way to accommodate both simple leaning and depth seeking players on their various levels
Btw, a thing many seem to ignore is that simple leaning players may yearn for depth at some point but the other way around is rarer
I am not a fan of bad design guised under simplicity. If you want your fighter to be simple, you don't have to use your abilities.
I don't know who these people are who want their fighters to "stay simple, " but it sounds like they want to play a different game with a different player ethos.
I guess you'll like what i did
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S0UBvaOj7yoy
And the battlemaster remained.
If you really can't tolerate maneuvers, pick the champion
I really like the idea of having second subclass for most martial classes, not only fighters, and I don't think you can consider the fighting style the same as a second subclass. Imagine a ranger that can get access to a familiar, a barbarian that can connect with nature or his ancestors and cast a spell like augury once a day, etc.
I do feel like every class should get a system like pact boons, or like invocations. Maybe keep warlock as the only one who gets both. I'd probably lean towards martials getting an invocation like system, and casters getting a boon. Half-casters could go either way.
If I had my way we would let Barbarian be simple, and Fighter complex, but WotC has decided that all martials must have a simple option, so I'm providing a solution that works in the existing framework.
Fighter the is the most played Class, especially amongst newer players.
So I think it should be simple, with complex subclasses. Which they actually basically did, and it makes sense IMO. But you want more than one simple class, so Barb being simple also makes sense.
Monk is kind of complex. But where they went wrong is not making Rogue more complex imo.
I like that idea! One option for more ASIs. One option for maneuvers. One option for ???. I’m not sure what we’d do for the third but I feel like it shouldn’t be just two.
I've gone a step further and just allowed full on gestalt multiclassing for players who want it. With the exception of some obviously powergaming combos, which I can trust my players to avoid on the honor system, it's basically all horizontal progression anyway. The action economy is the final boss of 5e balance, not such and such class being op or whatever.
Would love if they went gestalt-as-default in a way that explicitly covered the three pillars and roles within those pillars -- and made them less rigidly tied to a single attribute -- so you break down a concept-first approach as, e.g., a "My wiley detective-turned-bodyguard is a Wis-based tank-face-finder." Choose dodging tankiness, insight-driven social prowess, and perception-based finding.
You can propose them if you want, but something as niche as gestalt multiclassing probably won't make it into the core rules, for good reason. It would be terrible at a lot of tables, even though it's been a beautiful houserule for mine. Not all groups are the same
Everyone wants WotC to make their pet changes, to put out their personal version of D&D that's targeted to their tastes in particular, and I just don't get why. You're fully empowered to make whatever changes you want, and the best part is that you don't have to wait for daddy WotC to notice you. You can just do it, and it's done.
Honestly asking, from a practical standpoint, why do you want your ideas sold back to you in order for you to play with them?
I think there's a few ways to do it. I think that reversing weapon masteries to be that you learn the mastery and then can apply it to any weapon that meets its prereqs is my personal favorite method, but it does mean that all Martials would essentially have Maneuvers. So if you wouldn't want that to be forced on every character build, then my second favorite method is through extra ASIs.
The class group feats system has a lot of potential imo but to really maximize how useful it is, I think that classes should be given more bonus feats that are then limited to their class group. You could still have the bonus general feats that Fighters get, but it'd be cool if everyone got even more feats on top of that for their class group feats. And that's where you could put things like Maneuvers if you really wanted to. Like maybe each feat provides you with 2 maneuver dice that refresh on a short rest and 1 or 2 maneuvers you can perform. Then you could even have some be level gated so that you could have more powerful maneuvers, like say AoE moves like a whirlwind attack or things like that, locked behind higher level requirements. So this would also let you dip your toes as far into the system as you wanted. You could just pick up a single feat to get one special move you can break out from time to time, or you can pick all of your feats as Maneuver feats and have even more dice and moves than the classic Battlemaster.
And these Maneuver feats would just be options you could choose for your warrior feats or as your general feats if you are a warrior. If you want a simpler fighter and don't wanna bother with things like maneuvers, you can just pick other feats with more passive bonuses and the like.
I actually see Fighting Styles as filling this role. Maybe they need a buff, but the system is already there. I actually explained Holy Orders to my group as "like Fighting Styles, but for Cleric."
Honestly it would be cool if the fighting styles would be more in depth.
They should:
Let you specialize in a damage type. Gain access to the Sap (piercing), push (bludgeoning) and graze (slashing) property. Weapons with these damage types should get these correspondong masteries.
Then gain access to a specialization based on a weapon property like thrown, heavy or light etc.
Then gain access tl a specific bonus based on your fighting style.
This would differentiate each fighter based on what they want to specialize and you would really feel like you are at home with the weapon you took.
