TheRPGSite

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. :o

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.

I like the idea, although the execution could be improved. The idea being a strategic and tactical fighter, that uses intelligence and technique rather than brute force. Kinda like Bronn in Game of Thrones, but there are many examples.

In fact, I'm not really sold on the 'Superiority Dice' element - I'd prefer more set bonuses, to be honest. More feats, I suppose. Also, I felt the Purple Knight in the Sword Coast book was a bit more polished and, if it had been made more generic, would have been a better choice for the core book.

I am enjoying playing a battle master. There are different types of maneuvers to choose from and you don't have to pick ones that give a warlord feel if you don't want.

My fighter uses a mix of archery and two weapon combat so I chose some maneuvers that could be used both with a bow and in melee combat.

I'm quite good on my BMX. :p

What are Superiority Dice supposed to be from the point of veiw of the character?

I can't wrap my head around what they are in-world.

They seem as dissociated as Martial Dailies and Encounters. They just seem like a meta-resource that the player (not the character) uses.

Quote from: Enlightened;902942What are Superiority Dice supposed to be from the point of veiw of the character?

I can't wrap my head around what they are in-world.

I always view them as those limited opportunities when the dude is standing just right and you've got just the right momentum to pull off a difficult move.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902963I always view them as those limited opportunities when the dude is standing just right and you've got just the right momentum to pull off a difficult move.

Why would the character/player get to decide something like that?

It seems strange that someone can volitionally choose when someone else is standing just right or choose when you have particularly good momentum, etc.

Being able to choose something about opponents or the world using a meta resource is pretty full-on dissociated.

Quote from: Enlightened;902964Being able to choose something about opponents or the world using a meta resource is pretty full-on dissociated.

You have a point, but decades of playing video games where fighter types get "action point" mechanics have taught me not to care.

Quote from: Enlightened;902942What are Superiority Dice supposed to be from the point of veiw of the character?

I see them as battle focus, much like a Monk's Ki, a Barbarian's capacity to Rage, or a Wizard's Spell Slots all measure the PC's ability to perform a certain strenous activity before they become exhausted and can't focus anymore.

Quote from: Skywalker;902986I see them as battle focus, much like a Monk's Ki, a Barbarian's capacity to Rage, or a Wizard's Spell Slots all measure the PC's ability to perform a certain strenous activity before they become exhausted and can't focus anymore.

That's a much better rationale, but I keep forgetting it. :o

In fact, as I recall it's pretty much how 4e stated the functioning of its fighter powers.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902963I always view them as those limited opportunities when the dude is standing just right and you've got just the right momentum to pull off a difficult move.

Like a Rogue's Sneak Attack.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903020Like a Rogue's Sneak Attack.

The way a rogue gets sneak attack is different though.

A rogue can't spend a limited resource to declare that a guy is open for a sneak attack.

It's determined by the situation and/or a skill roll. And the rogue could potentially get sneak attack an unlimited amount of times, each time the situation presents itself.

Quote from: Skywalker;902986I see them as battle focus, much like a Monk's Ki, a Barbarian's capacity to Rage, or a Wizard's Spell Slots all measure the PC's ability to perform a certain strenous activity before they become exhausted and can't focus anymore.

That doesn't show that this isn't dissociated. It just shows that the game has other dissociated mechanics (some mechanics more than others).

It's about as dissociative as spell levels, hit points, rage, hit die healing, etc.

Quote from: Enlightened;903023That doesn't show that this isn't dissociated. It just shows that the game has other dissociated mechanics (some mechanics more than others).

It's comparably dissociative as a number of other D&D mechanics, yes.

I'll take Distinction Denial for $500 Alex...

Quote from: Batman;903031It's about as dissociative as spell levels, hit points, rage, hit die healing, etc.

What is "Disingenuous 4venger Fuckery conflating Abstraction and Dissociation?"

Quote from: Skywalker;903032It's comparably dissociative as a number of other D&D mechanics, which exist only in certain versions of the game, yes.

Fixed that for you, bro. ;)

Quote from: Batman;903031It's about as dissociative as spell levels, hit points, rage, hit die healing, etc.

Rage limited per day, Hit Die healing = Dissociative

Spell levels, Hit points aren't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903033I'll take Distinction Denial for $500 Alex...



What is "Disingenuous 4venger Fuckery conflating Abstraction and Dissociation?"

What the fuck does this have to do specifically with 4e or "avenging" it? I LIKE dissociative mechanics because they've been pretty prevalent in D&D over the years, emerging heavily with 3e and onwards. And apparently no one EVER makes a decision based in how many hit points they have remaining in your games. Good for you I guess?

Quote from: Enlightened;903035Rage limited per day, Hit Die healing = Dissociative

Spell levels, Hit points don't.

Oh yeah? So wizards all know they have exactly 4 spell slots remaining of 4th level and that all spells in D&D are assigned a number to help catalog them? Funny, never read that description in any of the books regarding D&D in the past 20 years

Quote from: Batman;903037Oh yeah? So wizards all know they have exactly 4 spell slots remaining of 4th level and that all spells in D&D are assigned a number to help catalog them? Funny, never read that description in any of the books regarding D&D in the past 20 years

In AD&D, spells take up a number of pages in a spell book equal to their level and require a number of minutes per level to memorize.

