How do you feel about the battle master fighter? Is it fun? Is it deep enough?

To elaborate, does it pull its weight in a fight? Over multiple fights?

Does managing its superiority dice feel tactical or just busy or unrealistic? Does it make combat deeper or are the choices false, no-brainers?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902588How do you feel about the battle master fighter? Is it fun? Is it deep enough?

No. I find it neither fun nor deep in direct relation to the rest of the system. It's a fabrication designed to be a nod to the 4e Warlord to appease 4e fans.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902588To elaborate, does it pull its weight in a fight? Over multiple fights?

Yeah, but only because the rest of the options (the Champion and the Eldritch Knight) are mechanically inferior, nevermind they are arbitrary in theme.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902588Does managing its superiority dice feel tactical or just busy or unrealistic? Does it make combat deeper or are the choices false, no-brainers?

It is a mechanical expression of abilities sequestered off to this singular class that arguably should be available to all other classes. Superiority dice as a mechanic is arbitrarily used here. Too arbitrarily imo. I think the choices are false only in terms of what I expect of the Fighter class in context with the rest of the system. This is what I was talking about in my Fighter thread a few weeks ago.

Essentially in agreement with tenbones, and have little to add after that.

I'm going to be honest. If I want to fight in D&D5E I'm not going for the Fighter in any of it's iterations. The Barbarian, the Paladin, the Ranger, and hell...even the Valor Bard are better class choices than the Fighter, IMO.

The battle master is too clunky for my taste.  Part of the reason I like 5e is the more streamline approach.

I like the simplicity of the Champion fighter.  Concepts that require less dice and less tracking, such as critical hit on a 19 or 20 are perfect.  Fits just fine.

My group's champion fighter reliably does the most damage.  They are not a power gaming group, so I'm not sure if max/min-ing would change anything concerning damage.  The group also does not have a PC wiz/sorc, however there is a NPC sorc which is not very combat oriented.  They have a moon druid, cleric of Pholtos, champion fighter, arcane trickster rogue, and barbarian - PCs are 5th-6th level.

The last 5e Fighter I played was the one in the Starter Set. I'm playing one in a new campaign starting Saturday & plan to go Battlemaster, but it's monthly so will take awhile. Seeing one in action in another game, it seemed weak compared to my Barbarian, though minmaxed Feat selection would help. It certainly does not compare very well to 4e Fighter or Warlord - I'm going for a Warlord type warrior princess character & I'm aware I'll be hoeing a tough row. I think my main plan is to abuse the temp hp mechanics since I'll be able to grant them on a Short Rest but they only expire on a Long Rest...

I don't like it, because it's yet another exception based system that although hews closer to the base mechanics, unlike the Magic Spell system, is still adding an extra layer of complexity that's frankly unnecessary.  At least multiple classes use the magic system as is.

It's.....meh. tenbones says it's to appease 4e fans but, as a 4e fan myself, it's grossly lacking overall. Does it hold it's own? Yeah I guess it does for the most part, as any other short-rest class is in 5e, I guess. I mean, it's not terrible like 3e/3.5 and Pathfinder's version of the Fighter are (well, outside of very specific builds and excessive patch supplements) but it doesn't do nearly as good a job as the 4e Fighter did. Now if they create some higher level maneuvers that utilize more dice OR somehow allow you to increase effects if you use multiple dice per manevuer, maybe? They could also add in stances too, which would be fun.

As for more fun/tactical, I'd say that it's true but really only because no other non-spellcasting class has anything like it out of the box (you can pick up maneuvers with Feats). The Paladin still has to keep an eye on his spells, the ranger too (and what a pile of garbage the Beast Ranger is.....*shudder*). The Monk and Rogue are better than their 3e/3.5 counterparts but is that really saying much? Nope. The Battlemaster is more engaging to me and it keeps me more engaged at the table compared to the Champion's ad nauseam routine OR having to track spells and possibly not having a useful spell readily available like an Eldritch Knight.

Would I play one? Probably, considering the other Fighter alternatives. But I'm not happy we're getting relatively nothing in comparison to an actual Warlord or even 3e's Warblade. 5e is far too sentimental to the grogs to ever consider actual fun Fighter options that would *gasp* make wizards a tad bit more inferior.

