Quote from: Omega;904943Like I said. This is the same old same old bitch-fest thats been directed at any class or whatever with the incessant whinning of "I can hide but the Hider can (sometimes) hide better than me! Why God Why cant I hide as good as the Hider?!?" or now its "I can fish any fish but the Fishing Master can (sometimes) fish better than me! Why God Why cant I fish as good as the Fishing Master?!?"

Part of the problem with these gits is that X usually has some mechanical definition while Y has a very vague definition or a catchall one. Some players just can not wrap their brains around freedom of action.

Except the only person that can Hide is the Hiderer. You're not very good at this analogy-stuff are you? But then again I think you're the Obtuserer in disguise. Ooo the DISGUISERER!!!

Quote from: Batman;905007So we agree that the Battlemaster is unique because he can perform actions Better than other classes at attempting the same thing with his skill, training, and ability to pounce on opportunities that he produces through combat.

I find it odd that you, and Omega, seem to continue to ignore the thesis of many posts by many people here - who clearly are not "unimaginative", some who actually are OSR enthusiasts that do not have any problem with GM-fiat on what is allowed/not allowed - and this asinine insistence that we don't understand that as a GM you can Rule-Zero whatever the fuck you want at the table.

And at the same time ignore the fact we're talking about the mechanical expression of the Battlemaster as it implicitly by the rules is the class that does them best THIS WAY - is not a consistent mechanical way to do it in context with the rest of the system? It ignores the *why* that it's done that way in the, glaringly obvious, first place. As lipservice to 4e.

And hey - it's just a discussion (or at least that's all it is to me.) And to the question that is germane to the thread: is it fun? No. I don't think it is. I think it's limp, but it's fixable.

Quote from: zanshin;904921I really don't have the energy to argue. I'll just run with the RAW when I play 5e and leave it that I have seen Battle Masters in action, and they played just fine. I am glad they are an option.

And that undercuts the Rule Zero proposition you made. As an honest question - how many times have you had non-Battlemasters actually reliably try to do Battlemaster manuevers using a stat-check as a "regular" thing?

I've run several short 5e campaigns and I encourage players to do stuff like that. They don't because it's not in their best interests to do that (or they're casters and they don't have to deign to lower themselves to attempt stuff like that), and it's never happened at my table in 5e. Other games? Sure. 5e? Never. Anecdotal disclaimer inserted .

Quote from: tenbones;905015I find it odd that you, and Omega, seem to continue to ignore the thesis of many posts by many people here - who clearly are not "unimaginative", some who actually are OSR enthusiasts that do not have any problem with GM-fiat on what is allowed/not allowed - and this asinine insistence that we don't understand that as a GM you can Rule-Zero whatever the fuck you want at the table.

It's not really DM fiat though. The rules are pretty clearly spelled out in the Ability Scores section. If you want to try something like that, it's going to be an Ability Contest. I mean, it's pretty clear the intent of what they're supposed to do.

Quote from: tenbones;905015And at the same time ignore the fact we're talking about the mechanical expression of the Battlemaster as it implicitly by the rules is the class that does them best THIS WAY - is not a consistent mechanical way to do it in context with the rest of the system? It ignores the *why* that it's done that way in the, glaringly obvious, first place. As lipservice to 4e.

And hey - it's just a discussion (or at least that's all it is to me.) And to the question that is germane to the thread: is it fun? No. I don't think it is. I think it's limp, but it's fixable.

What I find funny is this belief that they're pandering to 4e when a LARGE portion of the game is derived from playtest feedback and how they perceived the direction of the game should go. Now 5e has some 4e elements to it, as watered down as they are, but to suggest that it's only there to pay 4e fans (who've, from what I've read elsewhere, do not particularly care for 5e over 4e) some sort of due or as an olive branch is pretty ignorant. The 5e system has always attempted to make the GM more important in round-to-round activities of characters in the term of fiat or adjudications or rulings (over rules) from the moment the first playtest came out. And despite the designers feelings on the Battlemaster's "cludgey" mechanics, I've found it to be one of the best received arch-types so far in the game both in terms of playing one AND with on-line feedback (this thread not withstanding).

Also, Rule-Zero is about having NO basis to draw upon and the DM coming up with adjudication but Ability contest clearly are designed to give DMs a road-map on how to handle situations like Grappling, Disarm, Tripping, etc. without fancy widgets.

Quote from: tenbones;905016And that undercuts the Rule Zero proposition you made. As an honest question - how many times have you had non-Battlemasters actually reliably try to do Battlemaster manuevers using a stat-check as a "regular" thing?

To be honest at first we didn't. The battlemaster in our party did his schtick and we did ours. Because he was there, it wasn't that big of a deal. When we didn't and my Eldritch Knight was in the group, I asked the DM about trying some maneuvers. The response was either a Ability Score contest OR grab a feat to make special maneuvers. Because I still needed Strength I went with Contests when it seemed appropriate to the situation. Most of the time I'd either use Shove or attempt to trip the enemy then follow up with Action Surge. But I also relied a lot on my Cantrips and spells too.  

Quote from: tenbones;905016I've run several short 5e campaigns and I encourage players to do stuff like that. They don't because it's not in their best interests to do that (or they're casters and they don't have to deign to lower themselves to attempt stuff like that), and it's never happened at my table in 5e. Other games? Sure. 5e? Never. Anecdotal disclaimer inserted .

The Battlemaster isn't going to be using every Superiority Die in every fight either. There were times the guy in our group didn't use a single one. Partly because Short Rests weren't guaranteed and partly because the reason to trip someone OR push them back X feet wasn't necessarily useful in the situation. I mean, the maneuvers are nice to have but like spells, aren't always going to be the best tool to use in any given situation.