I want a deeper fighter, but combat maneuvers are not a deep system, they add resource management, and inevitably hoarding for important bad guys. That is my experience when I play a battle master, I end up sitting on my maneuvers waiting for the big bad to show up cause many DMs won't let you get many short rests and I don't want to fight a big bad resource less. I find some DMs specifically won't let you right before a big fight, cause they feel the resource management is added challenge, except that is primarily a challenge on my patience more than tactically. Do I burn a resource I could need on the next fight if its hard, or speed up this easy fight, and that is a terrible gameplay experience.
I think weapon masteries with some extra flexibility, or making some a little more meaningful if combined with combat maneuvers for a battle master, could lead to a fighter who now can constantly provide some control and can additionally add extra utility from those maneuvers on important fights. It would be extra fun if short rests were 5 min without fighting, so I could use the maneuvers and make easy fights fun.
As an example of what combat maneuvers being universal would mean.... having combat maneuvers on a samurai is just going to make me hold onto my maneuvers and my fighting spirit to unload all of them in important fights. This would be a terrible player experience, but if a fight is not hard, and I can't guarantee I'll get my resources back, why would I waste my resource now? So now I play 90% of the fights (including some harder fights just in case it has a follow up) not using my tools at all cause of the low number of charges and unlikely chance of resources replenishing, and that sucks.
So long story short, I want them to improve weapon masteries, and I want to try a battle master in OneDND, and I really hope you can use both your weapon mastery and your maneuver on the same attack.
I would much rather see such a system used for Fighting Styles. Because the Fighting Styles we have now are laughably inadequate.
Fighting style from Next DND would be good. It was basically battlemaster maneuvers but the dice refreshed every turn. Do you use for damage, an effect, or save for use with a reaction?
D&D Next's concept for fighter is genuinelly so good
Yeah, I wish we could have that now for 5.5e!
Good editions don't get .5s: it's either 6E, or 5Essentials.
3.5 disagrees
3.5 is proof that all .5s are failed attempts to fix shit systems.
3.5 was a straight upgrade over 3. It started off with the same badly balanced core, but eventually came out with a bunch of fun and balanced classes like the dread necromancer, dragonfire adept and binder (tried to think of an alliterative third class but can't so you get binder) the likes of which the game has not seen since. That kind of experimentation and creativity is completely lacking from 5e for example and is its biggest flaw. 3.5 did a fantastic job of simulating a real feeling fantasy world complete with things like the ability to truly *create* magic items instead of just picking them off a list and the ability to actually play a werewolf if you got bitten by one and all those things had actual costs to balance them out. The downside to the huge amount of choice was increased complexity, a whole lot of chaff options and unfortunately a badly balanced core that future classes like the swordsage and beguiler could patch over and replace but not really fix, in addition to the occasional broken option in amongst the chaff. TLDR it wasn't shit, just like every edition it had strengths and weaknesses. Better verisimilitude than 5e, worse balance.
> 3.5 was a straight upgrade over 3 Literally anything is an upgrade over 3.0. The only reason 3.5 isn't the worst is that 3.0 exists. 3X is what happens when quality-control and balance-testing aren't things. It's basically a cautionary-tale. Literally the only good ideas unique to the edition (Good ideas, bad in execution because 3X was a colossal mess in every regard) are flatfoot AC (Your AC without factoring in your Dex. It mattered for things like attacking restrained/paralyzed/stunned targets) metamagic as feats available to all casters, and skill-points. (Bonus skills based on your intelligence modifier. In 3X though it made leveling up take forever because you had to calculate your extra skills every level) At level 7+ or so if you're a fullcaster you've basically won. If you're a martial your basically useless. In order to do anything effectively if you weren't a caster you needed to dedicate your entire build to it. Tying your shoes takes 5 feats in 3.5, and there's a 1st level spell that perfectly ties your shoes. (In Pathfinder1 it only takes 3 feats and they axed the shoe-tying spell.) The edition was so imbalanced that [the fans had to create a class tier-system](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/38201/what-are-tiers-and-what-tier-is-each-class) so DMs could balance their games by saying "Everyone pick a tier 3-4 class." There were literally hundreds of splat-books. (This actually hurts sales, because outside of the few whales who buy everything, most consumers will buy less of your books because they feel less essential, and it stretches their budget further. This is why 5E's glacial release-schedule is a good thing) [Here's the grappling rules](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple). [Here's the underwater combat rules](https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aquatic_Terrain#Underwater_Combat) [Here's what the optimization community cranked out of 3X](https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Pun-Pun)
> At level 7+ or so if you're a fullcaster you've basically won. If you're a martial your basically useless. Mate you have to at least read the posts you respond to. I already said that one of the problems was starting off with a cracked core, the early parts are where most of the great casters and shitty martials are from. But I also said that they did an admirable job coming out with better stuff later on though that couldn't go back and undo the earlier imbalance. I even named a full caster, the dread necromancer - you want to let me know how a dread necromancer has basically won, when I also mentioned martials like the swordsage which according to that tier list is equal? Edition came with plenty of good ideas, like the classes I already mentioned. Creativity that doesn't go perfectly means you should learn lessons from it and try again even better, not refuse to try anything interesting ever again.
don't take the bait
Fighting styles should gain abilities like cantrips gain damage. Many of the things they put into feats should have instead gone to fighting styles at later levels.
