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.

It more of a failure of imagination and an over reliance on rules to define what a character can and can not do. If the character can do an action that makes sense in the way that the setting works it should be allowed period. it is up to the referee to come up with the ruling to resolve it.

And yes it is not simple as that. Disarming is not as good a tactic as just trying to whack somebody for damage. So the ruling needs to reflect that.

So then why would anybody try to attempt an disarm? There are time where it may be the logical choice. Perhaps Master of Chaos needs to be relieved of the Wand of Doom this round or the world will be destroyed. So attempting an outright disarm or trying to hit a specific hit location is the best option at that moment.

Each of the Battlemaster abilities are a plausible thing for any character to attempt given the premise of the generic setting that 5e paints for us. I am a person, I can try to grab something of your hand. I can try that even if you are trying to swing a sword at me. I probably won't succeed and very likely get hurt myself in the process but there is a chance of success and it isn't roll a 1 on a d100 either.

I didn't read anywhere that the the battle master has stops anyone else from using a skill or description to attempt a disarm or dodge or another stunt. The battle master simply achieves those things she specialises in more effectively.

If you want to disarm someone without being a battle master I am sure an ability check is possible. Rulings, not rules.

Quote from: zanshin;904841I didn't read anywhere that the the battle master has stops anyone else from using a skill or description to attempt a disarm or dodge or another stunt. The battle master simply achieves those things she specialises in more effectively.

If you want to disarm someone without being a battle master I am sure an ability check is possible. Rulings, not rules.

Okay so I'll play along.

"So then have all the mechanics of the Battlemaster that allows you to do those things 'better' at all? Why not just say - Fighter that are Battlemaster can do these 'manuevers' and get already built in?"

Rulings, not rules. And yet... you're using a bunch of mechanics *as a rule* to adjudicate your game. See? that's the thing - if it's JUST what you suggest, why have it at all? Right - it's arbitrary. My response directly cuts to the heart of showing how arbitrary it is - the Battlemaster rules are only there for one reason: a nod to 4e fans at the expense of the rest of the system. What we're asking for is consistency of thought in the system and in their mechanical expressions.

Where that fails - sure, Rulings, Not Rules. The mere fact we're having this discussion is saying there are those (who may be a minority, I dunno) that feel we've gone beyond Rulings Not, Rules. It might have to do with our age. We're *discussing* the game, not playing it.

I mean if it's *just* Rulings, Not Rules - why not just remove classes altogether (see my other thread)? Why not just make everything a skill-check? Where should we draw the line? If it was consistent - I'd be okay with that. But it's not. So where is the line for you? Oh right - in this rule that says the Fighter sub-class called the Battlemaster does it with these odd mechanics and no one else can do it without invoking arbitrary Rulings Not Rules. I don't wanna sound like a dick or anything - but any GM on this forum that's been GMing for any amount of time *already does Rulings, Not Rules* by default. That little idea isn't meant for us.

Speaking of which - why don't you play a Champion that does all the things you enjoy with the Battlemaster and ask your GM for those bonuses to do those manuevers with Rulings, Not Rules? There's a reason for that I assume? Right? heh. Right? RIGHT? You invoke "Rulings, Not Rules" when you've run into a 'problem' you're willing to question the DM on.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904834What 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.

At least some of the maneuvers are available to anyone; for example, Shoving a Creature on page 195 for the Pushing Attack and the Trip Attack, except the battle master actually rolls to hit instead of an athletics contest and gets to do regular damage plus the superiority die plus the effect (and the Pushing Attack pushes the target 15 feet, not just 5 feet). The Help action explicitly gives advantage to another attacker (second half of its description), like the Distracting Strike. Dodge action for an approximation to Evasive Footwork? I believe that an action to use Intimidation could provide a result similar to Menacing Attack (with some DC, and of course forgoing the damage of an ordinary attack), but there a ruling may be needed. Similarly, if you grapple someone (with one attack) and then use an action to try to strong arm something they're holding away with an athletics contest, haven't you achieved Disarming Strike, slowly and without doing damage? Generally players aren't willing to forgo damage and/or risk a much lower chance of success (or just uncertainty of success) and/or use up additional actions to try these unusual options unless they're really important.