Quote from: Batman;905023It's not really DM fiat though. The rules are pretty clearly spelled out in the Ability Scores section. If you want to try something like that, it's going to be an Ability Contest. I mean, it's pretty clear the intent of what they're supposed to do.

So, again, how much of that do you do in your games in lieu of rules established elsewhere in the book? This gets back to my question about how often does that happen in your 5e games? Because to me - it's not that clear. And I'm not a noob, and nor do I misunderstand this point. I'm directly saying that the weight given to such style of play is less than you're suggesting as being "clear intent".

Quote from: Batman;905023What I find funny is this belief that they're pandering to 4e when a LARGE portion of the game is derived from playtest feedback and how they perceived the direction of the game should go. Now 5e has some 4e elements to it, as watered down as they are, but to suggest that it's only there to pay 4e fans (who've, from what I've read elsewhere, do not particularly care for 5e over 4e) some sort of due or as an olive branch is pretty ignorant.

So you're suggesting that the 4e elements that exist in the game aren't there for that reason? That flies in the face of the fact that despite what 4e fans feel about it, they weren't the ones that actually did the development for it. Likewise those elements could be worked into the system much easier as it is - *without* those 4e elements. That's the entirety of what I, and others here, are saying. You don't get to have it both ways rhetorically by saying they're not pandering to the 4e crowd, then ignore the obvious question: then why have 4e elements in there *at all* - when the rest of the game that covers elements from other editions without using 4e mechanics to express them? Often this is happening within the same class! Sorry - I'm not ignoring *anything*, I'm pointing my finger at the goat and calling it a goat, not implying it's a unicorn.
 

Quote from: Batman;905023The 5e system has always attempted to make the GM more important in round-to-round activities of characters in the term of fiat or adjudications or rulings (over rules) from the moment the first playtest came out. And despite the designers feelings on the Battlemaster's "cludgey" mechanics, I've found it to be one of the best received arch-types so far in the game both in terms of playing one AND with on-line feedback (this thread not withstanding).

So the designers who themselves feel the mechanics are cludgey, which thankfully you cop to, made their mechanics that they designed for... oh I dunno... no reason at all - going by your first quote above. Yeah, because they're not pandering to 4e, they just created a sub-class with these mechanics because they felt 5e needed more "cludge". C'mon man - just own up to it already. I wasn't even making this claim to put anyone on the spot - yet here you are doing it to yourself. Just because you *like* it doesn't mean it's good. The reverse of that might be true too - just because I and others here don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad. I'm willing to let time be the judge on that. I'm saying, as I've said multiple times - the Battlemaster and its 4e mechanics are not consistent with the rest of the system *because* of those same mechanics that I, and the designers themselves, feel are "cludgey".

This is weird, because its the same logic that 4e apologists were making about people criticizing 4e for. One should take note - the reason why the Battlemaster is well received as a Fighter is because of the options it grants the sub-class. Not because it makes it a good design in context with the rest of the system. *Otherwise* why go on about saying "Just use skill-checks." Why couldn't you say - Battlemasters can do these manuevers - just like everyone else, but they get to add their Proficiency Bonus to the check? Instead of hinging on some bizarre comparison to GM-fiat = RAW. They don't. The sub-class could be done a lot better, and a lot cleaner.

Quote from: Batman;905023Also, Rule-Zero is about having NO basis to draw upon and the DM coming up with adjudication but Ability contest clearly are designed to give DMs a road-map on how to handle situations like Grappling, Disarm, Tripping, etc. without fancy widgets.

... see above. Then why have the mechanics with the fancy-widgets at all? Why not bake it into the class? Why why why? say it with me: because 4e.

Quote from: Batman;905029To be honest at first we didn't. The battlemaster in our party did his schtick and we did ours. Because he was there, it wasn't that big of a deal. When we didn't and my Eldritch Knight was in the group, I asked the DM about trying some maneuvers. The response was either a Ability Score contest OR grab a feat to make special maneuvers. Because I still needed Strength I went with Contests when it seemed appropriate to the situation. Most of the time I'd either use Shove or attempt to trip the enemy then follow up with Action Surge. But I also relied a lot on my Cantrips and spells too.

Right. See, that's what I'd honestly expect. But in the interests of where your tastes and my tastes (and others) diverge. I'm of the opinion that other classes and sub-classes shouldn't be limited to just ability checks to do these maneuvers. I think that's excellent fodder for another thread! (earmarked!). And thanks for the honesty! See? we're not different.

Quote from: Batman;905029The Battlemaster isn't going to be using every Superiority Die in every fight either. There were times the guy in our group didn't use a single one. Partly because Short Rests weren't guaranteed and partly because the reason to trip someone OR push them back X feet wasn't necessarily useful in the situation. I mean, the maneuvers are nice to have but like spells, aren't always going to be the best tool to use in any given situation.

THIS is delving into a different realm that probably extends beyond this thread. For me - this is about expectations of ability within the class structure. Dare I say it - caster vs. non-caster power. I think the anemic way they've approached this with non-casters and specifically the Battlemaster, which you and others are using as an anecdotal standard, in how they've introduce these 4e resource issues is part of a larger issue. But I get what you're saying.

Quote from: tenbones;905015I find it odd that you, and Omega, seem to continue to ignore the thesis of many posts by many people here - who clearly are not "unimaginative", some who actually are OSR enthusiasts that do not have any problem with GM-fiat on what is allowed/not allowed - and this asinine insistence that we don't understand that as a GM you can Rule-Zero whatever the fuck you want at the table.

Lets see.

1: Via stat checks and DCs which are part of the rules anyone can try many of the tricks the Battle Master can. They just dont get the same oomph from it. AND. The battlemaster can do exactly the same. At level 1.

2: Assuming using the option Humans and feats. (Which seems to be the norm.) Then anyone can can pick up maneuvers and get superiority dice. In fact they can pick them up BEFORE the battle master can via normal means.

