Veering back on topic for just a moment....

I think for a battle master I would probably prefer mechanics in which there were no superiority dice but the maneuvers known were like monster abilities that recharge, with all but a small number unavailable at the start of a fight (when initiative is rolled) and allowing one attempt to recharge one maneuver per round, but additional attempts to recharge based on using a bonus action with a (fairly easy to recharge) maneuver (which the character would understand as maneuvering an opponent or ally into position for one or more other maneuvers). I would also like to see more options for the battle master to affect the action economy (e.g., being able to give an ally two reactions rather than one). This would be a more distinctive mechanic (superiority dice are a lot like Ki points, ultimately); it would require a battle master player to work with the opportunities available (where allies and opponents are, and which maneuvers are possible because they got recharged) rather than preparing a rote list of maneuvers to use when fully rested; it would allow the battle master to continue having effectiveness (maybe greater effectiveness, if maneuvers recharge faster than they are used) over a very long fight; it would allow maneuvers to vary in power (reflected in how easy or hard they are to recharge). Figuring out the details to maintain game balance is more work than I want to undertake. My only misgiving is that the speed of fights would probably be negatively impacted by the battle master player taking forever to decide among maneuvers to use and to recharge.

Quote from: Enlightened;903937Another issue is that there are many mechanics that are presented in the book as a player only choice with no overt explanation given for what it is to the character in-world.

Name the ones in the 5e PHB. A cynical view of our past interaction suggests that they will be exactly the mechanics that Enlightened does not like, and that the main difference the ones not listed have is that Enlightened does not dislike them.

I went through the 5e PHB (races, classes and feats) looking for mechanics that can be used a limited number of times before a rest (short or long); these seem to be the ones that cause the most issue. There is a surprisingly long list of them, but relatively few that aren't specific to one class. Most of them are in my judgement based around magic (Ki points for some uses might not be, although monks can spend them to get spell effects; bardic inspiration might or might not be; dragonborn breath weapon might be magic or an abstraction of unlikely physiology); the remainder are pretty much these: hit points, hit point dice, exhaustion, half-orc relentless endurance, rage, second wind, action surge, indomitable, superiority dice (battle master and martial adept feat), healer feat (but that's a rest by the character healed, not the healer) - mostly fighter features, and reasonably so because outside of Eldritch Knight the Fighter does not seem very magical (the Rogue seems equally non-magical, I think, but none of the regular class features of Rogue are recovered by short or long rests). Some, like relentless endurance and indomitable, are given little more explanation than the name, but can be understood in terms of the underlying mechanics - that a rest is needed to recover something says it comes from "a limited well of stamina" of some sort (quoting the Second Wind feature). So I count maybe two, although you can infer the explanation easily enough, and I disagree that it's a player-only choice in any case (the character knows it's still available or not, even if the source of it is not understood).

Quote from: Enlightened;903938Sure, that's what you literally said

You want to decide what your words mean without regard to what words mean, and now you want to decide what my words mean without regard to what words mean? Why don't you just go over to the Help Desk forum, open the sticky thread "Name Change Requests", and ask to have your name changed to "Humpty Dumpty"?

QuoteMy experience with language to date led me to believe that what you meant was "Enlightened, you should have thought about this more on your own before saying it's dumb."

In the Bard case, you said "I don't know what it is" and you got examples; you said "I don't understand it" and you got explanation; then you quoted page numbers in the PHB and admitted you just don't like the concept of bards. The only explanations I can come up with for this approach are negative: trolling, dishonesty or stupidity. I'll admit that it annoys me out of proportion to the offense, but I expressed my dislike for it clearly and immediately, and again in this thread when your posts reminded me of that one.

Quote from: Batman;904148Then I feel there are the others who don't want any sort of round-by-round agency for Fighters and that "always-on" features are the way to go because the Fighter, specifically, is the Easy class to play. When someone is new to D&D, they're often pointed towards the Fighter. Need a quick character to get into the game, make a Fighter. Don't want to track a lot of stuff, make a Fighter. Now I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with a Fighter without Widgets, but I definitely feel there's also a place for those who want a more complex (mechanically speaking) Fighter that is still within the Realm of non-magical (or not overly Extraordinary). The problem is making them relevant when spells and magic are so common-place, especially in post-3e D&D.