Spell levels have been an in-world construct since AD&D.

Quote from: Batman;903036What the fuck does this have to do specifically with 4e or "avenging" it? I LIKE dissociative mechanics because they've been pretty prevalent in D&D over the years, emerging heavily with 3e and onwards. And apparently no one EVER makes a decision based in how many hit points they have remaining in your games. Good for you I guess?

It's because you are conflating abstractions with dissociations.

Hit points are an abstraction but not a dissociation.

And I think, Enlightened, that you're letting your bias hang out.

Hit Points have ALWAYS been a major disassociation.

For Gord's sake man, do we really need to re-enact the whole goddammed 'What are Hit Points' merry-go-round for ya? For the umpteenth time?  Really?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903040And I think, Enlightened, that you're letting your bias hang out.

Hit Points have ALWAYS been a major disassociation.

For Gord's sake man, do we really need to re-enact the whole goddammed 'What are Hit Points' merry-go-round for ya? For the umpteenth time?  Really?

I didn't bring them up.

And no HPs are not a disssociation. They have a pervicable in-world conterpart - well-being.

The character (just like a real world boxer, etc.) can perceive when they are beat up / tired / about to fall / close to the end of their energy, etc.

Quote from: Enlightened;902964Why would the character/player get to decide something like that?

It seems strange that someone can volitionally choose when someone else is standing just right or choose when you have particularly good momentum, etc.

Being able to choose something about opponents or the world using a meta resource is pretty full-on dissociated.

Think of it more as "Come up with idea to take advantage of this on the spot" rather than "Change reality to fit the action".
Combine that with dirty fighting and probably the character allways trying to line things like this up in every combat. But these are those times where they can put extra oomph into it or get someone else to.

Quote from: Omega;903044Think of it more as "Come up with idea to take advantage of this on the spot" rather than "Change reality to fit the action".
Combine that with dirty fighting and probably the character allways trying to line things like this up in every combat. But these are those times where they can put extra oomph into it or get someone else to.

The thing that makes Superiority Dice dissociated is that it's the player (not the character or chance or the details of the situation, etc.) deciding when "things are just right" for these things to work.

If they were tied to 1) an in-world in-character resource (like spells), 2) a die roll or 3) the situation (as opposed to being an active decision) they wouldn't be dissociative.

EDIT: That being said, the idea offered above about considering them to be depletable "battle focus" energy or something may have some merit in terms of making them less dissociative. I'll give that some thought.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903034Fixed that for you, bro. ;)

It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

Quote from: Skywalker;903049It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

Something only being usable one per day, etc. isn't what makes something dissociative.

If the resource is perceivable and controllable by the character in-world (as spells are) then it's not dissociative.

If only the player controls the resource, it's dissociative.

Quote from: Enlightened;903052Something only being usable one per day, etc. isn't what makes something dissociative.

If the resource is perceivable and controllable by the character in-world (as spells are) then it's not dissociative.

If only the player controls the resource, it's dissociative.

I understand the concept but it becomes less easy to distinguish with the likes of Ki or Rages per day IMO.

Regardless, its certainly not a stand out in the 5e ruleset, where such mechanics are not uncommon. As such, except as a broad criticism of that edition, I don't see how the Battle Master stands out in this regard.

Just so I have a point of reference Enlightened - and this is not intended as a 'gotcha' question - what is your preferred method of giving non-magical fighter types the ability to do interesting stuff in combat without having them also go "I trip him, I trip him, I trip him, I trip him," in a way that is generally seen as undesirable?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903056Just so I have a point of reference Enlightened - and this is not intended as a 'gotcha' question - what is your preferred method of giving non-magical fighter types the ability to do interesting stuff in combat

Well, for a frame of reference, I haven't actually played/ran 5E yet. I read it when it came out and shelved it because it seemed full of stuff I wasn't interested in.

I have been recently re-looking at it with the idea of running it to see what it's really like. I want to determine, through actually running it, whether to hack 5E into something I would like or just take things I like from 5E and add them to B/X, which I already know I like.

For a second frame of reference, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "interesting stuff to do in combat." I typically run B/X in which fighters don't really have any special abilities and it seems fine. People say what they want to accomplish, I say "Okay, roll a [something]" and then it happens or it doesn't happen. I generally like to run it as Combat-as-Failure-State with really short combats.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903056without having them also go "I trip him, I trip him, I trip him, I trip him," in a way that is generally seen as undesirable?

That sounds like a 3E-ism. I have next to zero experience with 3E. Nothing like that has ever happened when running B/X.

If I were going to make up special abilities for fighters, I personally would make them dependent on die rolls* or dependent on the situation**.

* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

** If you and an ally are both engaged with the same enemy, you can opt to use this ability against that enemy, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the in-world situation.)

Quote from: Enlightened;903063If I were going to make up special abilities for fighters, I personally would make them dependent on die rolls* or dependent on the situation**.

* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

** If you and an ally are both engaged with the same enemy, you can opt to use this ability against that enemy, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the in-world situation.)