Would it really make the battle master better if (almost) all of their maneuvers existed for any character, but were so clearly inferior that nobody ever used them, and the battle master was defined not by knowing maneuvers but by manipulating the action economy (do some stuff on reaction or bonus action that another character would need a full action or more to do, or get a "bonus action surge" and "reaction surge" to go with the "action surge") or otherwise being able to avoid the excessive costs or low chance of success that made the maneuvers unattractive to other characters? I think the answer might be "yes" for me.

Quote from: tenbones;904852Speaking of which - why don't you play a Champion that does all the things you enjoy with the Battlemaster and ask your GM for those bonuses to do those manuevers with Rulings, Not Rules? There's a reason for that I assume? Right? heh. Right? RIGHT? You invoke "Rulings, Not Rules" when you've run into a 'problem' you're willing to question the DM on.

Way, way back I had a player who wanted to do all sorts of cool and tricky things; I'd tell him to roll a hit and he would complain bitterly. Yes, he wanted the cool and tricky thing not for its coolness or its trickiness or its superior appropriateness to the situation, but because he wanted to bypass the "to hit" roll; if it's cool enough then it should just succeed automatically, as he saw it. If the rulings were too favorable, players would abandon ordinary tactics and I'm sure I wouldn't like a game that was all grappling, all the time. But still my rogue grappled an amulet away from a caster at our last 5e session, which we knew would be the deciding factor in that fight; I didn't do any damage for three rounds and needed help from another character as well, but it was necessary; it's rare to see anyone grapple something away from someone with less at stake.

Quote from: estar;904839It more of a failure of imagination and an over reliance on rules to define what a character can and can not do. If the character can do an action that makes sense in the way that the setting works it should be allowed period. it is up to the referee to come up with the ruling to resolve it.

And yes it is not simple as that. Disarming is not as good a tactic as just trying to whack somebody for damage. So the ruling needs to reflect that.

So then why would anybody try to attempt an disarm? There are time where it may be the logical choice. Perhaps Master of Chaos needs to be relieved of the Wand of Doom this round or the world will be destroyed. So attempting an outright disarm or trying to hit a specific hit location is the best option at that moment.

Each of the Battlemaster abilities are a plausible thing for any character to attempt given the premise of the generic setting that 5e paints for us. I am a person, I can try to grab something of your hand. I can try that even if you are trying to swing a sword at me. I probably won't succeed and very likely get hurt myself in the process but there is a chance of success and it isn't roll a 1 on a d100 either.

Right now the rules already are in place that someone can attempt to disarm or grab something from another character. The Battlemaster can initiate an attack and do it in a single swoop rather than attempting the normal way of going about it. Why? Because he's studied and practiced ways that give him the muscle-memory of combat alacrity that clearly isn't present with a common Fighter (ie, Champion) because the champion goes about combat differently, attempting a quicker kill so he doesn't HAVE to disarm the opponent (reflected in the emphasis on Critical hits) or an Eldritch Knight who's spent his time working with magic.

Here's the rub, people think that the stuff the Battlemaster can do should be available in their maneuver-based form or even free-form for everyone because....I dunno realism? Pragmatism? Or maybe it jives better with what any able-bodied person can attempt to do ALL in 6 seconds. I, however, don't because it gives specific play-styles more agency OR less depending on how you want to play the class. A better question is, why can't the Wizard cast healing spells? Why can't the Cleric cast bolts of force magic against his foes? Because.........well magic I suppose. But that's just a lame, dumb-ass excuse they've been saddled with for years to create some reason to have 10 different variations on "healer" and "magician" and "spooky-dark side guy" and "hippy/nature-lover". No one bats a damn eye when all sorts of magical restrictions, spells, and class features are spewed all over 5 different classes (15 different arch-types) but give the Fighter more than one style of play and everyone loses their fuckin' minds.