We still want an Easy class, though, for precisely the reasons you give. That would be the Champion path (other players can prompt the new player on Second Wind and Action Surge, and the few early choices like weapon, armor and fighting style are not too hard for the new player to understand). Maybe the battle master should be a separate class; the fighter is "perhaps the most diverse class of characters" in D&D (PHB p70), and maybe that means it's trying to cover too many archetypes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904185And now that I think on it, it's just the Fighter that gets this push back in my experience.  No one ever complains about the Barbarian (if it exists in that edition/version/clone), Paladin or Ranger.

I honestly wonder why.

Were they so overpowered in earlier editions like Rules Cyclopedia and earlier that everyone is gun shy of giving the Fighter 'nice things'?

The fighters got a lot of nice things in the Greyhawk supplement: bonuses from high strength, dexterity and constitution (available only to fighters), and a new subclass (a fighter lawful from the start of play with a 17+ charisma could become a paladin), more hit points and even fighter specific magic items. Maybe the other classes later created were giving the players wanting fighter archetypes nice things, in the form of other classes, while leaving the fighter as the Easy class.

Quote from: rawma;904229We still want an Easy class, though, for precisely the reasons you give. That would be the Champion path (other players can prompt the new player on Second Wind and Action Surge, and the few early choices like weapon, armor and fighting style are not too hard for the new player to understand). Maybe the battle master should be a separate class; the fighter is "perhaps the most diverse class of characters" in D&D (PHB p70), and maybe that means it's trying to cover too many archetypes.

Sure, Easy classes are something that can help get new players into the game and the Fighter is a good choice because it can be very diverse. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to completely fall into the Easy category all the time, thus we have things like the Battle Master. In 4e we had the Slayer and Knight and in 3.5 the basic PHB Fighter was pretty easy (for more complex, we had the Warblade from the Tome of Battle). But I'd also like to see other style get the Easy label too, like a Easy Wizard. 3.5 had both the Warlock and Warmage, both pretty easy classes to play due to the simplistic style they accommodated and the same thing with the Favored Soul for the Divine.

As for the Battle Master, I think it needs more oomph with the use of their maneuvers. Getting the ability to expend more dice for a greater, lasting effect can be really cool for example.

The answer isn't "Give Fighter Magical Powers" (which really are physical things they should be doing anyway but are turned into powers on a timer), the answer is to look at the problem.

The problem is that ever since AD&D2 there has been a near constant elimination of every single restriction placed on the use of magic in nearly every way possible, from learning to using, the most egregious example, of course being 3.5.  WotC "fixed" the problem in 4e by making everyone essentially a magic-user with a defined Power Source and a set of cards to tap on an AEDU timer - everyone had Limit Breaks.

The 5e Battlemaster carries over that system to a much greater degree than other classes, which is why they are now identifying it as a "sore spot", it's too much like 4e.  It's a different paradigm than the other classes, and it shows.

Unfortunately, they have given Spellcasters Spellcasting - plus unlimited at-will damage-dealing Cantrips, to make their baseline unlimited abilities in the same range as the non-spellcasters fighting abilities.  So now...
Non-Casters - Melee/Ranged
Casters - Cantrips to nearly equal Melee/Ranged.  and Spells.

Now WotC has completely misidentified the original problem and basically recreated it in a different way.  People who like 4e want WotC to fix it by doing the exactly same thing they did before...boost fighters with magical powers that aren't supposed to be magic and turn everyone into an Anime Weaboo Limit Breaker again.

The actual fix can't be done without a time machine, (although anyone who wasn't an idiot could have seen what cantrips were going to do.) In 5e...

• Non-casters have combat abilities
• Casters have combat abilities - and spells (which are different and work differently).
• Both have Feats

There needs to be a new type of mechanic, not spells or something that mimics spells, not AEDU special abilities, not non-casting only Feats, but something else.  Call them Techniques, Maneuvers or whatever, but they must...