So, you prefer 13th Age mechanics?

(Personally, I agree that approach is the more immersive one. It's also the one used in 13th Age).

Quote from: AsenRG;903066So, you prefer 13th Age mechanics?

Nope, I only like the "availability determined by the die" aspect of it. Not much else.

Quote from: Enlightened;903063* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

A lot of players would be displeased by this lack of control. A few random elements come with the territory of course, but if most of your potential is random there isn't much strategy.

I don't speak for myself though, I would be perfectly fine playing a champion fighter.

Quote from: Skywalker;903049It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

It's the difference between experience and power (Kwai Chang Kane/Master Po, Luke/Kenobi, etc) and "I can only do a one-handed catch 1/day, should I use it now?"  

Show me a daily in 1e, 99% of the time, I'll show you a supernatural power.  Summoning your internal power to do Crouching Tiger shit =/= Parrying.  When your special limited ability is something that is done by every fighter in practically every fight in history, the justification for making it a limited resource is not tied to the world of the setting. :D  

A character not choosing to fight an Ogre because he's almost out of Hit Points would be similar to a boxer canceling a fight with Tyson if he just broke a rib in a bicycle accident the night before - you're too wounded to win that fight.  Now a player could, in fact, decide that with 12 hit points left, and the Ogre only doing 1-10, he will survive long enough for the Cleric to heal him if he steps up to protect the Cleric.  

Anytime the player knows the math, they can make predictions and calculate probability in a way that the character can not.  That's a player metagaming choice.  That doesn't mean that the choice is one the character cannot make within the setting.

It doesn't matter what system you use, I can't force a player to roleplay and not use every metagaming advantage except by perhaps taking away the character sheet.  I just get a new player.

You could also argue the Fighter, being relatively experienced, knows he has enough stamina to stick and move, so he can calculate he can keep the Ogre off for a while at least.  At some point the math becomes internalized to the point where it is instinctive, at which point it really isn't much different from the instinctive experience of the character.

You could also argue that certain "signature moves", like dirty tricks, fighting style secrets, etc. are less effective after you use them once.  So in certain cases, a "once per Encounter" ability even can make sense within the setting.

Dodge, Parry, Riposte, etc. aren't really those, though.

Why are dissociative mechanics bad? What's wrong with players playing non-magical classes and having agency to do interesting things without requiring those things come randomly  (critical hits, odd numbered dice, etc)? I think that's the biggest reason we see mechanics like Rage or Ki or Superiority dice or encounter based maneuvers. Because spellcastsrs shouldn't be the only classes that have round-to-round options that can effect monsters differently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903091Show me a daily in 1e, 99% of the time, I'll show you a supernatural power.  

I was thinking of the Oriental Adventures 1e Monk's ability to heal HP once a day. It's almost identical to the 5e Fighter Second Wind and is not explicitly based on Ki other than as a general description of how the Monk operates. I struggle to distinguish between that and the kind of focus covered by the Battle Master.

On saying that, this seems like a tangent to the thread, which is criticising of the Battle Master as an option in 5e. The Battle Master is not alone in its approach in this edition regardless of your opinion of the approach of previous editions. If that's the basis for your criticism, then it runs deeper than just the Battle Master.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903098Dodge, Parry, Riposte, etc. aren't really those, though.

Those abilities are more than just their game mechanic titles though, unless you are suggesting the titles themselves are an in-game thing, such that no other PC is able to dodge or parry without them. In D&D, AC covers dodging and parrying in a general sense, and regular attacks cover ripostes. What the Battle Masters abilities cover are much more powerful versions of those everyday combat moves and so would be of the nature of the signature moves that you mention, require levels of stamina and focus to pull off.

Quote from: Skywalker;903121The Battle Master is not alone in its approach in this edition regardless of your opinion of the approach of previous editions. If that's the basis for your criticism, then it runs deeper than just the Battle Master.

Right, but that approach isn't in every edition, basically just 4th.  I'm just sick of the standard "AD&D did it too" defense followed by rather...inventive...ways of defining mechanics to make them appear similar.  Somewhere around 3.5 that became the standard defense of newer D&D, hell the defense for criticism against practically every game at one point or another, at least on this site.  But you're right, it's a tangent, so screw it, on to the Battlemaster...

Quote from: Skywalker;903122Those abilities are more than just their game mechanic titles though, unless you are suggesting the titles themselves are an in-game thing, such that no other PC is able to dodge or parry without them. In D&D, AC covers dodging and parrying in a general sense, and regular attacks cover ripostes. What the Battle Masters abilities cover are much more powerful versions of those everyday combat moves and so would be of the nature of the signature moves that you mention, require levels of stamina and focus to pull off.

Which is what tying it to rests certainly implies.  However, no Rogue archetype has Evasive Footwork?  No Barbarian has Pushing Attack?