3: If they can find a trainer. As per rules any character may also be able to learn maneuvers outside their class limits via the feat.

And yet somehow the Battle Master is an affront to God and must be snuffed out!

So yes. You are being a moron and some of us will keep punting you and the rest of the peanut gallery back and fourth for it.

Quote from: tenbones;905039So you're suggesting that the 4e elements that exist in the game aren't there for that reason?

For appeasement? Eh, not particularly. I think the designers wanted to have a slew of different play-styles within the parameters of the game because play tests reflected a desire for that. Also, because maybe attempting to do that might require some 4e-elements and design. As a 4e fan I like the Battlemaster for what it represents but it fails, miserably, if it was in any way designed to make a 4e-style Fighter. I think the best it did was not make a Fighter boring. The Champion is fine by design because getting critical hits more often is going to increase your DPR, more so than attempting different combat maneuvers that aren't always beneficial all the time.

Quote from: tenbones;905039That flies in the face of the fact that despite what 4e fans feel about it, they weren't the ones that actually did the development for it. Likewise those elements could be worked into the system much easier as it is - *without* those 4e elements. That's the entirety of what I, and others here, are saying. You don't get to have it both ways rhetorically by saying they're not pandering to the 4e crowd, then ignore the obvious question: then why have 4e elements in there *at all* - when the rest of the game that covers elements from other editions without using 4e mechanics to express them? Often this is happening within the same class! Sorry - I'm not ignoring *anything*, I'm pointing my finger at the goat and calling it a goat, not implying it's a unicorn.

5e took a LOT of inspiration from 4e in terms of mechanics. Hit Die healing, Short Rests, scaling at-will Cantrips and magic (despite being some what started in 3.5), reduction of daily spells, Monster design, maneuvers, and a baseline Proficiency bonus. Take any number of these out of 5e and it ceases to become 5e. They're in there NOT to make 4e fans happy but maybe because they're actually good mechanics that work within the frame of 5e. I feel Battlemaster maneuvers are cludgey because they don't scale AND they're too static. I want to have more flexibility with them to expend more or less to create more powerful effects. Other people feel the Maneuvers should be available to everyone. The question is why? Why does it make sense that a Champion or Eldritch Knight or a Paladin or a Wizard can attempt to attack someone in the same round that they try disarming them? Because to me, that sounds like it would require a lot more training with weapons and combat than any ol' pig farmer can attempt or someone who's been studying books their entire early adult life. To me it fits with the setting.
 

Quote from: tenbones;905039So the designers who themselves feel the mechanics are cludgey, which thankfully you cop to, made their mechanics that they designed for... oh I dunno... no reason at all - going by your first quote above. Yeah, because they're not pandering to 4e, they just created a sub-class with these mechanics because they felt 5e needed more "cludge".

Actually I think they wanted a not boring Fighter. A Fighter that has a bunch of passive, blah blah abilities that are good-ish but can't be fiddled with is to many players boring. Ever try making a Fighter just from Core 3.5. It's boring as fuck. It's effective in the damage output and sure, it can increase their critical range, get a bunch of bonuses to attack and damage rolls and they might even have some room for buffing of saves and initiative. And if they're lucky they even might get a feat or two that allows them things to do round-by-round like Power Attack. But overall it's boring and the ENTIRE time you play with it it's "I swing, I swing, I swing....oh I'm hastened so I'll swing again." OR it's "I move my speed and swing once." I find that mind-numbing and totally against the actual genre the Fighter class is supposed to emulate.

So no the designers have to come to a realization, how do they both appease the players who want simple, swing-swing-swing style Fighter who has a bunch of passive abilities and no widgets AND create a Fighter than does things on a round-to-round basis? There has to be a separation because then the Round-to-Round fighter will get lost IF you make all the Maneuvers things anyone can try. There's almost Zero identity there. So you draw upon some of the things that have worked in the past -- Maneuvers -- and you playtest them and the mechanics it's based off of. The results of these playtests were overwhelmingly positive. So they kept it.

Quote from: tenbones;905039C'mon man - just own up to it already. I wasn't even making this claim to put anyone on the spot - yet here you are doing it to yourself. Just because you *like* it doesn't mean it's good. The reverse of that might be true too - just because I and others here don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad. I'm willing to let time be the judge on that. I'm saying, as I've said multiple times - the Battlemaster and its 4e mechanics are not consistent with the rest of the system *because* of those same mechanics that I, and the designers themselves, feel are "cludgey".

The designers never really said why they're cludgy, so I do have a hard time grasping as to what, exactly makes them so. It can already be easily described "in game" as to what it constitutes. Panache, Opportunistic, meditative, stamina, martial prowess, whatever. Why is it limited per short rest? Because opponents catch on quickly. Because you can't always create the same opening a 3rd or 4th time. Because exerting that much extra effort is more difficult to achieve while also maintaining you footing, concentration, balance, while still fighting at the same time? Personally to me this is a no brainer as to it's realization in the game. Again I don't think they did enough with the Battlemaster to make him distinct. They should've added in things like Stances too. And maybe these stances help with specific combat styles or weapons vs. certain opponents, like in Knights of the Old Republic II game and let them use more Superiority Dice to stack penalizing conditions on enemies that you hit. Spend X die and make him blind. Spend X die and now he's crippled.  

Quote from: tenbones;905039This is weird, because its the same logic that 4e apologists were making about people criticizing 4e for. One should take note - the reason why the Battlemaster is well received as a Fighter is because of the options it grants the sub-class. Not because it makes it a good design in context with the rest of the system. *Otherwise* why go on about saying "Just use skill-checks." Why couldn't you say - Battlemasters can do these manuevers - just like everyone else, but they get to add their Proficiency Bonus to the check? Instead of hinging on some bizarre comparison to GM-fiat = RAW. They don't. The sub-class could be done a lot better, and a lot cleaner.

