Quote from: Omega;904394Its from the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide.

Problem is its underwhelming compared to the Battle Master.
Level 3: Rallying Cry: all allied forces within 30 regain 1hp per level of the PDK when the PDK uses Second Wind
Level 7: Proficiency with Persuasion and boosted use of
Level 15: Bullwark: When you use Indominable you can now extend its benefit to a ally within 60.

You only get ONE second wind and cant use again till a short or long rest. So potentially its a once per day trick.
You only get ONE indominable and cant use again till a long rest. So it is a once per day trick. Two at level 13 and 3 at level 17.

Totally underwhelming.

That's potentially a lot of healing (OK, you'd need an army, not the usual party) - a 3rd level character who heals more than 300 HP (on 100 allies crowded in close) could be pretty amazing (if the allies were reduced to 0HP but not outright killed, they'd all pop right back up). (On Indomitable: is that both the PDK and the ally getting the use of it, or just the ally if the PDK shares it?) I'm not overly impressed; less cool tactics than the battle master has, which is what I think it should have. But maybe a clearer "aiding allies" theme; something that makes lesser fighters say "I want to be fighting right next to that guy!" vs the self-focused champion ("I want to be well behind that guy!").

Any chance CRKrueger will weigh in on why he likes the Purple Dragon Knight better?

Rawma, there are several points in your longer post up there that I want to address, but due to work, it may be a day or two before I have the time to sit and type out a detailed post. Give me a day or two to reply.

Quote from: Enlightened;904546Rawma, there are several points in your longer post up there that I want to address, but due to work, it may be a day or two before I have the time to sit and type out a detailed post. Give me a day or two to reply.

By all means. I probably will also not be able to check in again for more than a day, so it will work out well.

My wife enjoyed playing a Battlemaster Fighter when we transitioned our 4e to 5e. She tried out the Champion fighter, but there felt to be too little choice for her when playing it.

As far as the question of 'what do superiority dice represent' I think it is a matter of mastery of combat flow and the hyper attention that is required for that. The battlemaster is as named, a master of battle. Her ability is to assess the flow of the combat and to choose the key moments to tip the scales in a particular direction. There are only so many such moments, and there is only so long that a Battlemaster can maintain the hyperaware state. Once the dice are spent (in game terms) the Battlemaster must rest and recuperate to be able to enter that state of awareness once more.

In fact, my forum user name is in emulation of such a state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanshin

Quote from: rawma;904254So what do you want an appropriate battle masters to actually do? I don't know what a Purple Dragon Knight of Cormyr is, let alone what it does; can you summarize it? How might it swing a particular combat where another kind of fighter wouldn't? How are its choices more associated than those of the existing battle master?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure.  It's just the generic nature of the Battlemaster means you have a class defined as "these people here from all walks of life and cultures who somehow have abilities like "Elaborate Footwork" that few others have".  Without a specific school of training, it's really hard (for me at least) to buy the rationale.

When we enter the realm of MAGIC or SUPERSCIENCE, it's easier to suspend disbelief in how something works, because really, how does anyone know how it is supposed to work?  Earthlings circa 2016 certainly don't.  It's easy to smooth over the cracks.  When that realm is now MELEE COMBAT, it's held to a higher standard.

Stamina/Endurance is one way to look at it.
Zanshin Awareness or No Mind is another way to look at it - but now wouldn;t that be better as a type of Monk?
Martial Arts/Fighting Schools might be another way to look at it.

I don't know, the mix of a very generic class definition tied to very specific mechanics that are doing things that shouldn't be that specific just leads to a whole bunch of obstacles to suspension of disbelief with that class.

The tying of mundane abilities to a "Choose to be Awesome" points system instead of some other form of resolution certainly adds to the dissonance.

I'll be fair and freely admit that its obvious roots to 4e probably aren't helping either.

If the "Expertise Dice" system (for lack of a better term) was something that all non-casting/magical classes could do, as well as be a Feat, then the Battlemaster wouldn't be one of the few that did that, they just were the best at it to the exclusion of other abilities.  Now it seems like a true class choice, because it fixes the "Generic yet Specific" problem.

The Battlemaster has a particular talent, which allied to their training as a warrior/soldier gives them this particular mastery of Battle.

They are not a Monk, because they didn't (necessarily) train at a monastery, and they did not learn the other bodily mind/over matter disciplines.

They are a warrior who is supreme at reading the battle state and responding to it. This focus takes something from them.

When I play competitive magic the gathering, I am aware that at the end of a tournament I feel mentally exhausted. I probably manage a lot of standard 'correct' plays and the very occasional intuitive 'great' play that swings a game.  The Battle Master can do that better than me, more regularly, and while swords and spells are whistling round them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904610To tell you the truth, I'm not sure.  It's just the generic nature of the Battlemaster means you have a class defined as "these people here from all walks of life and cultures who somehow have abilities like "Elaborate Footwork" that few others have".  Without a specific school of training, it's really hard (for me at least) to buy the rationale.

When we enter the realm of MAGIC or SUPERSCIENCE, it's easier to suspend disbelief in how something works, because really, how does anyone know how it is supposed to work?  Earthlings circa 2016 certainly don't.  It's easy to smooth over the cracks.  When that realm is now MELEE COMBAT, it's held to a higher standard.