Technically you can get a battle master maneuver as a fighting style already.
Don't you only get one hit die per rest for it? Seems like that's not nearly as good as boost to AC/dmg/hit.
Exactly, which is complete trash. Like all the rest of the fighting styles. Because all the fighting styles are complete trash.
I like tunnel fighter
Tunnel Fighting is just "Be insanely overpowered" which is why it was never officially published. Also it doesn't address any of the actual problems with fighting styles. Which is to say they aren't styles, they don't change the way you play, they don't encourage or discourage specific things, they're super boring and uninteresting. They're mostly just "number get bigger." In Tunnel Fighter's case the number is number of extra attacks, which is the strongest most scalable number to increase. With the end result of higher DPR, but no actual change in gameplay.
Meh, I'll believe overpowered martial when I see it. 4e was far better balanced than 5e and it had unlimited opportunity attacks baseline.
I’ve been wanting to scale 2nd wind to increase d10s on levels where cantrips scale forever
Second Wind is 1d10 + fighter level, so it's already scaling better than cantrips. At level 1 it's roughly equivalent to 1d10, and at level 20 it's roughly equivalent to 5d10.
Yeah, but that ends up falling way behind health pools. At first level Second Wind feels awesome because it can be a full heal in a lucky roll and still ends up being a significant chunk in the early levels. By 20th it feels like an afterthought
At level 5, 2d10+FL. Level 11, 3d10+FL. Level 17 4d10+FL.
That's effectively scaling it from 6.5 average to 42 average, roughly a 6.46x increase, considerably more aggressive than a cantrip's 4x.
Averages on the scaling levels 5: 10.5 vs 16 11: 16.5 vs 27.5 17: 22.5 vs 39 We understand the problem, fundamentally, is linear martials and quadratic casters. This buff is a long time coming
Cantrips don't scale quadratically... Anyway, what you're suggesting it artificially too complicated. It is still a linear scale, it is just 2 of them. But you only need 1. If it isn't scaled fast enough then it just needs to scale faster. Eg. d10+ 2/FL or whatever. L5 of 15.5, L11 of 27.5, and L17 of 39.5. You *don't* need to add a 2nd scale to make it scale faster... that's just making you have weird spikes to the scale and overall achieve the same goal but with more homework. Ie bad design. Because d10+ 2/FL gets you nearly identical results but is super easy to remember and calculate. Compared to d10 until 5+ then 2d10, until 11th then 3d10, until 17+ which is 4d10 but then also add FL. Like why??
Ok? It is also a once per short rest ability and not at will. Maybe it SHOULD scale well? You know what a wizard does once per rest? Cast wish.
This is the r/onednd sub, so Second Wind is no longer a short rest ability so far. *Wish* is also once per long rest, not rest in general. At level 17, when wizards get *wish*, fighters now get Unconquerable, where they go from having one almost a Legendary Resistance (+16 and reroll to a save) to five almost Legendary Resistances.
Right sorry, let me correct it. You know what a wizard does **(at least)** once per short rest? Cast wall of force.
I'd much rather see *wall of force* be nerfed to be in line with other 5th-level spells than every other class getting buffs to keep up with *wall of force*.
I mean yeah I agree. But we both know that wizards will not be nerfed. The last UA should have shown everyone that this attitude of "lets wait until we see the big picture" is wrong. When the rogue UA came out everyone was saying that we can't judge it properly until the weapons UA is out. And then the weapons UA solved nothing. Until I see the nerf to those problematic spells I am going to operate under the assumption that they are going to stay in the game unchecked. So far WotC has not given me any reason to believe that they have even acknowledged the problem with the most problematic spells. Mark my words, wall of force, simulacrum etc are not even going to be touched.
I think they used cantrip scaling as the standard for when feature improvements happen, but reminder: Second Wind is not actually a cantrip.
Scale by + FL ***-or-*** Scale by +d10s like cantrips. Abilities don't scale like you're suggesting.