And at this point it would pretty much lose it's identity. Because it really wouldn't have much to hang it's hat on. It becomes another 3.5 style fighter that got a lot of boring ass abilities (ie. Feats) that made them better and doing shit anyone else could already do (But no one EVER tried because there were always better options out there). The thing is the Superiority Dice gives players something called Agency. It means they have this ability to use, control, spend, reserve, and tinker with class features and benefits as they see fit. If everyone could do Sweeping Attack but the Battlemaster who has X-weapon or by virtue of his sub-path, automatically gets his proficiency bonus is just another boring passive class. It's easy but boring. That's why the current Battlemaster is designed the way it is, because widgets are something people like to use. Just like Spells or Ki or Smites or Rages it gives the Fighter something that he can expend that has a very significant impact on any given round of any given encounter. Yes, they get Action surge but all that does it add more attacks (ie. a Hastened 3.5 Fighter --- yawn).

Quote from: tenbones;905039... see above. Then why have the mechanics with the fancy-widgets at all? Why not bake it into the class? Why why why? say it with me: because 4e.

Because fancy widgets = a unique identity. Why not give everyone Ki? Why not let everyone get mad X/day? because then you start losing class identity which is what D&D is all about.

Quote from: Omega;905084Lets see.

1: Via stat checks and DCs which are part of the rules anyone can try many of the tricks the Battle Master can. They just dont get the same oomph from it. AND. The battlemaster can do exactly the same. At level 1.

2: Assuming using the option Humans and feats. (Which seems to be the norm.) Then anyone can can pick up maneuvers and get superiority dice. In fact they can pick them up BEFORE the battle master can via normal means.

3: If they can find a trainer. As per rules any character may also be able to learn maneuvers outside their class limits via the feat.

And yet somehow the Battle Master is an affront to God and must be snuffed out!

So yes. You are being a moron and some of us will keep punting you and the rest of the peanut gallery back and fourth for it.

Wow someone is mad about someone not liking his elf-game. There's a shock. I feel so... "punted" LOL.

At least Batman is willing to talk about the actual topic. /shrug. I can always count on the Bats!!!

I find it amusing that somehow being stuck reading manuals with little practical experience is laughed at, and yet, that's exactly what the Battlemaster does.  And it has better damage output than a Champion.

Quote from: Batman;905155For appeasement? Eh, not particularly. I think the designers wanted to have a slew of different play-styles within the parameters of the game because play tests reflected a desire for that. Also, because maybe attempting to do that might require some 4e-elements and design. As a 4e fan I like the Battlemaster for what it represents but it fails, miserably, if it was in any way designed to make a 4e-style Fighter. I think the best it did was not make a Fighter boring. The Champion is fine by design because getting critical hits more often is going to increase your DPR, more so than attempting different combat maneuvers that aren't always beneficial all the time.

I'm sticking to my guns about the appeasement part. I think if they went any further it would have simply not worked with the rest of the system. Keep in mind - this entire topic is only the tip of the issue (but large tip). My primary criticism (as others here have also made with slightly different emphasis) is that 5e's attempts to nod at all editions prevents it from being particularly distinct enough in its own right. Granted this might only be obvious to those that have played the other editions extensively.

Quote from: Batman;9051555e took a LOT of inspiration from 4e in terms of mechanics. Hit Die healing, Short Rests, scaling at-will Cantrips and magic (despite being some what started in 3.5), reduction of daily spells, Monster design, maneuvers, and a baseline Proficiency bonus. Take any number of these out of 5e and it ceases to become 5e. They're in there NOT to make 4e fans happy but maybe because they're actually good mechanics that work within the frame of 5e. I feel Battlemaster maneuvers are cludgey because they don't scale AND they're too static. I want to have more flexibility with them to expend more or less to create more powerful effects. Other people feel the Maneuvers should be available to everyone. The question is why? Why does it make sense that a Champion or Eldritch Knight or a Paladin or a Wizard can attempt to attack someone in the same round that they try disarming them? Because to me, that sounds like it would require a lot more training with weapons and combat than any ol' pig farmer can attempt or someone who's been studying books their entire early adult life. To me it fits with the setting.

That's a better answer. Unfortunately, again - adherence to 4e design is precisely what is causing this issue. Note that while we say it should be part of the conceits that such maneuvers should be available as part of combat writ-large, at *no* point have we even begun to discuss who should be able to do it at what degree. That alone is probably a topic where some people on my side of the fence might differ in opinion. My personal view of it is classic 1e/2e (and 5e for that matter) that if you're a PC-class you're already a 'cut-above' the pig-farmers of the world. This is why I keep harping on mechanical expression in the game - narratively, where we place the goal post is important. But where the rubber hits the road is where systemically do these options exist.

Classes should be clearly delineated and the general options of combat should be clear too. I think those options given to the Battlemaster are too important to be just implied by GM-fiat. More importantly, I think the mechanical expression of how they work is completely arbitrary. Like I said - you could do it as a bonus + Proficiency check and it would be more systemically accurate to the rest of the game, because the *only* places where the dice-resource mechanic exists are from the 4e elements. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against those particular mechanics at all. See Fantasy Craft - they are far more consistent with how they use them (and you get a hell of a lot more options) - but they also clearly delineate what combat consists of and give you mechanical expressions to use even for GM-fiat. I think that kind of rigor should be applied to 5e. The fact we can smell the whiff of the differences in editions present IS the problem.
 