Stamina/Endurance is one way to look at it.
Zanshin Awareness or No Mind is another way to look at it - but now wouldn;t that be better as a type of Monk?
Martial Arts/Fighting Schools might be another way to look at it.

I don't know, the mix of a very generic class definition tied to very specific mechanics that are doing things that shouldn't be that specific just leads to a whole bunch of obstacles to suspension of disbelief with that class.

The tying of mundane abilities to a "Choose to be Awesome" points system instead of some other form of resolution certainly adds to the dissonance.

I'll be fair and freely admit that its obvious roots to 4e probably aren't helping either.

If the "Expertise Dice" system (for lack of a better term) was something that all non-casting/magical classes could do, as well as be a Feat, then the Battlemaster wouldn't be one of the few that did that, they just were the best at it to the exclusion of other abilities.  Now it seems like a true class choice, because it fixes the "Generic yet Specific" problem.

Man I think this sums it up beautifully.

Quote from: Omega;904532See. I knoew you could. Keep struggling.

Passively rage onward mighty nerdzerker!

Quote from: rawma;904539That's potentially a lot of healing

(On Indomitable: is that both the PDK and the ally getting the use of it, or just the ally if the PDK shares it?)

1: Yes. And even for a 4 person group its still some free healing.

2: User and target.

The presumption that the hardback DMG is the default mode of play is baffling to me. That DMG, moreso than so many others, was literally a compilation of optional rules. To assume anything optional in there was standard and well known to the public, let alone more ubiquitous than the far more sparse content within the free Basic DMG/MM, strikes me as a specious argument.

Quote from: tenbones;904616Man I think this sums it up beautifully.

I agree. Because if you further strip out those maneuvers into basic actions freely available, then those "Choose to be Awesome!" points translate into just being "and add 1d8 damage." Which I know would result in all sorts of whinging about the archetype being neutered back to Champion levels, (but when will "they" ever not whinge, one may ask?). But it would save on page space...

Quote from: Opaopajr;904759I agree. Because if you further strip out those maneuvers into basic actions freely available, then those "Choose to be Awesome!" points translate into just being "and add 1d8 damage." Which I know would result in all sorts of whinging about the archetype being neutered back to Champion levels, (but when will "they" ever not whinge, one may ask?). But it would save on page space...

Or we could let people who enjoy the Battle Master use it, and forbid it at your table if you are GM and don't like it? If I ever play a fighter in 5e it will be either a Battle Master or the Eldritch Swordsman. Champion does not give enough gameplay for me to find it interesting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904759I agree. Because if you further strip out those maneuvers into basic actions freely available, then those "Choose to be Awesome!" points translate into just being "and add 1d8 damage." Which I know would result in all sorts of whinging about the archetype being neutered back to Champion levels, (but when will "they" ever not whinge, one may ask?). But it would save on page space...

That's right. To me this is the precise reason why I do not like the Battlemaster in concept or design! It's a third-leg growing out of the back of 5e.

Quote from: zanshin;904776Or we could let people who enjoy the Battle Master use it, and forbid it at your table if you are GM and don't like it? If I ever play a fighter in 5e it will be either a Battle Master or the Eldritch Swordsman. Champion does not give enough gameplay for me to find it interesting.

But that's not a reasonable solution to those of us that *want* those abilities that Battlemaster has to be present in the game, without reinventing the wheel. I think something you're hitting on (dunno if you realize it) is that the way the Fighter is presented in 5e is bizarre in context with the system AND previous editions. Mearls himself has said they made the Champion for "simple" playing, vs. the Battlemaster for "complex" playing. When in reality, people have been struggling to make the Fighter (and other non-casters) to be more "complex" (where complex = having useful abilities) FOR DECADES now.

Why is this not applied to Wizards? Or Clerics? Or Druids? Because they're already "complex" in that they can do TONS of useful things in regards to their class. But you don't see Mearls creating "The Magician" he's a simple Wizard. (unless you count the Warlock - but even they are more complex than Fighters) See the point? It's a false choice we've been given. They segregated the *only* cool parts of the Fighter into a corner that didn't need it. Because the class itself needs all of it just to be mechanically expressive of its own existence. Because, you know, we're still debating what a "Battlemaster" ACTUALLY is in the setting of D&D, a Champion too for that matter.

Does anyone debate what an Evoker or Abjurer is? Or a Cleric of Zeus?

So in many ways you're making the exact point we're trying to underscore in the larger picture. You *play* the Battlemaster (or EK) because the remnants are too simple/don't have enough options for you to be interested in. Guess what? That's the tip of the iceberg of the problem we're talking about. You're making a choice based on a limited set of (in our opinion) false options.

You're with us man!!! You're with us!!!!

Quote from: zanshin;904776Or we could let people who enjoy the Battle Master use it, and forbid it at your table if you are GM and don't like it? If I ever play a fighter in 5e it will be either a Battle Master or the Eldritch Swordsman. Champion does not give enough gameplay for me to find it interesting.

What you're then asking for is to have those maneuvers enshrined as reserved, not universally available. Which sounds more to me like you didn't understand the previous discussion context going on. Because outside "and add 1d8 damage, N times per Short Rest" the archetype isn't adding much -- unless its presence implicitly restricts access to what looks like universally available maneuvers.