The real problem is class design.  Classes work best when they are either 1.) Broad open archetypes, where a few can cover a huge amount of characters or 2.)Hyper-specific to a certain role.  An example would be having a "Cleric" class vs. having a specialty priest class for every god.   The problem with 5e class design is, it's both.  WotC is trying to have it's cake and eat it too.  It wants the TSR archetypes with WotC power sets.  It's hyper-specific covering generic roles.  On earth you might have a Knight Class, with sub-classes of Teutonic Knight, Knight Templar, Knight Hospitaller, etc...  The 5e version of that would be Martial Knight, Political Knight who has secret mystical power, and Knights who heal.  Not broad by any stretch of the imagination and specific to absolutely nothing.

They would have been far better served by sticking to the most basic of sub-classes for the "generic" archetypes and then went to Realms-specific with the others instead of giving us idiotic generic subclasses that don't fit in half the D&D worlds like Eldritch Knight.  WotC doesn't understand that unless you stick to the broadest archetypes, class design is world design, they've never understood that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903129Which is what tying it to rests certainly implies.  However, no Rogue archetype has Evasive Footwork?  No Barbarian has Pushing Attack?

er... Feat: Martial Adept: gain 2 Maneuvers and 1 superiority die.

Also again... Anyone can push, trip, dodge, whatever. Some of its going on automatically even. The Battle Master just occasionally does it better and/or when they really need it/see the opportunity.

Quote from: Batman;903119Why are dissociative mechanics bad? What's wrong with players playing non-magical classes and having agency to do interesting things without requiring those things come randomly  (critical hits, odd numbered dice, etc)? I think that's the biggest reason we see mechanics like Rage or Ki or Superiority dice or encounter based maneuvers. Because spellcastsrs shouldn't be the only classes that have round-to-round options that can effect monsters differently.

But, but, Spellcasters have always been the classes with variety and versatility, it's how it's ALWAYS been done!  You don't mess with a good thing man, you just don't.

Unless, of course, you prefer playing fighters and non-casters and roll your eyes mentally, when you get past third level and your entire schtick is eclipsed by some guy in a robe with a wand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903198But, but, Spellcasters have always been the classes with variety and versatility, it's how it's ALWAYS been done!  You don't mess with a good thing man, you just don't.

Unless, of course, you prefer playing fighters and non-casters and roll your eyes mentally, when you get past third level and your entire schtick is eclipsed by some guy in a robe with a wand.

Well, for what it's worth, that's not why for me.

In fact, I heavily favor fighters (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?764973-Fixing-unballanced-classes-in-Basic-OSR&p=19351611#post19351611) in my houserules. (From this thread (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?764973-Fixing-unballanced-classes-in-Basic-OSR).)

And I severely limit (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?780880-In-your-opinion-How-did-5E-quot-Fail-to-keep-their-promise-quot&p=20054733#post20054733) arcane casters.

I go far out of my way to make fighter a better choice than magic user in my personal games.

As for dissociated mechanics, for me, the issue is my own personal sense of "making sense." It doesn't "make sense" to me than the player can decide things outside of the realm of their character's actions.

And the "not making sense"-ness of dissociated mechanics is like a hyper puppy always jumping into my field of vision and ruining my fun when I try to play. It's like a painful brain splinter that makes me keep screaming,"Why?" There is nothing objective about it. It's a completely subjective preference but it's there none the less.

Quote from: Enlightened;903202And the "not making sense"-ness of dissociated mechanics is like a hyper puppy always jumping into my field of vision and ruining my fun when I try to play. It's like a painful brain splinter that makes me keep screaming,"Why?" There is nothing objective about it. It's a completely subjective preference but it's there none the less.

Cool. But I assume it would be true to say you have a similar issue with the Fighter's Second Wind and Action Surge abilities for the same reason, regardless of whether the PC is a Battle Master or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903091When your special limited ability is something that is done by every fighter in practically every fight in history, the justification for making it a limited resource is not tied to the world of the setting. :D  

A character not choosing to fight an Ogre because he's almost out of Hit Points would be similar to a boxer canceling a fight with Tyson if he just broke a rib in a bicycle accident the night before - you're too wounded to win that fight.  Now a player could, in fact, decide that with 12 hit points left, and the Ogre only doing 1-10, he will survive long enough for the Cleric to heal him if he steps up to protect the Cleric.

Is there really only one form of stamina (corresponding to HPs) in the real world, which is always restored by a good night's sleep? Do you find the exhaustion mechanic in D&D 5e dissociated? If not, why can you have two forms of exhaustion/depleted stamina without being dissociated but not three? I see the argument against shared pool mechanics but not for one that's specific to the character, who knows what they can do and what they can't do and can manage that as well as the player. But I'm also comfortable with assuming a magical basis for every mechanic, be it Battlemasters or a character who can fall off the Empire State Building and is guaranteed to be able to walk away, so it's not going to bother me anyway.

Quote from: rawma;903290Is there really only one form of stamina (corresponding to HPs) in the real world, which is always restored by a good night's sleep?

By virtue of the fact that all damage and fatique is comepletely healed with a single nights rest, it is clear that there are many kinds of real world fatigue and injury types that PCs are not subject to. There is nothing dissociative about this.

Quote from: rawma;903290Do you find the exhaustion mechanic in D&D 5e dissociated?
If not, why can you have two forms of exhaustion/depleted stamina without being dissociated but not three?