Quote from: Batman;905155Actually I think they wanted a not boring Fighter. A Fighter that has a bunch of passive, blah blah abilities that are good-ish but can't be fiddled with is to many players boring. Ever try making a Fighter just from Core 3.5. It's boring as fuck. It's effective in the damage output and sure, it can increase their critical range, get a bunch of bonuses to attack and damage rolls and they might even have some room for buffing of saves and initiative. And if they're lucky they even might get a feat or two that allows them things to do round-by-round like Power Attack. But overall it's boring and the ENTIRE time you play with it it's "I swing, I swing, I swing....oh I'm hastened so I'll swing again." OR it's "I move my speed and swing once." I find that mind-numbing and totally against the actual genre the Fighter class is supposed to emulate.

This is precisely where I think you're right. However, the solution to me (and apparently a few others here) is to allow Fighters to enhance their combat abilities *without* expressly denying other classes the same options. This is why we balk at using optional rules - because not every table uses the same options. That the entire point. The classes, the combat system, the spell system should interact with one another in a uniformed process. The classes the emphasize some things more than others should gain those benefits as part of the class. That COULD also mean these classes get special sub-systems that allow them to benefit in those areas - but they need to be actual parts of the system - not optional. The more modularity you have baked in - in fact - the more you could *have* 4e mechanics as optional sub-systems without creating dissonant mechanics within the context of the system.

That's where I think scaling Feats and and Gear options can *easily* make up for this.

Quote from: Batman;905155So no the designers have to come to a realization, how do they both appease the players who want simple, swing-swing-swing style Fighter who has a bunch of passive abilities and no widgets AND create a Fighter than does things on a round-to-round basis? There has to be a separation because then the Round-to-Round fighter will get lost IF you make all the Maneuvers things anyone can try. There's almost Zero identity there. So you draw upon some of the things that have worked in the past -- Maneuvers -- and you playtest them and the mechanics it's based off of. The results of these playtests were overwhelmingly positive. So they kept it.

But in their design they emphasized these points in the wrong places. They *can* have both. Where they put them shows an incredible lack of 1) Guts to make 5e it's own system 2) Imagination - which I think would be uncharitable given I've worked with a few of these guys and I know better 3) All of the above. I'll think it's more #1...

Something that jumps out at me about this last bit - class identity. See, nothing will make me feel the Battlemaster has an identity. At all. It's an arbitrary name for an arbitrary sub-class that does arbitrary things in combat based on the conceits of the sub-class itself - not necessarily an exemplification of what a type of Fighter it is. It's generic by definition. And while that's fine for some - I think it's bland and says nothing about what it is. No more than a Warlord does in 4e. And I hear you on the playtests. But like I've alluded to before - we all loved 3e when it came out. And then its warts started to show. Same with 4e. 5e will be no different *because* by design it's inheriting the same DNA for those same arbitrary reasons.

Quote from: Batman;905155The designers never really said why they're cludgy, so I do have a hard time grasping as to what, exactly makes them so. It can already be easily described "in game" as to what it constitutes. Panache, Opportunistic, meditative, stamina, martial prowess, whatever. Why is it limited per short rest? Because opponents catch on quickly. Because you can't always create the same opening a 3rd or 4th time. Because exerting that much extra effort is more difficult to achieve while also maintaining you footing, concentration, balance, while still fighting at the same time? Personally to me this is a no brainer as to it's realization in the game. Again I don't think they did enough with the Battlemaster to make him distinct. They should've added in things like Stances too. And maybe these stances help with specific combat styles or weapons vs. certain opponents, like in Knights of the Old Republic II game and let them use more Superiority Dice to stack penalizing conditions on enemies that you hit. Spend X die and make him blind. Spend X die and now he's crippled.  

Again, I think we agree on the ingredients, we don't agree on the process of cooking those ingredients. Stances and manuevers etc. Are externalities of class. Just like spells are. Just like gear is. What and how those classes interact with those externalizations is what defines them. The 4e mechanics *alone* are what distinguish the Battlemaster because they're baked in. If you have to measure up other classes, or even sub-classes using other externalities - then it's a bad design. That's been my main point from the get-go. I think Feats shouldn't be an option. But then I think you could *easily* make the 4e Superiority Dice an optional sub-system - but it needs to be just that - a sub-system for *many* classes to access in their own unique way. Not have it sequestered off in some obscure corner.

You *can* have your cake and eat it too. RAW in 5e - it's a shit-cake baked half-ass. As the great sage Swanson says, "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."

Quote from: Batman;905155Because fancy widgets = a unique identity. Why not give everyone Ki? Why not let everyone get mad X/day? because then you start losing class identity which is what D&D is all about.

I disagree. Fancy widgets are just mechanical expressions. How they're used in the game is the devil in the details. So if you were to create the Fighter class in 5e - I'm curious what you'd do. It should be fun! Obviously this is just your take on it. What would you change about the 5e Fighter?

Having read the last several pages of discussion, I think the basic core problem comes from a single design issue that has been with D&D for much longer than 5E has been around.

The battle master issue is but one example of this problem. I am playing a battle master and having fun with it, but still I can see the issues that make it problem for some players.

The underlying basic design issue is a dilution of the class as archetype system that has been with the game since OD&D. What a class is, has changed dramatically since the original three classes were created. The proliferation of classes weakened the archetype structure and issued in the age of class as an occupation era. Come up with neat concept and a few cool unique mechanical widgets? Tada! We have a new class. As time went on, the differences needed to justify the existence of a new class became a joke. Classes got so numerous that they needed to be grouped into base and sub classes. WOTC then added in prestige classes on top of all that. A system that once supported strong conceptual archetypes now offered only collections of job skills loosed bound together and called a "class".

Another blow against the elegant archetype system was the introduction of ala carte skills being thrown into the mix on top of all these packaged collections of occupational abilities disguised as classes. Even worse, some classes were heavily dependent on them to be able to function properly, and still are in 5E. Classes became mere mixes of mechanical widgets and the concept of strong thematic archetypes died a quiet death as the separation of crunch and fluff became more pronounced.