Clearly the answer is to just let people attempt any battlemaster manevuer they want and remove the arch-type if it's that much of a problem. Simple. You want a wizard to trip an opponent and uses his staff as an attack in the same round, go ahead. Want the Rogue to disarm a city-guard AND punch him in the throat with his dagger? Be my guest. Subsume the ENTIRE manevuer-line into everyday things anyone can do, the Fighter doesn't need any specific round-to-round tactics that he can call his own.

Quote from: Batman;904904Here's the rub, people think that the stuff the Battlemaster can do should be available in their maneuver-based form or even free-form for everyone because....I dunno realism? Pragmatism? Or maybe it jives better with what any able-bodied person can attempt to do ALL in 6 seconds. I, however, don't because it gives specific play-styles more agency OR less depending on how you want to play the class.

...ie. thinking of the mechanic divorced of its existence in the world - what 4e really is all about, tactical choice through mechanical differentiation completely dissociated from anything going on in the setting.

Quote from: Batman;904904A better question is, why can't the Wizard cast healing spells? Why can't the Cleric cast bolts of force magic against his foes? Because.........well magic I suppose. But that's just a lame, dumb-ass excuse they've been saddled with for years to create some reason to have 10 different variations on "healer" and "magician" and "spooky-dark side guy" and "hippy/nature-lover". No one bats a damn eye when all sorts of magical restrictions, spells, and class features are spewed all over 5 different classes (15 different arch-types) but give the Fighter more than one style of play and everyone loses their fuckin' minds.

Because the rules of magic or the laws of the gods are not Newtonian Physics, they are not activities we can relate to in the real world.  Therefore a restriction "Because that's the way it works" is an adequate rationale, because it doesn't really exist, therefore no one knows how it works, so that way is as good as any.

Melee combat exists and the ways humanoid bodies move is generally known.  We have a framework of martial, athletic and physical knowledge to fall back on.  So telling Jerry Rice he can only make a one-handed diving catch twice per half of the game doesn't make much sense.  Yes, it gives Jerry Rice tactical depth and challenge, because now he has to plan when to use the ability and shepherd it as a resource, but that's not how the world works.

Some of us are actually roleplaying our characters...you know that definition of roleplaying where we are....playing a role?...no?...nevermind... Anyway, our Wizard can't do X because the Laws of Magic say so within that setting.  Even so, people have been coming up with less biblically inspired non-divine healing spells in Dragon Magazine for decades.  Healing isn't the problem, having an Arcane caster lay on hands is the problem.  Do the spell a different way, you can have arcane healing.  Having our fighter not doing Y because the Laws of Game Mechanics say so doesn't make much sense.  There's lots of miniatures games out there where I can deal with heavy abstractions and dissociations and play the game even if it doesn't make much sense concerning the source material (see Chess).  It doesn't bother me, because in those games, I'm not supposed to be playing the role of a character, therefore making decisions there is no way the character can make isn't a problem.  WotC knows there is a problem, but they've never really understood why people didn't like 4e, they just know that a lot of people didn't like it.  They know there's something off with the Battlemaster, but they have no clue what it is.  You can do something like the Battlemaster, but you have to do it in the right way...because while some people just want a Pew-Pew Weaboo Fightin' Limit Breakin' Machine dripping with mechanical interfaces and widgets to push, some people want to roleplay a fighter.

Malifaux and 100 games like it already exist with all the card-flippin', button mashin' k00l p0w3rz you could ask for.  I'm not sure why we have to be bringing that type of design to D&D the RPG.  

WotC should just repackage 4e as is, as a miniatures wargame with minis that don't suck and aren't on a Full.Retard collectible schedule.  They'd make a ton of money I expect.