I personally haven't looked too closely at the exhaustion mechanic, but it doesn't seem dissociative. There doesn't appear to be any meta-level decision being made. You could have any number of exhaustion/stamina depletion methods that are not dissociative.

Quote from: rawma;903290I see the argument against shared pool mechanics but not for one that's specific to the character, who knows what they can do and what they can't do and can manage that as well as the player.

Well, that's the crux of it. Does the character know that they can trip four times before they are going to have to rest to trip more? If the character knows about and can personally manage the resource, it's not dissociative.

Quote from: rawma;903290But I'm also comfortable with assuming a magical basis for every mechanic.

Actually, considering them to be minor, in-world, known-to-the-character, depeletable/rechargable battle cantrips is one way to make them associative.

Quote from: Enlightened;903309By virtue of the fact that all damage and fatique is comepletely healed with a single nights rest, it is clear that there are many kinds of real world fatigue and injury types that PCs are not subject to. There is nothing dissociative about this.

The sheer amount of mental gymnastics needed to get to this point just boggles my mind.  I simply get my little mind around this.  I must be an utter moron for just not being able to understand how it's not a major mechanical dissociation.

I just can't do it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903318The sheer amount of mental gymnastics needed to get to this point just boggles my mind.  I simply get my little mind around this.  I must be an utter moron for just not being able to understand how it's not a major mechanical dissociation.

I just can't do it.

Unrealistic doesn't equal dissociated.

Abstract doesn't equal dissociated.

Meta-level decisions by the player above the head of the character equals dissociated.

Quote from: Enlightened;903319Unrealistic doesn't equal dissociated.

Abstract doesn't equal dissociated.

Meta-level decisions by the player above the head of the character equals dissociated.

Realism is not the issue, it's amount of accepting that HP is not just health, despite a whole slew (until 5e consolidated them into a single level based packet) Magical Spells that restored 'health', especially since nothing happens until you hit 0.  You're totally fine until that last drop, and then you keel over.  I've always found it dissociative.  To claim otherwise, just blows my little brain from my skull.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903321Realism is not the issue, it's amount of accepting that HP is not just health, despite a whole slew (until 5e consolidated them into a single level based packet) Magical Spells that restored 'health', especially since nothing happens until you hit 0.  You're totally fine until that last drop, and then you keel over.  I've always found it dissociative.  To claim otherwise, just blows my little brain from my skull.

But where is the meta-level player-only decision? There isn't one. Ergo, it's simply unrealistic, not dissociative.

You're conflating unrealism with being dissociative.

If a particular mechanic contains no "decision point" then it can't be dissociative. It can be abstract and/or unrealistic, but with no decision being made, it can't be dissociative.

EDIT: I think we're just simply using the words differently here. Your internal definition for dissociative seems different from mine.

Quote from: Enlightened;903322But where is the meta-level player-only decision? There isn't one. Ergo, it's simply unrealistic, not dissociative.

You're conflating unrealism with being dissociative.

EDIT: I think we're just simply using the words differently here. Your internal definition for dissociative seems different from mine.

The decision is, mostly, derived from the fact that he can determine his/her next course of action by knowing 100% how much health he has. A real person might know he's hurt or injured, what does that translate to meta-game hit points? 4 HP left? 7 hp? 1? He might try another attack with 10 hit points, but not with 7, out of 55 hit points but in character he's still "injured/hurt/etc" the fact is its abstract AND dissociative  (to me at least) because I don't subscribe to the notion that people are perfectly and instantly aware of their own health, down to the 1%.

Quote from: Batman;903323The decision is, mostly, derived from the fact that he can determine his/her next course of action by knowing 100% how much health he has. A real person might know he's hurt or injured, what does that translate to meta-game hit points? 4 HP left? 7 hp? 1? He might try another attack with 10 hit points, but not with 7, out of 55 hit points but in character he's still "injured/hurt/etc" the fact is its abstract AND dissociative  (to me at least) because I don't subscribe to the notion that people are perfectly and instantly aware of their own health, down to the 1%.

Well, there you go. That's the issue. You see something as unknowable to the character, and thus only knowable to the player. That's nearly the definition of dissociated.

Associative/dissociative is largely a function of point of view.

If you play as if the character knows their health (as I do), then decisions based off that are associative.

If, on the other hand, you play it like the character doesn't know it (and only the player is aware) then, for you, they're dissociated.

That's exactly what I meant in my first post in this thread. "What are Superiority Dice from the point of view of the character?"

Meaning, is there a paradigm shift I could acheive to start seeing them as something known and controllable by the character? Thus turning them from dissociative into associative for me.

Quote from: Enlightened;903325Well, there you go. That's the issue. You see something as unknowable to the character, and thus only knowable to the player. That's nearly the definition of dissociated.

Associative/dissociative is largely a function of point of view.

If you play as if the character knows their health (as I do), then decisions based off that are associative.

If, on the other hand, you play it like the character doesn't know it (and only the player is aware) then, for you, they're dissociated.

It's empirically observed that people in real fights seldom or never know their own health, unlike virtually all PCs do.

QuoteThat's exactly what I meant in my first post in this thread. "What are Superiority Dice from the point of view of the character?"