1: Havent played one. I lean to Eldritch Knight, but thats only because Im so often the group caster. But after Tenbones fail rant in the other thread. Got to scrutinizing the path and it works overall.

Is it fun? Seems so. Jannet is still playing hers and is still really liking it.

Is it deep enough? From what I can gather from her comments since starting using that class path the path overall works well and has the sort of depth she likes. IE: About the same as a Ranger sans spells.

2: Yes. We are a 2 person group still and she uses the maneuvers mostly to give me and Kefra bonuses when ganging up on someone or to boost her own archery. So far shes done really well with it.

3: She seems to have no problem at all managing the superiority dice. Why would she? Its easier than managing spell slots probably. They work for what they are which is spotting some advantage and capitalizing on it above what is normally being done. Seems pretty well intigrated.

Quote from: tenbones;902600It is a mechanical expression of abilities sequestered off to this singular class that arguably should be available to all other classes.

Interesting thought. Could a game where several different classes were built around superiority dice work, or would it start to feel samey or flow wrong?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902706Interesting thought. Could a game where several different classes were built around superiority dice work, or would it start to feel samey or flow wrong?

You can pick up superiority doce and maneuvers with a feat. And Tenbones complaint as mentioned is a non-issue. The Battle Master just gets more oomph (or oomph at all) from things any other class can do.

Its the same senseless bitch rant as goes back to at least AD&D Thieves.

Quote from: Omega;902708You can pick up superiority doce and maneuvers with a feat. And Tenbones complaint as mentioned is a non-issue. The Battle Master just gets more oomph (or oomph at all) from things any other class can do.

Its the same senseless bitch rant as goes back to at least AD&D Thieves.

Was I ranting? I didn't feel like I was ranting, heh. Just answering directly.

That said. It's feast/famine depending on your tastes. I do not have any antipathy towards fans of 4e or even 4e itself. I'm old enough to admit my own biases and tastes and understand that what's cool for me is not for others - and vice versa. My stance in the Fighter thread a few weeks ago may have come off ranty, but I feel that I gave my position enough historical examples from each edition to satisfactorily explain my views. It may have sounded ranty, but I chalk that up to the realization of what 5e is - a self-referential edition of D&D that only refers back to its previous incarnations rather than trying to establish its own mechanical expressions as strongly as it's forebears. In this regard I actually have more respect for the design of 4e and 3e (even though I thoroughly dislike both of them).

Superiority Dice - My thoughts are this. Alone, I have no problem with this mechanic. Really, I don't. I play version of D&D (Fantasy Craft) that uses Action Dice and it works GREAT. But in keeping with my opinions as stated above, and before that *many* times in my 5e Fighter "rant-thread" - my problem with the Battle-Master is the simple fact that these abilities that Battle-Masters can spend their Superiority Dice on are occluded from other classes by default.

Sure you can say "well they can buy a Feat" and get Superiority Dice to do them - but that actually proves my point. Feats are an externality to precisely what I'm talking about. These combat maneuvers should be *available* for free to anyone that picks up a weapon. That's historically, when they've appeared in various editions, how it's been. Even in D&D-like games like Fantasy Craft that's how it's been treated, only that non-fighters typically weren't as good as Fighters at doing it. Which is all I'm saying - at least they have an option to do it. You should take note that I'm not saying Battle-Masters shouldn't HAVE these abilities, or that they shouldn't be better than others at them. I'm saying by tying them up into one sub-class it lessens other classes for the sake of appeasing the ghosts of the 4e Warlord. And that, to me, is a big huge failed-bit.

But let's be clear here - the problem with the Battle-Master is more than just this. It's how Fighters, and non-casters writ-large are designed in context with the rest of the system that I find distasteful. But that's all in the other thread.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902706Interesting thought. Could a game where several different classes were built around superiority dice work, or would it start to feel samey or flow wrong?