The abstract frame of heroic archetypes that D&D was constructed upon is a poor support for all the persnickety detail and fiddly bits that have heaped upon it. If you examine most if not all problems with the game over the years, it will more often than not circle back to this root cause. D&D long ago reached a point where it needed to shit or get off the pot. Is D&D an abstract role playing game featuring strong archetypes or is it a complex tactical game of a thousand widgets?  It is the attempt to be both that is making it the mess that it is.

To muddy the waters even further the focus of play has aided in the erosion of the archetype structure. When the game is about exploration and discovery, and acquiring wealth and power via recovering lost treasures the archetype of the fighter has a place. Being a master of all things combat is one of a few important roles. Fast forward to 5E and we see that the game is geared toward fighting monsters as the primary objective of play. Treasure, which was once the goal, is now an optional component.

In a game that features ALL players as professional monster fighters, what does the archetype of "fighter" even mean? The fighter class, having had its basic job overtaken by all other classes, is now searching for a reason to exist. A master of weapons? Hard to claim when the skulking thief can churn out more offensive output consistently with a dagger than our fighter can with a big sword. When every class assumes the role of a fighter there isn't really much point in a fighter class anymore. That archetype has become assumed in every individual who becomes an adventurer. A fighter archetype has no reason to exist unless it is better at fighting than every other archetype. This is directly at odds with the "everyone must be equally good at battle" paradigm that is pervasive in the game today. Those who bitch and moan about the fighter not being allowed to have nice things often don't stop to realize that it was the other classes who took those things away, and plugging in wuxia powers for the fighter in an attempt to return them does nothing but transform the genre of the game from heroic fantasy to heroic fantasy superheroes. The classic fighter archetype cannot be restored by heaping more mechanics on it.

As long as the game is designed to be all about combat, the fighter will not have a satisfactory place as an archetype. It really is that simple.

Quote from: tenbones;905165Something that jumps out at me about this last bit - class identity. See, nothing will make me feel the Battlemaster has an identity. At all. It's an arbitrary name for an arbitrary sub-class that does arbitrary things in combat based on the conceits of the sub-class itself - not necessarily an exemplification of what a type of Fighter it is. It's generic by definition. And while that's fine for some - I think it's bland and says nothing about what it is.

The two groups I've trained with most recently are the London Sword & Dagger Club and the Triangle Sword Guild. They're working with identical weapons - what 5e (and modern scholarship) calls the Longsword, but many earlier editions called the Bastard Sword. The London group works in the Italian school (Fiore dei Liberi), the North Carolina group in the German school (Liechtenauer).

In the former group, no matter what your level of skill is, at least 25% of your training time is spent on disarms, grapples, throws, etc.
In the latter group, they're hardly mentioned; the focus is all about the sword. These people are strong, fit, powerful, and *capable* of doing these moves, but not *well trained* to do them.
In my very non-expert experience, the Liechtenauer moves don't leave you in good position to do grappling; the principal sword techniques are incompatible with the way Fiore smoothly combines wrestling plays and strikes.

London is training Battlemasters, the colonies are training Champions.



** All sorts of caveats:

 - There are other German authors that teach grappling; a quick approximation may be that *unarmored fighters* aren't safe enough to take the risks of closing to grapple / are vulnerable enough that you don't need to grapple with them to kill them; *full-plate-harness armored fighters* are well-enough protected that they can afford to get close / need to be thrown or disarmed to have enough advantage to be able to hurt them. I don't know the sources well enough to know if this theory holds water.

 - I screwed up my rotator cuffs with TSG so haven't done any advanced training with them, nor kibbitzed about these theories with my friends who do. This is based on the intro-level classes I've taken and practices I've attended, skimming their curriculum, and my memory of German vs Italian comparisons.

 - The Iaido that I studied long ago is also focused on unarmored combat, but you don't take the other guy's sword away, you just cut his hands off.

Quote from: tenbones;905165I'm sticking to my guns about the appeasement part. I think if they went any further it would have simply not worked with the rest of the system. Keep in mind - this entire topic is only the tip of the issue (but large tip). My primary criticism (as others here have also made with slightly different emphasis) is that 5e's attempts to nod at all editions prevents it from being particularly distinct enough in its own right. Granted this might only be obvious to those that have played the other editions extensively.

The designers were pretty up front during the entire playtesting process in their desire to bridge a gap between fans of all editions, that's very much true. I think the Battlemaster is designed to cater to those who enjoy less static or always-on features, mostly players of WotC-era D&D. Despite the boring options in the PHB, a v3.5 Fighter had a lot of other moving parts and feats  that they could grab from the plethora of supplements that were released including maneuvers and stances from the Tome of Battle or Combat Form feats from the PH2 or the groupings of Tactical feats from Complete Warrior (and other sources). Perhaps I'm being ticky-tacky in saying the Appeasement isn't directly targeting 4e fans, but I'll say that the Battlemaster is there for WotC-Era D&D, which I'd also probably group in players of Pathfinder too.

Quote from: tenbones;905165That's a better answer. Unfortunately, again - adherence to 4e design is precisely what is causing this issue. Note that while we say it should be part of the conceits that such maneuvers should be available as part of combat writ-large, at *no* point have we even begun to discuss who should be able to do it at what degree. That alone is probably a topic where some people on my side of the fence might differ in opinion. My personal view of it is classic 1e/2e (and 5e for that matter) that if you're a PC-class you're already a 'cut-above' the pig-farmers of the world. This is why I keep harping on mechanical expression in the game - narratively, where we place the goal post is important. But where the rubber hits the road is where systemically do these options exist.