They could be "tricks of the trade'' you haven't used yet against that particular enemy. Or they could be your reserves of inspiration and improvisation that allow you to pull of the impossible. Or they could be how relaxed you are, allowing you to pull off smooth tricks on the enemy, but tiring you and wasting that same relaxation you need, although that steps on the toes of Dx and HP;).
It could even be a mix of all of these, for it is true that not all technical fighters rely on all of them in equal measure, and even the same fighter would rely on them in different proportions in different parts of his training and career.
Regardless, making it a resource is always going to grate against believability for some people, IME.

QuoteMeaning, is there a paradigm shift I could acheive to start seeing them as something known and controllable by the character? Thus turning them from dissociative into associative for me.

I made a whole thread about this. People aren't sure it's at all possible, it seems, but nothing prevents you from trying:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;903377It's empirically observed that people in real fights seldom or never know their own health, unlike virtually all PCs do.

In general though you do know when you are close. People still overextend themselves or are novices and run into deadly exhaustion unaware.

Just last year I came very very close to dropping dead on the spot because it caught up with me about all at once. Now though I know some of the symptoms and pace myself.

One small observation though. Some DMs keep players HP unknown to the players. And that practice goes back to nearly to the start. Gronan can chip in and relate if it any of the DMs he knew did it too.

Quote from: Enlightened;903309By virtue of the fact that all damage and fatique is comepletely healed with a single nights rest, it is clear that there are many kinds of real world fatigue and injury types that PCs are not subject to. There is nothing dissociative about this.

There are other stamina counters for PCs in D&D, like using up hit dice; another counter for stamina is death saves (counting up to 3 failures or successes, whichever comes first; I've seen players delay healing a downed PC based on calculating the odds implied by the precise mechanic, albeit not without risk). Just as I can distinguish sore feet from a sore back from eye strain from overall exhaustion, PCs can distinguish all the different stamina counters they have.

QuoteI personally haven't looked too closely at the exhaustion mechanic, but it doesn't seem dissociative. There doesn't appear to be any meta-level decision being made. You could have any number of exhaustion/stamina depletion methods that are not dissociative.

"Superiority dice" are just another form of stamina; just as my druid character (133 HP) can jump off any cliff and know he will be able to walk away, and how long he can go without water before dying of exhaustion, and how long he can delay healing the character with only 61 HP who didn't walk away from the bottom of that cliff, the battlemasters know how far it is to their limit of that form of stamina.

Fine if you don't like the battlemaster; I have not played one or with one, so I don't have a strong opinion about it. But conflating your dislike of something with it having an intrinsic flaw that other people should acknowledge is as pathetic as falsely claiming you don't know what a bard is when the real issue is that you don't like them.

Quote from: Omega;903380One small observation though. Some DMs keep players HP unknown to the players. And that practice goes back to nearly to the start. Gronan can chip in and relate if it any of the DMs he knew did it too.

That was how we played when I started in 1977, with HP re-rolled every adventure and known only to the DM. An uninjured third level cleric died from one claw attack that did d4 damage, much to everyone's surprise (and the player's annoyance). One DM was so invested in this unknowability that she changed hit dice size for constitution bonuses rather than adding to each, so that players could not even reason about their minimum HPs as being higher than the character's level.

Quote from: rawma;903391But conflating your dislike of something with it having an intrinsic flaw that other people should acknowledge is as pathetic as falsely claiming you don't know what a bard is when the real issue is that you don't like them.

I never claimed that it is an intrinsic flaw. In fact, I directly said the exact opposite.

I said in post #64 that "dissociated/associated is a matter of point of view" and in post #56 I said "There is nothing objective about it. It's a completely subjective preference".

Being subjective is the exact opposite of being intrinsic.

And that bard thread from way back you're mentioning, you just misunderstood what I meant.

You strangely took my exasperated "What is this I don't even" literally instead of to mean "This is weird/stupid/meaningless, etc." I even explained that to you in a later post in that thread.

As I expained in the thread as soon as I realized you had taken me literally, at no point did I not know what a bard was. My point was that it is mind-boogling that bard exists as its own class.  Here's the thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?30949-5e-A-class-you-could-do-without)

Quote from: Enlightened;903397I never claimed that it is an intrinsic flaw. In fact, I directly said the exact opposite.

Really?

Quote from: Enlightened;903023That doesn't show that this isn't dissociated. It just shows that the game has other dissociated mechanics (some mechanics more than others).

That's pretty much claiming that there is an objective standard for dissociated. Perhaps you meant to say something else, about persuading you to abandon your subjective opinion, but you didn't.

Quote from: Enlightened;903397I said in post #64 ... and in post #56 I said ....

It's on you, not me, that you aren't consistent in what you have to say.

QuoteAnd that bard thread from way back you're mentioning, you just misunderstood what I meant.

You strangely took my exasperated "What is this I don't even" literally instead of to mean "This is weird/stupid/meaningless, etc." I even explained that to you in a later post in that thread.

As I expained in the thread as soon as I realized you had taken me literally, at no point did I not know what a bard was. My point was that it is mind-boogling that bard exists as its own class.  Here's the thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?30949-5e-A-class-you-could-do-without)

Better to quote the actual statement than your later revision:

Quote from: Enlightened;795946I don't even really get what a Bard is.