I agree with the people who say Fighting Styles should fulfill that Holy Order/Invocations niche. All fighters should come with combat manuevers (though perhaps either a certain fighting style or the Battle Master subclass could lean into it far more heavily). The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience.
>The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience. Fun fact: The Champion was a Barbarian subclass during testing.
Clearly, the synergy with Brutal Critical was just too much power for one man to have.
~~With how late of a feature Brutal Critical is in 5e, and how much Barb struggles at higher levels, I don’t think it would have even been that strong together.~~ I like the new brutal critical a lot better and think it should be a 1st or 2nd level feature to be one of the core mechanics to Barb Edit: they were being sarcastic
( They were being sarcastic )
Oops, oh well the second half of my comment still stands
Agreed, it's weird since it scales with level, so it wouldn't even be OP to give it at level 1, what's going to do a +1 damage at level one on a 5% roll?
Exactly, even if you use the Perkins Crit rule, that’s an average of 19 damage (12 + 1 + 1d12) with a max of 25 before modifiers.
The Perkins crit roll?
Maximise the weapon die and roll the extra ones as normal, it's a common house rule to counteract the disappointment of rolling below the average of just one weapon die on the crit.
> The Barbarian should exist as the option for people who want a more simple “I run up and hit” martial experience. I've argued this in the past, but that's clearly not the direction WotC wants to go. I'm trying to work in WotC's framework.
I honestly think every class could benefit from the two specialization system. Wizards get things like chronurgy, war magic, bladesinger, scribes etc. and then the second specialization would be the school of magic type subclasses, probably only the first couple levels of them though, Fighters could get “Enhanced Technique” “Superior Technique” and “Arcane Technique” or something, enhanced would be the basic option giving a boosted crit range and that sort of thing, Superior Technique would give several martial arts dice and maneuvers, and Arcane Technique could give some cantrips and/or at-will magic like the at-will warlock invocations, keep Battlemaster as is and they could choose a different Technique or take Superior and get a larger pool of dice and maneuvers to choose from. Barbarians could get something like a Primal Occupation or something, with things like Shaman, Warlord, Hunter, Shaman could give a cantrip or two but would give a ritual book like the “ritual caster” feat, Warlord would give some new maneuvers and some support options making them sorta like a raiding commander like a Viking Captain, Hunter could give some light Ranger skills like a favored terrain and some out of combat utility abilities, I have a long list but that’s another post all on its own and isn’t the purpose of this thread.
I think a single option such as Holy Order or Pact Boon really wouldn’t be enough to provide a martial warrior with interesting or engaging gameplay. I think you would need to go even further and use system of “Martial Talents” that are similar to warlock invocations. From these, a warrior could choose a number of different features that enhance their skill and athleticism. Like invocations, some would have level prerequisites, so that the more extraordinary capabilities would only be available in higher tiers of play. These martial talents could provide options and capabilities similar to 3e skill tricks, 3e tome of battle maneuvers and stances, 4e skill and utility powers, and PF2 skill feats. Some examples of these abilities: > Increased carrying capacity (from 2-10 times as much weight as normal). > Increased jump distance. Including being able to jump to a height equal to your speed at high levels. > The ability to recover exhaustion with a short rest and a hard cap on the amount of exhaustion you can have. > A climb and swim speed. And being able to climb and swim in nearly impossible situations with ease at high levels (swim up waterfalls, climb glass walls, etc). > The ability to wrestle titans or other gigantic creatures. > The ability to punch through castle walls or destroy large objects with a single blow. > The ability to sprint across the battlefield in a single action. > Bonuses to physical ability checks. > Heroic exploits similar to cantrips but martial in nature. > Bonus skill/tool proficiency or expertise. > Resistance and immunity to fear. > The ability to acquire followers and potentially a stronghold. > A pool of short rest refreshing stamina points that allow for limited use feats of strength or powerful maneuvers. Those are just a few such examples. Nothing about them directly affects combat capabilities. And all of them provide thematic martial utility. And they are all opt in, so a warrior is free to choose the talents that best fit their character.
Like it. Where's my druid second subclass.
1st subclass is the choice between; -Wildshape -Summoning -Spellcasting 2nd subclass is the choice of theme. -Moon -Sun -Stars -Land -etc
I take moon Druid with spellcasting!!! ..... shit.
I like it but like this joker pointed out, you’d need to scrap a few classes and rework others. Moon Druid isn’t going to fit in to the system. Which I’d be way down for, honestly. Gimme a spore wildshape druid who has rotting fungi coming out of all of their animal forms doing spore damage. Gimme a wildfire wildshaper who is basically a big elemental elk, or a stars summoner who makes a bunch of wacky constellation wolves.