A combat system with build in Maneuvers pretty much makes it available to any/all NPCs. Like in 3.5 anyone could trip or disarm, or bull rush, or etc but it provided a crap ton of penalties, provoking Attacks of Opportunity and all that which made attempting it a waste of time. If you did the same thing with maneuvers in 5e, I feel you'd have a similar result. A Battlemaster who's just better at attempting these manevuers is just like a 3.5 Fighter gettting Improved Trip, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm for free. It doesn't inherently make these maneuvers better OR more useful overall nor does it make playing a Battlemaster all the exciting. By making some things inclusive to just the Battlemater, to me, it makes it play better and is more fun at the table much like how Clerics have their spell list and Druids have theirs and there's no mingling in between.  

Quote from: tenbones;905165Classes should be clearly delineated and the general options of combat should be clear too. I think those options given to the Battlemaster are too important to be just implied by GM-fiat. More importantly, I think the mechanical expression of how they work is completely arbitrary. Like I said - you could do it as a bonus + Proficiency check and it would be more systemically accurate to the rest of the game, because the *only* places where the dice-resource mechanic exists are from the 4e elements. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against those particular mechanics at all. See Fantasy Craft - they are far more consistent with how they use them (and you get a hell of a lot more options) - but they also clearly delineate what combat consists of and give you mechanical expressions to use even for GM-fiat. I think that kind of rigor should be applied to 5e. The fact we can smell the whiff of the differences in editions present IS the problem.

Keep in mind that the designers knew this going in. To them it was up to the DM and group to determine if Maneuvers (or any sub-system really) met each individual's group approval and to move forward accordingly. That's sort of why the distinctions are clear and present. 5e was never designed to be used the same way by everyone at every table. Now whether or not someone feels that's good or bad is going to vary greatly but I've heard t hat people just play with the Basic game but include things like the monsters from the monster manual and magic items and likewise I've also heard that people play with every rule they put out, no exceptions including Unearthed Arcana articles. The gambit is all throughout this edition and the designers, I feel, want it that way. If you're OK with Hit Die healing then you're probably OK with the Battlemaster giving out hit points OR Variant Rule on healing. If you hate Maneuvers then more than likely you're probably going to exclude the Battlemaster as a PC option in your games. Both approaches are not only expected by the designer, but encouraged as well.
 

Quote from: tenbones;905165This is precisely where I think you're right. However, the solution to me (and apparently a few others here) is to allow Fighters to enhance their combat abilities *without* expressly denying other classes the same options. This is why we balk at using optional rules - because not every table uses the same options. That the entire point. The classes, the combat system, the spell system should interact with one another in a uniformed process. The classes the emphasize some things more than others should gain those benefits as part of the class. That COULD also mean these classes get special sub-systems that allow them to benefit in those areas - but they need to be actual parts of the system - not optional. The more modularity you have baked in - in fact - the more you could *have* 4e mechanics as optional sub-systems without creating dissonant mechanics within the context of the system.

That's where I think scaling Feats and and Gear options can *easily* make up for this.

See, I'm not too keen on the solution because to me that says "Everyone is a Fighter +" and that really makes it sucky to be a true Fighter. I think this is also one of the cruxes Exploderwizard was talking about. By making a more robust (maneuvers in 5e) system but letting Fighters be better, it doesn't necessarily give Fighters any sort of identity other than "I can disarm better than you can" to which the wizard says "I can cast magic that you not only can't do well but can NEVER do". It's pointing out that a Wizard's identity is casting Arcane magic via study through tomes and rituals. A Cleric's identity is getting power via their faith in the Gods to cast prayers. A Rogue's identity is an intense understanding of the underground (ie. Thieve's Can't) and making use of openings to sneak in a tremendous attack. A Fighter's identity is......well he is REALLY good at combat that each others can sort of do but not as well unless they also spend resources too. A Fighter can wear heavy armor and use shields. So can the Cleric. A Fighter can attack with blades and bows. So can the Rogue. A Fighter gets more attacks. A Rogue won't need to if he's good and gets in a few Sneak Attacks OR a Cleric that buffs himself with magic or a Wizard that casts a spell and puts the enemy to sleep. Everyone can something the Fighter can do, maybe not as well but largely it is really needed or necessary but the Fighter can't call upon a deity, can't cast spells from a tome, can't read or speak Thieve's Can't, can't strike with extreme precision, can't cast Rituals, can't turn away the undead with faith, can't perfectly dodge a fireball.

As for scaling Feats I'd be fine with that and I think it's something that 5e should've done but they went with the Robust Feats instead. As for gear, I'll get to that below...

Quote from: tenbones;905165But in their design they emphasized these points in the wrong places. They *can* have both. Where they put them shows an incredible lack of 1) Guts to make 5e it's own system 2) Imagination - which I think would be uncharitable given I've worked with a few of these guys and I know better 3) All of the above. I'll think it's more #1...

Something that jumps out at me about this last bit - class identity. See, nothing will make me feel the Battlemaster has an identity. At all. It's an arbitrary name for an arbitrary sub-class that does arbitrary things in combat based on the conceits of the sub-class itself - not necessarily an exemplification of what a type of Fighter it is. It's generic by definition. And while that's fine for some - I think it's bland and says nothing about what it is. No more than a Warlord does in 4e. And I hear you on the playtests. But like I've alluded to before - we all loved 3e when it came out. And then its warts started to show. Same with 4e. 5e will be no different *because* by design it's inheriting the same DNA for those same arbitrary reasons.