Allow for tactical choice, in an associated manner.  Accomplishing this has always been WotC's Achilles Heel.  They can give you a ridiculous amount of serious and meaningful tactical choices - what they can't do is make them have anything to do with the reality of the characters and the setting.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the Battlemaster mechanic itself.  Tying uses to Short Rests associates it to stamina/effort, something a character could judge.  In the cases of special or trick moves, once per combat (or diminishing returns) always made some sense, as you're not going to catch someone with a trick move more than once.  The problem with it is, it's so generic that all the moves are tied to things that aren't unique, they are general moves that all fighter archetypes can or should do to some extent.

Instead of a generic Battlemaster, they needed Purple Dragon Knight of Cormyr, etc... a series of classes that implement the Battlemaster Framework into setting specific appropriate methods.

Quote from: rawma;904229Name the ones in the 5e PHB. A cynical view of our past interaction suggests that they will be exactly the mechanics that Enlightened does not like, and that the main difference the ones not listed have is that Enlightened does not dislike them.

That would make sense. I don't like mechanics that include meta-level player-only decisions, so it makes sense that I don't like the ones like that in 5E. I have no problem with abstraction or unrealism. So the ones I don't like will be the ones that include a meta-level decision by the player for which I haven't yet been able to find a way to explain as an in-world construct.

Quote from: rawma;904229I went through the 5e PHB (races, classes and feats) looking for mechanics that can be used a limited number of times before a rest (short or long); these seem to be the ones that cause the most issue.

That's not what makes a mechanic dissociated (at least for me). It's all about who is making the decision - the character/player or just the player. Is the character in world aware that they can only do it once a day (for example)? With spells they are because spells are an in-world construct. It isn't explained what Superiority Dice are in-world, so it's hard to envision how the character perceives them.

How would a Battlemaster explain to another party member that he can't use any more special moves? Would he say he's tired? (In which case, is he too tired to do anything else or only this?) Would he say something about the opponents not giving him openings? What is the explanation for why he can't from his point of view?

(For me, explaining them as battle spells makes this easy to explain: "I'm out of mana. I need to recharge.")(An idea I got from you in this very thread. Thanks!)

Quote from: rawma;904229You want to decide what your words mean without regard to what words mean, and now you want to decide what my words mean without regard to what words mean? Why don't you just go over to the Help Desk forum, open the sticky thread "Name Change Requests", and ask to have your name changed to "Humpty Dumpty"?

Are you still caught up trying to take everything literally? And do you seriously doubt that looking for the "true" meaning behind someones actual words is a thing?

Quote from: rawma;904229In the Bard case, you said "I don't know what it is" and you got examples; you said "I don't understand it" and you got explanation; then you quoted page numbers in the PHB and admitted you just don't like the concept of bards. The only explanations I can come up with for this approach are negative: trolling, dishonesty or stupidity.

From my point of view, that was me saying:

What is this bullshit? I don't even...
Why is it even a thing? It shouldn't be a thing!
Man, it's dumb.

...A very common progression when deriding something.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904234The answer isn't "Give Fighter Magical Powers" (which really are physical things they should be doing anyway but are turned into powers on a timer), the answer is to look at the problem.

The problem is that ever since AD&D2 there has been a near constant elimination of every single restriction placed on the use of magic in nearly every way possible...

Agreed, this is the major issue. What's really needed is a rollback of magic power.

As far as cantrips go, they really aren't "nearly" as powerful...they're comparable and arguably better.

Yes, sure, in a white room, DPS is less with a cantrip, but this neglects the many monsters with resistances to non-magic (in these cases cantrips pull ahead by a wide margin), the occasional monster with vulnerabilities (again, cantrip pulls way ahead), the incredible utility of certain cantrips (Sacred Flame, and Aid being way up there), the cantrips usually being ranged (or, in the case of Sacred Flame, better than ranged), and the ol' multiple cantrips to choose from. Toss in that cantrips are so good that it opens up a wide choice of first level spells (no point in picking anything damaging, after all...), and it's a bit nuts.

Then toss in every other restriction being removed...

So a friend of mine who has a lot of 1e and 2e stuff, lent me some of the books, and I was thumbing through Volo's Guide to Waterdeep and I think I know where the whole "Anyone can be a Fighters!" thing came from.  The game creators themselves.  Every NPC that doesn't have a set class is often listed as an F0 (Or 0th level Fighter), even when they're not supposed to be anything more than an innkeeper or a brothel madame.