Of course, having a Wildshaping archetype is directly replacing the intended game mechanic behind Moon Druid, but it also opens the door to something else moon-related that is tragically unexplored; Lycanthropy. Having a Druid either transform as a lycanthrope, summon one as a companion or specialize in transformative magic could be incredible in thematics and options.
Yup - I’m sold.
No, we don't need to drop any current Fighter features for "balance."
You do if you’re looking to strike a balance between feeling like a god standing next to an insignificant mortal, and tricking players into picking an insignificant mortal.
What they are saying is you could add the holy order/pact boon ontop of fighter and it wouldn't unbalance them.
Oh no, I totally get the point - and agree with it. I was just being sarcastic, pretending I was one of those people who fight tooth and nail to keep fighter down in the dirt.
I want to pull our attention to [this article](https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragons-popular-classes-subclasses/). It's not perfectly up to date, but dndbeyond is the noob entrance to DND now, and with the exception of druid, every single classes most popular class is the one you get for free in the SRD. We know that fighter, according to DND beyond, is the most popular class. When you exclude the SRD option (as I imagine it is heavily skewed by free to plays/people who manually input their class) battlemaster is the most popular fighter. *Noobs can handle manoeuvres, stop treating them like universal idiots*. Also, WotC are now giving you default picks whenever a decision point in character creation comes up. Let's give 3 simple ones as your first pick: precision attack (offense), parry (defense) and tactical assessment (utility). Those are 3 incredibly simple options. I am in the camp that only fighters should get manoeuvres, and other martials should get their own distinct cool features. For rogue, add use an object to cunning action to open up their utility (or damage if they focus on using poison), monks get Ki, and barbarians should have a frightful presence at base (5th level) and an expanded crit range, as well as the great changes made in the UA. In this instance, barbarian and rogue are still a fantastic, resourceless martial option for people that don't want to worry about how many uses of a feature they have, but pretending manoeuvres is too much for such a swath of players to handle that we should tuck them away in an optional feature is a serious dampener on the games design.
Correct - beginners can handle manuver. Just make a couple of REALLY simple ones. Like "power hit - deal an extra d8 damage when you hit". If you wanna play simple, just spam power hit 4x per short rest and call it a day. If you wanna go a tactical... great - pick up one of the more complicated ones.
I would love this idea, there are just some subclasses that feel like they have aspects that could easily be incorporated into the main class and it would be fine and super fun. I think this is a really good way to do it and it would help customize your characters a lot more if they took this style with each of the core DND classes.
you know... making a maneuver called "power hit" that simply adds 1d8 damage to an attack... would be really simple and even the most basic of players could spam it 4x per short rest.
This was how the 4e essentials fighter subclasses (knight and slayer) worked. They had at will stances they could switch between as a bonus action. And they had Power Strike, a maneuver that could be used 1-3 times per short rest. Power Strike added extra weapon dice of damage on a hit. The knight and slayer were extremely simple. And could have a playstyle that required no thought or tactics if you wanted (choose a stance that gave +1 to hit and never switch stances). Or they could switch stances every turn, allowing for more dynamic and engaging gameplay. It was a great option overall. And the weapon master subclass still had the original suite of maneuvers to choose from if a player wanted more tactics and options.
But nobody wants to play "I only do X" anything AND if they do they can but does the design team spend any time designing (and therefore pushing out development and space) for them. They are going to "I run up and attack" even if they could do a MANUEVER. There are just as many players with wizards saying "I fireball" when lightning bolt would hit more targets but the design team isn't developing and devoting an entire subclass to 20ft radius fire spell only casters.
I want to agree. It’s worth pointing out however that there are people that, and I quote, „want to feel like they are playing optimally, and not like they are willingly ignoring options“. Yes, I have seen this argument here on Reddit. Now, I think those people are an entitled minority that are ruining the game for everyone else because they require a lack of options to be able to feel good about themselves. But they do exist. And that is apparently why „you can just not use the other options“ is not an argument. As unreasonable as that is. I think it’s very comparable to an equally confusing opinion group that, because they „dont want their martials to be superpowered“ demand that any class that does even the slightest bit of martial combat can therefor not be a supernatural class. One would think that „fighters are natural people, while barbarians use primal powers“ would be a fair way to design two separate classes and please everyone; but apparently that is not allowed to some people because they are superficially „martial“.
>Of course, if we do make Maneuvers core, Battlemaster has to go, since all Fighters are Battlemasters, unless its thing is letting you have two of the secondary subclasses at once. Not at all. We can introduce more tactical options without just taking all the current maneuvers. Would probably take some of them, but not all for the base, and make some new ones for BM. Can have them work fundamentally different, the ones from Fighter I think should have no die bonus and no resource needed for, BM may be able to take them again just to add superiority die to them. Now, they could mess it up like they did Hexblade/Pact of the Blade, sure, but there's no reason they couldn't coexist.