What the fuck is a Bard?

You knew exactly what it was and you just didn't like it, but you preferred to waste people's time explaining and giving you examples rather than just stating and owning your opinion in the first place.

Quote from: rawma;903473Really? That's pretty much claiming that there is an objective standard for dissociated. Perhaps you meant to say something else, about persuading you to abandon your subjective opinion, but you didn't. It's on you, not me, that you aren't consistent in what you have to say.

I don't see how that was claiming that there is an objective standard for disociation. And even if that can be round-about interpreted as me saying that (which I wasn't), I don't see how that trumps the other times I overtly said the exact opposite. I haven't changed anything. You are just reading something into that post that isn't there.

Quote from: rawma;903473Better to quote the actual statement than your later revision:
 You knew exactly what it was and you just didn't like it, but you preferred to waste people's time explaining and giving you examples rather than just stating and owning your opinion in the first place.

To be honest, I was surprised when people tried to actually define it. I didn't imagine that people would take it that way. I admit my wording in the first post was vague (though, I feel, understandable as "this existing is dumb"), but just a few posts after that I clarified to you saying "Why is it its own special, separate thing? That's what I don't understand." And then later saying "I meant it in a "What the fuck is this shit supposed to be? I don't even..." sort of way."

Actually re-reading that thread, it went like..

Me: What is this? (=This is dumb)
You: [Definition]
Me: Er...I just meant it's dumb.
You: [More explanation]
Me: No seriously. I knew that. I just meant it's dumb.
You: Why are you wasting my time?
Me: ???

If I can chime in a little.

For the most part (D&D is a big game, there are many exceptions to everything), hit points are an abstraction. A very bad abstraction (one that I like, because of the extreme simplicity), but an abstraction.

When you're hit with a sword, you lose hit points. The fact that you can't tell if you've taken a scratch, ruptured an internal organ, or sliced a muscle is because the abstraction is so weak...but it's an abstraction. Whatever the actual wound, as a player I know it's a wound, and thus I can figure I can do something about it by rest, seeking a medical practitioner, or cleric...even if the abstraction is terrible, I know my hit point loss is due to damage from a sword, and I respond reasonably to that.

Now let's consider the "sneak attack" mechanic as defined in 5e.

If you attack an enemy that's next to an ally, you do extra damage.

Why?

Is it because the enemy is distracted? If so, then mindless enemies shouldn't be affected, and super-genius (or multiheaded) enemies might not be affected, either.

Is it because the enemy has vulnerable points? If so, then enemies that have extra armor or lack vulnerable points shouldn't be affected.

Now we can rationalize about this being disassociated rather than abstracted, but now put yourself in the mind of player, being mauled by "sneak attack" damage.

Can he focus on the thing doing the damage, so he's not distracted? Nope.
Can he fight defensively or something, so as not to be so vulnerable? Nope.

The player can do *nothing* because the mechanic is so heavily disassociated from the game world. It's extra damage, more damage than before, because the rules say the damage is more, and that's that.

At least, that's my take on the difference between "abstracted" and "disassociated."

Quote from: Doom;903491Can he focus on the thing doing the damage, so he's not distracted? Nope.
Can he fight defensively or something, so as not to be so vulnerable? Nope.

The player can do *nothing* because the mechanic is so heavily disassociated from the game world. It's extra damage, more damage than before, because the rules say the damage is more, and that's that.

At least, that's my take on the difference between "abstracted" and "disassociated."

Interesting point, but my take on it is that the crux of association/dissociation is in who makes the decision. The character/player or only the player. And if there is no decison to be made (as in your example) then there can be no dissociation. There is only unrealism and abstraction.

In other words, in your example, the player isn't given a choice or a decision to make. It's preset. You just simply take the damage. No choice and no decision necessarily means that it is not a case of the player making a meta-level decision over the head of the character.

Quote from: Enlightened;903493Interesting point, but my take on it is that the crux of association/dissociation is in who makes the decision. The character/player or only the player. And if there is no decison to be made (as in your example) then there can be no dissociation. There is only unrealism and abstraction.

In other words, in your example, the player isn't given a choice or a decision to make. It's preset. You just simply take the damage. No choice and no decision necessarily means that it is not a case of the player making a meta-level decision over the head of the character.

Sometimes there are mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting, but there is no player-facing choice per-se.  Like tripping slimes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903494Sometimes there are mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting, but there is no player-facing choice per-se.  Like tripping slimes.

I see. I guess I've just been using the word differently.

To me, tripping slimes is unrealistic (and dumb) but not dissociative. The dissociative part of that is that you can only trip the slime once a day and it's the player who gets to determine when the slime was in the perfect once-a-day position to be tripped.

EDIT: I think I may need a new word, then, to describe what I don't like about a lot of the 5E mechanics. I have no problem with absraction, unrealism or even mechanics that are dissociated from the world as long as it is not the player who is deciding and controlling them. I prefer for the player's only interface with the game world to be the actions of their character. If the word "dissociative" includes more than just player meta-decisions, then I need a more specific word. Maybe I'll go with "player meta-decisions." It has a nice ring to it...