Quote from: Batman;904904Clearly the answer is to just let people attempt any battlemaster manevuer they want and remove the arch-type if it's that much of a problem. Simple. You want a wizard to trip an opponent and uses his staff as an attack in the same round, go ahead. Want the Rogue to disarm a city-guard AND punch him in the throat with his dagger? Be my guest. Subsume the ENTIRE manevuer-line into everyday things anyone can do, the Fighter doesn't need any specific round-to-round tactics that he can call his own.

Troll Harder.

Quote from: tenbones;904852Okay so I'll play along.

"So then have all the mechanics of the Battlemaster that allows you to do those things 'better' at all? Why not just say - Fighter that are Battlemaster can do these 'manuevers' and get already built in?"

Rulings, not rules. And yet... you're using a bunch of mechanics *as a rule* to adjudicate your game. See? that's the thing - if it's JUST what you suggest, why have it at all? Right - it's arbitrary. My response directly cuts to the heart of showing how arbitrary it is - the Battlemaster rules are only there for one reason: a nod to 4e fans at the expense of the rest of the system. What we're asking for is consistency of thought in the system and in their mechanical expressions.

Where that fails - sure, Rulings, Not Rules. The mere fact we're having this discussion is saying there are those (who may be a minority, I dunno) that feel we've gone beyond Rulings Not, Rules. It might have to do with our age. We're *discussing* the game, not playing it.

I mean if it's *just* Rulings, Not Rules - why not just remove classes altogether (see my other thread)? Why not just make everything a skill-check? Where should we draw the line? If it was consistent - I'd be okay with that. But it's not. So where is the line for you? Oh right - in this rule that says the Fighter sub-class called the Battlemaster does it with these odd mechanics and no one else can do it without invoking arbitrary Rulings Not Rules. I don't wanna sound like a dick or anything - but any GM on this forum that's been GMing for any amount of time *already does Rulings, Not Rules* by default. That little idea isn't meant for us.

Speaking of which - why don't you play a Champion that does all the things you enjoy with the Battlemaster and ask your GM for those bonuses to do those manuevers with Rulings, Not Rules? There's a reason for that I assume? Right? heh. Right? RIGHT? You invoke "Rulings, Not Rules" when you've run into a 'problem' you're willing to question the DM on.

I 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.

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.

Like 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.

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.

Translation: I like it! Therefore Rule Zero Fallacy in response to every single mechanical criticism.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904944Translation: I like it! Therefore Rule Zero Fallacy in response to every single mechanical criticism.

Translation: You lack imagination.

Quote from: Omega;904946Translation: You lack imagination.

Another way of phrasing "I like it! Therefore Rule Zero Fallacy in response to every single mechanical criticism."

Unless of course, you'd prefer instead that we believe you're so mind-numbingly idiotic that you don't already know that since every rule by definition can be changed and any referee can adjudicate any action with some stat or skill check mechanism pulled from his head, ass, or decades of experience, that using that fact as a response to criticism of a mechanic, isn't really helpful at all to discussing the mechanic itself, and in fact is nothing more than a lame attempt at deflecting said criticism without engaging it.

Of course you're not that idiotic, it's just you and Tenbones have been clashing for a while on this, so you decide to go Full.Retard for some reason and stalk Opa and TB around this topic across multiple threads with the same Rules Zero bullshit that was just as useless as when Sacrosanct and Marley did it during the Next/Basic transition days.

You're sick of seeing the argument, fine, take him down point by point instead of using the 0e version of "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you."

Quote from: Batman;904904Why? Because he's studied and practiced ways that give him the muscle-memory of combat alacrity that clearly isn't present with a common Fighter (ie, Champion) because the champion goes about combat differently, attempting a quicker kill so he doesn't HAVE to disarm the opponent (reflected in the emphasis on Critical hits) or an Eldritch Knight who's spent his time working with magic.