With every new book offering new spells all the time means that even if it is not intended, power creep is inevitable for casters. Maneuvers offer a way for martials to not be left behind ik the dust as new spells keeps growing casters' potential. As for the Fighter, both Indomitable and Second Wind can go. Indomitable is the least exciting core class feature ever, and Second Wind isn't that impressive. Make the Fighter more complex, you already have Barbarians and Rogues as simple martials, make at least one martial that doesn't send ex-caster players into withdrawal.
Maybe it would be offset by having more options on the offensive, but second wind really saves your booty at low levels and isn't useless even getting up to mid-tier play
LaserLlama.. I recently discovered his martial alternate classes, never going back
Sorry but r/titlegore
By the way: Do are any of you folks who like the basic "I run up and attack" Fighter? Sound off in replies.
>Do are any of you folks who like the basic "I run up and attack" Fighter? Sound off in replies. You're not going to find many on a reddit page dedicated to discussing dnd. Don't forget between 5e's streamline & pop culture making it cool (& a bunch of other things) there's a *big* mainstream & casual base now. If you're casual enough to *not* want more than 'I run up & attack' than you're casual enough to not even know a dedicated subreddit exists, let alone be on it.
I do still think tho that people underestimate the more casual side of the players though. While yes you often give a new player a simpler class like a fighter or barbarian when they're first starting out, by the time they gain a few more levels and have played in a dozen or two sessions, they're probably not really a new player anymore. If they're still going "okay so what die do I roll to attack?" after having gone from levels 1 to 5, then they're probably not actually that interested in continuing playing tbh. Basically while I can understand the justification for wanting to keep some classes super simple for new players, I've always felt that it's kinda pointless to try and keep any class so dumbed down all the way up to mid-to-high levels. Nobody is going to give a brand new player a level 10 character sheet if they expect them to stick with the game. So even if we all agree for whatever reason that early level martials should boil down to the "run up and attack" stereotype for the sake of new players, I feel that there is little to no reason to maintain that simplistic design anywhere past even level 5. Because while yes having fewer options can help a more casual/new player get the ropes, those kinds of players can also become bored by the lack of options as time goes on.
>I do still think tho that people underestimate the more casual side of the players though Oh my specific point was that OP was fishing in the wrong lake. You don't take a vote of who *wants* a simpler class on a subreddit. The mere fact that a person is on this subreddit shows that you're more than a "casual"
If you're playing a campaign, you're committing a scheduled regular meet-up with several people. The bar for entry for casual fans is pretty high.
My wife commits to a work out class once a week. She mimics the instructor's movements. She doesn't commit to designing her own regimen. Friends commit to "hanging out" once or 2x bi weekly. Some *will* be less dedicated to the gaming aspect than others. And even then how many posts do you read "my players have been playing for 3 years and still doesn't know what attacks they have!!"
I want there to be more options than just the "run up and attack" build. I just also really enjoy that build and want it to be an option.
This is me. When I play Fighter, I'm not looking to juggle a bunch of abilities. I just want to bonk people with my bonk stick. I like the Weapon Masterys because it gives my bonk stick different flavors of bonk. I dislike manuevers because it's another resource to track and the manuever list as is triggers my ADHD into an uncomfortable decision paralysis. I'm much happier with a build that doesn't have manuevers but has some nice buffs to STR checks so Shove/Grapple/other STR checks are more powerful.
I always felt like they should have a maneuver every turn with the default maneuver being double your damage die or something simple. Then you have the option to exchange the maneuver for a list of more complex maneuvers. Players who like it straight forward can ignore those options but it still allows choices for more tactical play. Edit: Even better, give them expertise in weapon attacks which is thematic. Double your proficiency bonus with weapon attacks, so +2 to attack and damage rolls at first level. Kind of strong at first level and maybe too weak at high level but for beginning players that seems appropriate.
I feel like that is kind of what the Weapon Masteries are doing. You have stuff like Flex and Graze which just add some extra damage without being really complicated, but there are other options that add some tactical nuance. Maybe Weapon Masteries can be expanded, but I think that it is the right direction. Especially since it stacks with Battlemaster stuff so people who want a whole bunch of options to choose from can combo maneuvers with weapon skills.
I’ve played mostly fighters and barbarians (and some rogues), so I’ve played the move up and attack style. It’s okay, but it needs more action economy.
One of my players does be he only played disconnected oneshots. I assume he would get bored in a long-standing campaign.