I think I have a different view on what identity means. Not so much as an in-game one, because I don't need the designers to tell me how to implement X,Y,Z sub-class or flavor into a campaign (be it mine or the Forgotten Realms or whatever). To me Identity shows why something exists within the framework of the system. Looking at the 11 classes we have, each has a pretty specific identity and sub-genre's within that framework. Bards have different colleges they've studied from. Barbarians use Rage that's berserk in nature or derived from totem spirits. Paladins profess an Oath. Wizards choose a school. yadda-yadda. Fighters, on the other hand, pretty much lose out overall and have since 3e. Again this eludes to what Exploderwizard was taking about the Fighter specifically doesn't do anything inherently different than every other class. Other clasases have access to all forms of armor and weapons. Other classes can have great strength. Other classes can attack well and proficiently with weapons and even some with their body. So the Fighter doesn't necessarily bring anything to the table that can't already be replicated to some degree or another by different class. But these other classes ALL have options that are 100% out of the Fighter's reach. Why is that? I believe it's because there's this ever-present idea of the "Fighting-man" that designers believe means ANYONE can/should be able to do what this guy does but maybe not as good. That's not identity. That's a cop out.

So 5e looked at the Fighter and said "Well he's the class that we haven't really gotten right in a while" because 1. they've beefed up almost EVERY other class and made them all fine identities and 2. they've lost what the Fighter is supposed to represent in D&D/Fantasy fiction. So they gave him action surge and 3 attacks, more than anyone else can do but still not distinct because people still DO attack with the same weapons and use the same armor. They get Second Wind, allowing them to heal themselves. Well shit Paladin's get lay on hands and Clerics, Druids, and Rangers get healing spells too. They get Indomitable which allows them re-rolled Saving throws x/day. Ok so they're good at avoiding magic just like the Rogue, Halfling, and anyone who grabs the Lucky feat. Getting down to the Arch-types, 5e designers thought that each class should have at least 2, one of which should be more magical than the other. So the Fighter got Eldritch Knight. Now having played one I feel they're fun. It's not as fun as a 4e Swordmage but within the context of 5e it's fine. The Champion is more of the same basic Fighter, stuff people get but the Fighter gets it slightly better. The other one, Battlemaster, is unique unto it's own. It can do stuff NO one else can. But because this ingrained idea that unless you cast spells OR are apart of some thieving guild you cannot have exclusive pieces that you can call your own, you can only do stuff better than what other people can attempt to do. That's the rub with the Fighter for me.

Quote from: tenbones;905165Again, I think we agree on the ingredients, we don't agree on the process of cooking those ingredients. Stances and manuevers etc. Are externalizations of class. Just like spells are. Just like gear is. What and how those classes interact with those externalizations is what defines them. The 4e mechanics *alone* are what distinguish the Battlemaster because they're baked in. If you have to measure up other classes, or even sub-classes using other externalities - then it's a bad design. That's been my main point from the get-go. I think Feats shouldn't be an option. But then I think you could *easily* make the 4e Superiority Dice an optional sub-system - but it needs to be just that - a sub-system for *many* classes to access in their own unique way. Not have it sequestered off in some obscure corner.

You *can* have your cake and eat it too. RAW in 5e - it's a shit-cake baked half-ass. As the great sage Swanson says, "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."

Ok but why do spells get a free-pass in this? Spells are cornered off to a small section of the game, accessible to only some classes (and sub-paths) but because it's magic it's OK? And you can't access that magic unless you train in it (wizard, bard); pray for it (cleric, druid, paladin, ranger); or are born with it (sorcerer, ...warlock?) but have a sub-section of strikes/maneuvers that takes training to even attempt and somehow that's bad? I don't know any Kung-Fu and I think i'd look pretty silly and get my ass handed to me if I were to take on even a 1st year Kung-Fu student. I wouldn't say that because I'm doing stuff that looks like he's doing I can call it Kung-Fu. I just don't see why maneuvers needs to be accessible to everyone when clearly it takes training in specifics other than swinging a sword to become proficient with.

Quote from: tenbones;905165I disagree. Fancy widgets are just mechanical expressions. How they're used in the game is the devil in the details. So if you were to create the Fighter class in 5e - I'm curious what you'd do. It should be fun! Obviously this is just your take on it. What would you change about the 5e Fighter?

My take would be to completely overhaul the system, starting with who and what can have access to gear and equipment. The Fighter should be unique in that only someone as trained as him can access ALL weapons and armor. Paladin's in full-plate? Haha..no you use Chainmail like everyone did during the Crusades and don't even THINK about picking up that Bow...heathen. Oh you're a cleric? I don't care what weapon your "wish" your God wields, you use maces and bludgeon things. Want to fight with blades and wear plate-armor? Then maybe your faith isn't so strong after all. Hello bard....wait, put down that heavy-ass longsword! Your arms have been strumming lutes, playing with flutes, and maybe the occasional drum while singing about the exploits that Fighter over there has been doing. No you can use a light weapon like a foil or rapier or shortsword and maybe a crossbow because my 6 year old sister can.

After weapons and armor are reallocated correctly (in my opinion of course), THEN you start giving the Fighter stuff that is unique unto him. Weapons Specialization needs to be a thing again. ALL weapons are like tools but D&D treats them like different flavored cudgels with all the same purpose. Shortswords are great when you're mashed up shield-to-shield because the longsword is too long in close-quarters. If you're grappling, give me a dagger over a great-axe any day. If you're attempting to hold back a crowed of zombie, that Halberd is going to be a MUCH more effective tool than two shortswords. Does D&D reflect ANY of this? Nope. Should the Fighter? Yes, yes they should. Give benefits and draw backs to the weapons FIGHTERS wield because, like most tools, they're only exceptionally good in the hands of those proficient in their use. Anyone can swing an axe but a Lumberjack knows how/ where/ and with what force to proved the BEST outcome. Also, Fighters should all excel in hand-to-hand combat. Why this isn't a Thing is totally unacceptable.

Lastly, Maneuvers and Stances should be a thing. Like in martial arts you're stance means a lot, so adding stances that give you a range of strikes or counters should definitely be accessible. Maybe make a martial arts sub-system to which Fighters can take things from and utilize weapons with and allow the Monk instant access to ALL of them?