You made the case that the Battlemaster is better than a Champion at disarm. But it still doesn't make the case that it make sense to limit the disarm to Battlemasters. Nor does it relate how Superiority Dice tie to anything real in the setting.

You made the point that Battlemaster is one fighting style, and Champion is another. In GURPS and many other skill based system any character can attempt to disarm. Generally it not as a good of an option a just trying to beat your opponent down. There are options to allow the character to specifically improve his skill with disarming. And in GURPS Martial Arts there are specific fighting styles that feature an improved disarm skill as part of what they teach. There are other fighting styles that emphasis rapid strikes and other technique but not disarm. So it makes sense why a Battlemaster can't do what a Champion does. However it doesn't make sense that a Champion can not do what Battlemaster does. Now the Champion will never be as good as the Battlemaster at disarm (or other maneuvers) because as you pointed out their fighting style has a different focus.

Quote from: Batman;904904Here's the rub, people think that the stuff the Battlemaster can do should be available in their maneuver-based form or even free-form for everyone because....I dunno realism? Pragmatism? Or maybe it jives better with what any able-bodied person can attempt to do ALL in 6 seconds. I, however, don't because it gives specific play-styles more agency OR less depending on how you want to play the class.

Quote from: Batman;904904A better question is, why can't the Wizard cast healing spells? Why can't the Cleric cast bolts of force magic against his foes? Because.........well magic I suppose.

The above are NOT the equivalent of only the Battlemaster being able to disarm. Magic is an arbitrary construct in any setting. In the generic setting that D&D 5e sets up, which has its origins going back to OD&D, Arcane magic spells do not heal, and Divine magic spells do not have bolts of forces. In GURPS Magic in contrast that doesn't hold true because SJ Games decided differently as to how their magic work. The same for Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Earthdawn and dozens of other RPGs with magic.

Being able to grab something out another's hand with a chance of success greater than 1% is a capability that the average human being possesses. Yes RPGs are a compromise between playbility, realism, and setting emulation. But the heart of an RPG is that it is a pen & paper virtual reality where which players can have interesting adventures as their characters. Restricting disarm, and the many of the other maneuvers, but not all, to the battlemaster and superiority works against that. It doesn't make sense in terms what being said about human in the rest of the game, and it obviously a game construct with no basis in reality.

Quote from: Batman;904904But that's just a lame, dumb-ass excuse they've been saddled with for years to create some reason to have 10 different variations on "healer" and "magician" and "spooky-dark side guy" and "hippy/nature-lover". No one bats a damn eye when all sorts of magical restrictions, spells, and class features are spewed all over 5 different classes (15 different arch-types) but give the Fighter more than one style of play and everyone loses their fuckin' minds.

I don't see why it is so hard to comprehend that the best way to get a variety of fighter is to define a basic combat system with a variety of tactical options. Then give each fighting style a different set of bonuses to these option to what they are better at to reflect their focus. In real world martial arts there only so many things a human being can do due to biology and physics. So we have a multitude of martial arts emphasizing different things. Some martial art uses human made tools, like fencing, other just rely on the human body, Karate, etc. The result is thousands of marital arts.

All of the option under the Battlemaster could have been part of the base combat system of D&D 5e. With the Battlemaster class being BETTER at those options than the Champion or Eldritch Knight. In fact throughout this thread I seen argument against the idea of Superiority Dice, against the exclusive use of these maneuvers by the Battlmaster, but none against the idea of the Battlemaster itself, an archetype that is better than any other type of fighter at these special maneuvers.

Quote from: Batman;904904the Fighter doesn't need any specific round-to-round tactics that he can call his own.

OK why not disallow weapon for all the other classes then? Make the fighter the only character that can pick up any weapon and swing for damage. Cleric can be the only ones to cast healing and divine spell. magic user can be the only ones to cast damage and arcane spell. Rogues can sneak around, spy, and disarm. Everybody has their niche that nobody else can do.