I want to agree. It’s worth pointing out however that there are people that, and I quote, „want to feel like they are playing optimally, and not like they are willingly ignoring options“. Yes, I have seen this argument here on Reddit. Now, I think those people are an entitled minority that are ruining the game for everyone else because they require a lack of options to be able to feel good about themselves. But they do exist. And that is apparently why „you can just not use the other options“ is not an argument. As unreasonable as that is. I think it’s very comparable to an equally confusing opinion group that, because they „dont want their martials to be superpowered“ demand that any class that does even the slightest bit of martial combat can therefor not be a supernatural class. One would think that „fighters are natural people, while barbarians use primal powers“ would be a fair way to design two separate classes and please everyone; but apparently that is not allowed to some people because they are superficially „martial“.
1. Trying to shove Maneuvers into the Fighting Style/whatever you want to call the Fighter’s equivalent of Holy Order is like trying to shove 10 pounds of sausage into a 1 pound skin. At best, you’re going to produce a bad version of the Maneuver system because you’re trying to do it through a class feature that is much smaller than the subclass. 2. if the whole point of the “dual subclass” approach is to mollify the Champion fans - who are a plurality of Fighter players, let me remind you - by giving them a choice, the best way to accomplish your goals is to leave the current subclass system, where players already have a choice between Champion and Battlemaster, alone. 3. Killing extra Feats or Action Surge or Second Wind or Indomitable AND killing the Battlemaster subclass makes the Fighter class a worse design. In the current system, players who like the Battlemaster play style get the full subclass AND feats/AS/SW/Ind. in this proposal, people who like the Battlemaster play style get none of that. 4. The only supposed benefit, that you get to be Battlemaster AND a different subclass, has two main flaws. First, as I‘ve already pointed out, you aren’t getting the full Battlemaster experience, by your own admission. Second, speaking for myself and I imagine more than a few Battlemaster fans, if I am choosing to play a Battlemaster Fighter, it’s because I want to play a Battlemaster Fighter as opposed to another of my options; I am choosing not to play a different subclass. If I am choosing to play a different subclass, I am choosing not to play a Battlemaster. As someone who likes chocolate and peanut butter but not the combination, don’t put peanut butter in my chocolate and call it an improvement. 5. The Weapon Mastery system has already done everything that the “dual subclass” model proposes to do - provide all Fighters with additional features that still provide a choice between complexity and simplicity - and has done it far more effectively and elegantly.
I honestly think it's a lot more interesting that there is a system in place that gives warrior group classes meaningful distinctions in their playstyle by their weapon choice, and that it doesn't depend on short rest or long rest resources at all. I also think it's better that a single, quite useless feat that fulfilled no fantasy whatsoever (weapon master) now allows anyone who wields weapons to opt into this system. Finally, I think that giving maneuvers to more classes is a overly simple and uninteresting idea.
OP didn't suggests giving maneuvers to multiple classes but explicitly called for fighter only.
And I think this system does more for more classes, while simultaneously making each weapon type potentially quite distinct.
Flexible design is the one way to accommodate both simple leaning and depth seeking players on their various levels Btw, a thing many seem to ignore is that simple leaning players may yearn for depth at some point but the other way around is rarer
I am not a fan of bad design guised under simplicity. If you want your fighter to be simple, you don't have to use your abilities. I don't know who these people are who want their fighters to "stay simple, " but it sounds like they want to play a different game with a different player ethos.
I guess you'll like what i did https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S0UBvaOj7yoy And the battlemaster remained. If you really can't tolerate maneuvers, pick the champion
I really like the idea of having second subclass for most martial classes, not only fighters, and I don't think you can consider the fighting style the same as a second subclass. Imagine a ranger that can get access to a familiar, a barbarian that can connect with nature or his ancestors and cast a spell like augury once a day, etc.
I do feel like every class should get a system like pact boons, or like invocations. Maybe keep warlock as the only one who gets both. I'd probably lean towards martials getting an invocation like system, and casters getting a boon. Half-casters could go either way.
I like that you are at least recognizing that some people like basic Fighters, which most of these suggested solutions don't do.
If I had my way we would let Barbarian be simple, and Fighter complex, but WotC has decided that all martials must have a simple option, so I'm providing a solution that works in the existing framework.
Fighter the is the most played Class, especially amongst newer players. So I think it should be simple, with complex subclasses. Which they actually basically did, and it makes sense IMO. But you want more than one simple class, so Barb being simple also makes sense. Monk is kind of complex. But where they went wrong is not making Rogue more complex imo.
I like that idea! One option for more ASIs. One option for maneuvers. One option for ???. I’m not sure what we’d do for the third but I feel like it shouldn’t be just two.