Thing is, the whole 'Easy Class to play' has expanded ever since 3.0.  The Rogue along with the Fighter are now the 'Easy Classes' because there's no funky percentile chance for thievery anymore.  It's all a D20 add bonuses.  The only real complexity for Fighters in the 3e era was Feats, and the amount they had.  Meanwhile, the Rogue got more skills, yes, but their main thing was the additive redesigned Sneak Attack replacing the multiplicative Backstab.

So now, we have several classes that aren't that complex anymore.

As for the Battlemaster, which again, is as badly named as Warlord was, the issue is as a lot of people pointed out, how closely it maps to 4e, while none of the other classes has anything that has the same thing.

Quote from: Enlightened;904245That would make sense. I don't like mechanics that include meta-level player-only decisions, so it makes sense that I don't like the ones like that in 5E. I have no problem with abstraction or unrealism. So the ones I don't like will be the ones that include a meta-level decision by the player for which I haven't yet been able to find a way to explain as an in-world construct.

So you agree that there's nothing distinguishing the two categories except whether you like them or not? I guess the answer to my earlier question is that you're trolling, unless you're actually willing to list some examples.

QuoteThat's not what makes a mechanic dissociated (at least for me). It's all about who is making the decision - the character/player or just the player. Is the character in world aware that they can only do it once a day (for example)?

So, give an example that doesn't involve recovery by resting. You say the problem is not the thing I cite as causing the most issue (not the only issue, mind) and then give a non-specific example that's pretty much that very thing; well, I guess stupidity can't be ruled out.

(There are very few things in 5e that are actually per day versus recovered after a long rest, and all the ones I know of are magical like drow and tiefling racial spells or magic items; I included the former in my list but not the short list because they are magic. I doubt it makes any difference, but quibble away if you like.)

I also don't know of any mechanic in 5e where the character using it doesn't know how it works, including how many times; presumably the mechanic would say that the DM secretly determines how many times or whatever but doesn't tell the player, so it still wouldn't be dissociated. Give an example otherwise, if you can.

Quotedo you seriously doubt that looking for the "true" meaning behind someones actual words is a thing?

And I guess dishonesty is also still in the running.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904234There needs to be a new type of mechanic, not spells or something that mimics spells, not AEDU special abilities, not non-casting only Feats, but something else.  Call them Techniques, Maneuvers or whatever, but they must...

Allow for tactical choice, in an associated manner.  Accomplishing this has always been WotC's Achilles Heel.  They can give you a ridiculous amount of serious and meaningful tactical choices - what they can't do is make them have anything to do with the reality of the characters and the setting.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the Battlemaster mechanic itself.  Tying uses to Short Rests associates it to stamina/effort, something a character could judge.  In the cases of special or trick moves, once per combat (or diminishing returns) always made some sense, as you're not going to catch someone with a trick move more than once.  The problem with it is, it's so generic that all the moves are tied to things that aren't unique, they are general moves that all fighter archetypes can or should do to some extent.

Instead of a generic Battlemaster, they needed Purple Dragon Knight of Cormyr, etc... a series of classes that implement the Battlemaster Framework into setting specific appropriate methods.

So 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?

Quote from: rawma;904253So you agree that there's nothing distinguishing the two categories except whether you like them or not? I guess the answer to my earlier question is that you're trolling, unless you're actually willing to list some examples.

No, the distiguishing factor is whether or not there is a player-only desicion required. My liking it or not is based off of that. It's just a ven diagram that nearly perfectly overlaps because the former causes the latter, where as nearly nothing else does.

Quote from: rawma;904253So, give an example that doesn't involve recovery by resting. You say the problem is not the thing I cite as causing the most issue (not the only issue, mind) and then give a non-specific example that's pretty much that very thing; well, I guess stupidity can't be ruled out.

(There are very few things in 5e that are actually per day versus recovered after a long rest, and all the ones I know of are magical like drow and tiefling racial spells or magic items; I included the former in my list but not the short list because they are magic. I doubt it makes any difference, but quibble away if you like.)