Oh wait, we don't do that because it makes no fucking sense. Everybody can stealth but the Rogues are best at it. A magic user can swing with a staff or dagger if he needs too but fighters are way better at it. As for magic it is obviously a learned skill, or a innate property of the character in the case of the sorcerer. And there are options in the form of specific archetypes, hybrid classes, and multi-classes to meld a bit of magic with skill at fighting.

Somehow having the Superiority Dice Moves becoming a part of the basic combat system is growing on me, with different classes having increased capability with it.

Quote from: rawma;904897Would it really make the battle master better if (almost) all of their maneuvers existed for any character, but were so clearly inferior that nobody ever used them, and the battle master was defined not by knowing maneuvers but by manipulating the action economy (do some stuff on reaction or bonus action that another character would need a full action or more to do, or get a "bonus action surge" and "reaction surge" to go with the "action surge") or otherwise being able to avoid the excessive costs or low chance of success that made the maneuvers unattractive to other characters? I think the answer might be "yes" for me.

I am pretty much in this same boat, except for the "clearly inferior that nobody ever used them" part. The manipulation of action economy, a la Thief archetype features, would actually be a wonderful start to its redesign. However I can see how increased chance of success, or bonus damage can be feature reward variations to its design. In fact, all told that pool redistributed between Champion and Battlemaster could really squeeze out something interesting.

I think the other part which bugs me about the "implicitly reserved" nature of those maneuvers is how the Battlemaster has to also select a limited choice of them from the pool. So much of the presentation implies that these functions are reserved and generally unavailable, even within the archetype itself. The way it's written takes up extra space in an exception-based design format that is totally a 4e nod, but the end result also ends up weakening "designer intent" arguments for supporting these maneuver to be liberalized into general availability. This leaves a sense of doubt whether such open GM judgment would throw off the game somehow.

It is something that should have really been cordoned off as a '4e Approved!' archetype take after a larger spread of these maneuvers made it into the General Actions in Combat chapter, Attacks sub-chapter. That would have cleared ambiguity while also feeding the brainstorm for green (or timid) GMs how to develop their own new Improvised Actions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904911Troll Harder.

And be like you? Thanks but no thanks.

Quote from: estar;904968You made the case that the Battlemaster is better than a Champion at disarm. But it still doesn't make the case that it make sense to limit the disarm to Battlemasters. Nor does it relate how Superiority Dice tie to anything real in the setting.

Battlemasters train to disarm and attack where as Champions don't. It's simply how one goes about using their skills to overcome an obstacle. Anyone can attempt to disarm someone. A Champion can definitely try and probably will succeed because he's most likely really strong. A Battlemaster will attempt something similar but has more training in using tactics to accomplish the goal vs. just using brute strength. You honestly don't see how someone who's trained better or more extensively in that arena can be more accomplished at performing that task? As for how maneuvers/superiority dice work within the context of the setting, it's been talked about over and over again. Call it stamina or call it a keen eye for exploiting opportunities but it DOES have an in-game explanation. That you don't like it or dismiss it outright is not the game's fault.

Quote from: estar;904968You made the point that Battlemaster is one fighting style, and Champion is another. In GURPS and many other skill based system any character can attempt to disarm. Generally it's not as a good of an option a just trying to beat your opponent down. There are options to allow the character to specifically improve his skill with disarming. And in GURPS Martial Arts there are specific fighting styles that feature an improved disarm skill as part of what they teach. There are other fighting styles that emphasis rapid strikes and other technique but not disarm. So it makes sense why a Battlemaster can't do what a Champion does. However it doesn't make sense that a Champion can not do what Battlemaster does. Now the Champion will never be as good as the Battlemaster at disarm (or other maneuvers) because as you pointed out their fighting style has a different focus.

Sure he can, he takes a Feat to do it. It's resources you can utilize to do specific things the Battlemaster gets for free. Again, that's somehow always shot down as not good enough but the option is there.