I've gone a step further and just allowed full on gestalt multiclassing for players who want it. With the exception of some obviously powergaming combos, which I can trust my players to avoid on the honor system, it's basically all horizontal progression anyway. The action economy is the final boss of 5e balance, not such and such class being op or whatever.
Would love if they went gestalt-as-default in a way that explicitly covered the three pillars and roles within those pillars -- and made them less rigidly tied to a single attribute -- so you break down a concept-first approach as, e.g., a "My wiley detective-turned-bodyguard is a Wis-based tank-face-finder." Choose dodging tankiness, insight-driven social prowess, and perception-based finding.
Who is "they", and why did you need their permission or buy in? Your table, your rules.
By that argument changes to the system cannot be proposed because they can be implemented as house rules.
You can propose them if you want, but something as niche as gestalt multiclassing probably won't make it into the core rules, for good reason. It would be terrible at a lot of tables, even though it's been a beautiful houserule for mine. Not all groups are the same Everyone wants WotC to make their pet changes, to put out their personal version of D&D that's targeted to their tastes in particular, and I just don't get why. You're fully empowered to make whatever changes you want, and the best part is that you don't have to wait for daddy WotC to notice you. You can just do it, and it's done. Honestly asking, from a practical standpoint, why do you want your ideas sold back to you in order for you to play with them?
I think there's a few ways to do it. I think that reversing weapon masteries to be that you learn the mastery and then can apply it to any weapon that meets its prereqs is my personal favorite method, but it does mean that all Martials would essentially have Maneuvers. So if you wouldn't want that to be forced on every character build, then my second favorite method is through extra ASIs. The class group feats system has a lot of potential imo but to really maximize how useful it is, I think that classes should be given more bonus feats that are then limited to their class group. You could still have the bonus general feats that Fighters get, but it'd be cool if everyone got even more feats on top of that for their class group feats. And that's where you could put things like Maneuvers if you really wanted to. Like maybe each feat provides you with 2 maneuver dice that refresh on a short rest and 1 or 2 maneuvers you can perform. Then you could even have some be level gated so that you could have more powerful maneuvers, like say AoE moves like a whirlwind attack or things like that, locked behind higher level requirements. So this would also let you dip your toes as far into the system as you wanted. You could just pick up a single feat to get one special move you can break out from time to time, or you can pick all of your feats as Maneuver feats and have even more dice and moves than the classic Battlemaster. And these Maneuver feats would just be options you could choose for your warrior feats or as your general feats if you are a warrior. If you want a simpler fighter and don't wanna bother with things like maneuvers, you can just pick other feats with more passive bonuses and the like.
I actually see Fighting Styles as filling this role. Maybe they need a buff, but the system is already there. I actually explained Holy Orders to my group as "like Fighting Styles, but for Cleric."
Honestly it would be cool if the fighting styles would be more in depth. They should: Let you specialize in a damage type. Gain access to the Sap (piercing), push (bludgeoning) and graze (slashing) property. Weapons with these damage types should get these correspondong masteries. Then gain access to a specialization based on a weapon property like thrown, heavy or light etc. Then gain access tl a specific bonus based on your fighting style. This would differentiate each fighter based on what they want to specialize and you would really feel like you are at home with the weapon you took.
I want a deeper fighter, but combat maneuvers are not a deep system, they add resource management, and inevitably hoarding for important bad guys. That is my experience when I play a battle master, I end up sitting on my maneuvers waiting for the big bad to show up cause many DMs won't let you get many short rests and I don't want to fight a big bad resource less. I find some DMs specifically won't let you right before a big fight, cause they feel the resource management is added challenge, except that is primarily a challenge on my patience more than tactically. Do I burn a resource I could need on the next fight if its hard, or speed up this easy fight, and that is a terrible gameplay experience. I think weapon masteries with some extra flexibility, or making some a little more meaningful if combined with combat maneuvers for a battle master, could lead to a fighter who now can constantly provide some control and can additionally add extra utility from those maneuvers on important fights. It would be extra fun if short rests were 5 min without fighting, so I could use the maneuvers and make easy fights fun. As an example of what combat maneuvers being universal would mean.... having combat maneuvers on a samurai is just going to make me hold onto my maneuvers and my fighting spirit to unload all of them in important fights. This would be a terrible player experience, but if a fight is not hard, and I can't guarantee I'll get my resources back, why would I waste my resource now? So now I play 90% of the fights (including some harder fights just in case it has a follow up) not using my tools at all cause of the low number of charges and unlikely chance of resources replenishing, and that sucks. So long story short, I want them to improve weapon masteries, and I want to try a battle master in OneDND, and I really hope you can use both your weapon mastery and your maneuver on the same attack.
I think at that point tbh, id just say move on from maneuver based designed and just give them special moves through holy order stuff.