I also don't know of any mechanic in 5e where the character using it doesn't know how it works, including how many times; presumably the mechanic would say that the DM secretly determines how many times or whatever but doesn't tell the player, so it still wouldn't be dissociated. Give an example otherwise, if you can.

I need a bit more time to reply to this. I have to take my kids to school now. I'll reply to this part when I get back.

Quote from: rawma;904253I also don't know of any mechanic in 5e where the character using it doesn't know how it works, including how many times; presumably the mechanic would say that the DM secretly determines how many times or whatever but doesn't tell the player, so it still wouldn't be dissociated. Give an example otherwise, if you can.

Barbarian Rage: Are barbarians aware that they can only get mad twice a day? If so, why do they think that is? What is stopping them from getting mad again? Do they think "In need to stay calm as we fight our way through the forest so I can save both times I can get angry for when we are in the fortress." I doubt it, so this seems a case of the player making the decision for the character. The fix: change it to unlimited rages per day.

(I skipped the bard write up because I can’t be arsed to read it.)

Cleric, Druid, Eldritch Knight, Paladin and Wizard spellcasting: In old style Vancian casting, casters prepare individual spells. In 5E, it seems they all work like a 3E-ish sorcerer in that that have a set list and can cast these in any combination. That leaves me wonder what exactly a spell slot is in 5E (and what they are for 3E style sorcerers). Is a caster aware in detail about the number and level of the slots they have? Do they have terms for them that they use among themselves? The fix: maybe consider them individually formed “motes” of energy of differing sizes that the casters pre-forms within them during preparation meditations. I dunno. Maybe add up all levels of spell slots and put them in a pool from which spell slots of any size can be formed. That way it's just a big amorphous pool of mana to draw on until depleted.

Fighter Second Wind: Who is actually choosing here? If it's the character, does this mean that there are times when a fighter is tired and will intentionally choose to remain tired even though they have the means to not be? I doubt it, so this seems a case of the player making the decision for the character. The fix: change it to a minor healing cantrip that fighters pick up? I dunno. Maybe let the DM determine when it happens?

Fighter Indomitable: It says you can reroll a failed save once a day, but it doesn’t say why you can’t do it again or what it’s based on. Does the character know they can only be indomitable once a day and then they become domitable? Is the character even aware of this as a discrete resource? Do they ever think, "I'll let this bad thing happen to me now so I can save my once-a-day grit for another bad thing that may happen later." I doubt it, so this seems a case of the player making the decision for the character. The fix: change it to “you get advantage on all saves.”

Battle master superiority dice: I had thought I had this one covered, but now upon closer inspection, I see that they are weird like normal caster casting (a set list that can be chosen from in any combination), so I am left wondering what superiority dice are. The fix: maybe consider them a pre-formed energy mote that the fighter forms during meditation. That’s weird though. I dunno.

(The Monk’s Ki seems close to what I meant about “Motes of energy” above.)

Monk Wholeness of Body: It’s left unstated what it’s based on and therefore why it's limited. The fix: Just say it’s an in-world spell (sutra).

(I got as far as the Monk this time. I may do more classes later.)

Inspiration: Why do you become un-inspired after your inspiration takes you to new heights? Does the character know that giving into their inspiration will deprive them of it? Why do things unrelated to becoming inspired-to-do-well give Inspiration?  Is the character aware that "acting like their natural selves (going along with bonds, flaws, etc.) will Inspire them? Do they sometime intentionally try to "be themselves really hard" before something they want to be Inspired to do well?  I doubt it, so this seems a case of the player making the decision for the character. The fix: Just do away with it and let the DM give advantage on rolls that it’s obvious your character is really inspired to succeed at.

Hit Dice for healing: Who is actually choosing here? If it's the character, are there times when a character is tired from fighting and has the time and the internal reserves to become untired, but voiltionally chooses to remain a bit tired? Like, do they rest a little bit and then do jumping jacks as needed to maintain that particular level of fatigue? I doubt it, so this seems a case of the player making the decision for the character. The fix: make it so that you have to use as many as required to top yourself off if you are ever missing HPs and have available Hit Dice. Make it not a choice. It just happens as soon as it can happen.