Quote from: estar;904968

Quote from: Batman;904904Here's the rub, people think that the stuff the Battlemaster can do should be available in their maneuver-based form or even free-form for everyone because....I dunno realism? Pragmatism? Or maybe it jives better with what any able-bodied person can attempt to do ALL in 6 seconds. I, however, don't because it gives specific play-styles more agency OR less depending on how you want to play the class.

The above are NOT the equivalent of only the Battlemaster being able to disarm. Magic is an arbitrary construct in any setting. In the generic setting that D&D 5e sets up, which has its origins going back to OD&D, Arcane magic spells do not heal, and Divine magic spells do not have bolts of forces. In GURPS Magic in contrast that doesn't hold true because SJ Games decided differently as to how their magic work. The same for Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Earthdawn and dozens of other RPGs with magic.

Being able to grab something out another's hand with a chance of success greater than 1% is a capability that the average human being possesses. Yes RPGs are a compromise between playbility, realism, and setting emulation. But the heart of an RPG is that it is a pen & paper virtual reality where which players can have interesting adventures as their characters. Restricting disarm, and the many of the other maneuvers, but not all, to the battlemaster and superiority works against that. It doesn't make sense in terms what being said about human in the rest of the game, and it obviously a game construct with no basis in reality.

And again, the rules do not stop anyone from attempting to grab something out of someone's hand or attempting to charge them or knock them down. They ALL can attempt this and some, mostly Strength-based characters will succeed FAR more than 1% of the time. Champions will even have a BETTER time attempting this because they're getting their Strength score to 20 faster, most likely. The Battlemaster can attempt to disarm or perform any number of common combat tactics only they can swing their weapon in the same round while doing it. If a Rogue wants to be better at doing that, multiclass or take a Feat to grab some maneuvers. If a Wizard wants to disarm and attack in the same round, grab a feat and maneuvers. In the same instance, a Battlemaster simply takes 1 feat and BOOM he can now miraculously cast spells and use magic.  

Quote from: estar;904968I don't see why it is so hard to comprehend that the best way to get a variety of fighter is to define a basic combat system with a variety of tactical options.

There's already one in place.

Quote from: estar;904968Then give each fighting style a different set of bonuses to these option to what they are better at to reflect their focus. In real world martial arts there only so many things a human being can do due to biology and physics. So we have a multitude of martial arts emphasizing different things. Some martial art uses human made tools, like fencing, other just rely on the human body, Karate, etc. The result is thousands of marital arts.

You realize this is exactly what Multi-classing and Feats are supposed to represent?

Quote from: estar;904968All of the option under the Battlemaster could have been part of the base combat system of D&D 5e. With the Battlemaster class being BETTER at those options than the Champion or Eldritch Knight. In fact throughout this thread I seen argument against the idea of Superiority Dice, against the exclusive use of these maneuvers by the Battlmaster, but none against the idea of the Battlemaster itself, an archetype that is better than any other type of fighter at these special maneuvers.

Anyone can already DO any number of stuff the Battlemaster can do, they just do it better. Anyone can use the Help action. Anyone can try to  Goad someone into attacking them. Anyone can try to disarm a foe. Anyone can try to trip someone else. People who are strong will be better at it AND Battlemasters

OK why not disallow weapon for all the other classes then? Make the fighter the only character that can pick up any weapon and swing for damage. Cleric can be the only ones to cast healing and divine spell. magic user can be the only ones to cast damage and arcane spell. Rogues can sneak around, spy, and disarm. Everybody has their niche that nobody else can do.

Oh wait, we don't do that because it makes no fucking sense. Everybody can stealth but the Rogues are best at it. A magic user can swing with a staff or dagger if he needs too but fighters are way better at it. As for magic it is obviously a learned skill, or a innate property of the character in the case of the sorcerer. And there are options in the form of specific archetypes, hybrid classes, and multi-classes to meld a bit of magic with skill at fighting.[/QUOTE]

So 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.