If I was standing there watching the character act with using the superiority dice mechanic, what would I see. Would it be rational, something plausible? Otherwise it is just form of bean counting as a mechanic. For example superiority dice may make sense as a form of magical or spiritual power that can only be replenished after a suitable period of meditation and reflection. But it doesn't make sense as way of limiting the number of time I can disarm an opponent. Why could i disarm X guys in the morning but not in the afternoon without have to take a long rest in between. If it is because I am exhausted why aren't my other physical activities curtailed? And so on?

The more you can tie a mechanic into how a action works as if you are there, the less gamey it will feel. As for flowing wrong. That depends on how well crafted you make the implementation of the mechanics. If it requires a lookup on a chart every time or a lot of fiddly tracking then it would not likely flow very well.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902588How do you feel about the battle master fighter? Is it fun? Is it deep enough?

To elaborate, does it pull its weight in a fight? Over multiple fights?

Does managing its superiority dice feel tactical or just busy or unrealistic? Does it make combat deeper or are the choices false, no-brainers?

I had fun playing one. I wasn't looking for something deep, but wanted more depth than the Champion.

It was effective in a fight (we were 4th level). The Fighters overall resilience over multiple fights combined with the effective use of superiority dice made it an interesting balance in short and long term.

Superiority dice need to be used at the right time for best effect as they aren't universally powerful like a Wizard's spells. As such, judging the timing felt tactical. I didn't find this any more onerous or unrealistic than the rest of D&D's character resource management .

Quote from: tenbones;902811Was I ranting? I didn't feel like I was ranting, heh. Just answering directly.

That said. It's feast/famine depending on your tastes. I do not have any antipathy towards fans of 4e or even 4e itself. I'm old enough to admit my own biases and tastes and understand that what's cool for me is not for others - and vice versa. My stance in the Fighter thread a few weeks ago may have come off ranty, but I feel that I gave my position enough historical examples from each edition to satisfactorily explain my views. It may have sounded ranty, but I chalk that up to the realization of what 5e is - a self-referential edition of D&D that only refers back to its previous incarnations rather than trying to establish its own mechanical expressions as strongly as it's forebears. In this regard I actually have more respect for the design of 4e and 3e (even though I thoroughly dislike both of them).

Superiority Dice - My thoughts are this. Alone, I have no problem with this mechanic. Really, I don't. I play version of D&D (Fantasy Craft) that uses Action Dice and it works GREAT. But in keeping with my opinions as stated above, and before that *many* times in my 5e Fighter "rant-thread" - my problem with the Battle-Master is the simple fact that these abilities that Battle-Masters can spend their Superiority Dice on are occluded from other classes by default.

Sure you can say "well they can buy a Feat" and get Superiority Dice to do them - but that actually proves my point. Feats are an externality to precisely what I'm talking about. These combat maneuvers should be *available* for free to anyone that picks up a weapon. That's historically, when they've appeared in various editions, how it's been. Even in D&D-like games like Fantasy Craft that's how it's been treated, only that non-fighters typically weren't as good as Fighters at doing it. Which is all I'm saying - at least they have an option to do it. You should take note that I'm not saying Battle-Masters shouldn't HAVE these abilities, or that they shouldn't be better than others at them. I'm saying by tying them up into one sub-class it lessens other classes for the sake of appeasing the ghosts of the 4e Warlord. And that, to me, is a big huge failed-bit.

But let's be clear here - the problem with the Battle-Master is more than just this. It's how Fighters, and non-casters writ-large are designed in context with the rest of the system that I find distasteful. But that's all in the other thread.

I agree with this, but think it is just part of a deeper problem that is part of all post 0E D&D, and became extreme in 3E and beyond: actions are permitted or prohibited based on your class or level, rather than being something anyone can try, just some people are better than others. I think if you are going to try to retain a class based system, you are going to end up accepting something of this sort (e.g., only MU's can cast arcane spells). This is probably acceptable, even desirable, to almost everyone. At the other extreme are the cases that are so weird they are almost like a reducto ad absurdum rants, except they are true: only battle masters can riposte; thieves can use a sword but not an axe; etc. It is hard to say where you should draw the line with this stuff, but the official 3+ line is clear: almost anything a character can do is encompassed by some sort of class ability or feat.