So, I guess it's not just as simple as "just give knowledge to the character" because sometimes that creates nonsensical situations which still feel dissociated since the re-association feels so forced. Maybe to feel truly associated, a mechanic has to have some world-based reason that the character can perceive and interact with it. Just giving them knowledge without an in-world reason to back it up doesn't feel associated.

Quote from: rawma;904253So, give an example that doesn't involve recovery by resting. You say the problem is not the thing I cite as causing the most issue (not the only issue, mind) and then give a non-specific example that's pretty much that very thing; well, I guess stupidity can't be ruled out.

Some once a day abilities have clear in-world reasons for being only usable once a day. These limitations are knowable to the characters and thus they can make decisions based on them. (Associated)

Some once a day abilities are only once a day for game balance reasons or because it makes fights "run more like a movie fight" or whatever. In many cases, the reasons for limitations are unknown to characters in-world when they are based on these kinds of things. (Dissociated, until such time as an in-world construct is invented for them)

Associated/disociated isn't based on recovery method or frequency of usage. It's based on whether or not the charatcer is in control of the mechanic/resource, etc. or whether it exists "above their head."

My unspecific question "Is the character in world aware that they can only do it once a day (for example)?" is how you determine whether a particular once-a-day ability is associated or dissociated. Is there some in-world thing/hint/feeling, etc. that informs them that they can only choose to do it once a day? Do they know before using it that it will get locked out after, and are they able to decide when to "spend" it based on that? It's yes or no. If yes, associated. If no, dissociated.

Quote from: Enlightened;904265Some once a day abilities have clear in-world reasons for being only usable once a day. These limitations are knowable to the characters and thus they can make decisions based on them. (Associated)

Some once a day abilities are only once a day for game balance reasons or because it makes fights "run more like a movie fight" or whatever. In many cases, the reasons for limitations are unknown to characters in-world when they are based on these kinds of things. (Dissociated, until such time as an in-world construct is invented for them)

Associated/disociated isn't based on recovery method or frequency of usage. It's based on whether or not the charatcer is in control of the mechanic/resource, etc. or whether it exists "above their head."

My unspecific question "Is the character in world aware that they can only do it once a day (for example)?" is how you determine whether a particular once-a-day ability is associated or dissociated. Is there some in-world thing/hint/feeling, etc. that informs them that they can only choose to do it once a day? Do they know before using it that it will get locked out after, and are they able to decide when to "spend" it based on that? It's yes or no. If yes, associated. If no, dissociated.

I think you're on to the right question of the never-ending debate on this. Don't you think the problem is solved by having these mechanics tied to stat-bonuses? That would probably resolve the question, no? Because I think it's less of a leap to say your character understands what their own limitations are. Of course this also means that it will enforce stat-dumping, but there are ways to skin that cat too.

Quote from: tenbones;904288Don't you think the problem is solved by having these mechanics tied to stat-bonuses? That would probably resolve the question, no? Because I think it's less of a leap to say your character understands what their own limitations are.

I think that would be situational. I could see that working for some things but maybe not everything that is dissociated.

I'll see if I can think up some examples...

Quote from: Enlightened;904295I think that would be situational. I could see that working for some things but maybe not everything that is dissociated.

I'll see if I can think up some examples...

Hehe as soon as I wrote it, I knew there were several things that still wouldn't make sense. Rage for instance? Unless you want to rename it something different. The implications that someone knows how long they will be a berserk killing-machine still seems slightly disassociative. But it's easily glossed over. I'm looking at things from more of a mechanical perspective. I do not like per-day mechanics generally, and that's coming from someone that madly loves 1e Oriental Adventures that had tons of that. So perhaps the "problem" exists in more subtle realms of the rules and the very assumptions of those rules in the game.

5e has lost that "thing" to me. The Battlemaster is the glaring example of it. But it's elsewhere in the system as well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904083I know you mean this as facetious, but ever since the advent of the internet and the sudden influx of opinions, there definitely seems to be a backlash against the Fighting Man ever getting 'nice things'.

Which is part of what bugs me with all the incessant bitching about the Battle Master as its the most interesting of the three paths. Sometimes I suspect some of the complaints are by wizard players who realized that the Fighter class can actually match or even exceed the wizard in damage output.