EDIT Part Deux: Actually, if you define dissociative as "mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting" then you get into what rawma was saying about them being objectively determinable intrinsic aspects.

Quote from: Enlightened;903478the other times I overtly said the exact opposite.

You're not really helping your case by pointing out your inconsistency; you posted a lot of times asserting that the mechanic under discussion was dissociated, without qualification. I only quoted the first one I found.

QuoteI admit my wording in the first post was vague

When you got multiple replies that clearly understood your first post as a request for examples, you should have clarified your meaning.

Quotebut just a few posts after that I clarified to you saying "Why is it its own special, separate thing? That's what I don't understand." And then later saying "I meant it in a "What the fuck is this shit supposed to be? I don't even..." sort of way."

Actually re-reading that thread, it went like..

Me: What is this? (=This is dumb)
You: [Definition]
Me: Er...I just meant it's dumb.

No; you saying "I don't understand" is not you saying that it's dumb; it's you saying you don't understand. And then you later revealed that you understood quite well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903494Sometimes there are mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting, but there is no player-facing choice per-se.  Like tripping slimes.

Can you point to games that actually explicitly include tripping slimes? Or is it just that rules that allow tripping don't exclude slimes? Are you demanding that all ramifications and special cases of every rule be made exhaustively and exhaustingly explicit? Rules should be viewed as incomplete with the GM responsible for applying them reasonably  in specific cases¹; any GM worth playing with should rule out tripping a slime.

Unless slimes in the setting are not entirely formless while fighting but have to move around on pseudopods and are more vulnerable and less mobile when knocked off them; sometimes the obvious bad rule may actually be a misunderstanding of the setting. Just saying "slime" or "troll" or "gorgon" or "gazebo" can convey different understandings to players; if owlbears are part owl and part bear, then bugbears should be part bug and part bear, right?

¹ Well, that's the usual attitude around here.

Quote from: Enlightened;903495EDIT Part Deux: Actually, if you define dissociative as "mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting" then you get into what rawma was saying about them being objectively determinable intrinsic aspects.

I don't see any need for a fancy word for "bad rule", especially when it conceals why the rule is bad even from the person using that word. I was responding to people (not just Enlightened) who seemed to be saying that "dissociated" (in the sense of player choice that the character could not understand) was objective and intrinsic (at least in the case of D&D 5e battlemasters). Mechanical effects that contradict the setting are just bad rules (or bad setting).

I don't think I've ever encountered a mechanic for which I couldn't come up with a player facing interpretation²; it is certainly a matter of personal preference whether you immediately rail against how dumb a given system is rather than first expending some effort to come up with an explanation of how it might actually make sense. I would be interested in considering possible counterexamples, if anyone wants to propose some.

² in fairness, I play fantasy games, so I can generally fall back on "magic" or "will of the gods". But it's rarely necessary, except to dismiss a debate that's worn out its welcome, like "why can't wizards wear armor?" (or more recently, druids and metal armor).

Quote from: rawma;903784You're not really helping your case by pointing out your inconsistency; you posted a lot of times asserting that the mechanic under discussion was dissociated, without qualification. I only quoted the first one I found.

There was no inconsistincy. You read into a post something that wasn't there. That's all. Do you actually think that I changed my mind mid-thread? Is that what you actually think? :)

Is your arguement that, I didn't just simply not mention it in those posts because it wasn't important to the point, the omission means I must have thought one way at that point and then changed my mind later. Is that what you're trying to say I did?

Quote from: rawma;903784When you got multiple replies that clearly understood your first post as a request for examples, you should have clarified your meaning.

Only you and one other person tried to give a direct explanation and I clarified in my very next post. I clarified as soon as I got back to the thread. So I did clarfiy at the soonest opportunity.

Quote from: rawma;903784No; you saying "I don't understand" is not you saying that it's dumb; it's you saying you don't understand. And then you later revealed that you understood quite well.

It's a pretty common figure of speech. Seriously, do you have aspergers or something that makes you take all language literally or something? The meaning of a particular phrase is not always literal. I admit my phrasing was easy to take wrong (as two people seemed to have), but it was in the vein of the "What is this I don't even.." thing. Do you take that one literally too?

Also, if you want to keep talking about this, please necro the other thread so we can stop shitting up this one with it.

Quote from: rawma;903784I don't think I've ever encountered a mechanic for which I couldn't come up with a player facing interpretation²; it is certainly a matter of personal preference whether you immediately rail against how dumb a given system is rather than first expending some effort to come up with an explanation of how it might actually make sense. I would be interested in considering possible counterexamples, if anyone wants to propose some.

Did you mean "character facing." It seeming player facing was the original issue.

And I personally have decided to go with your suggestion up-thread of considering them to be a form of magic. Done.

And as for railing against it for being dumb, I didn't. My first post was a question "How do I need to think about it for it to be character facing?"

Quote from: Doom;903491If I can chime in a little.

For the most part (D&D is a big game, there are many exceptions to everything), hit points are an abstraction. A very bad abstraction (one that I like, because of the extreme simplicity), but an abstraction.

When you're hit with a sword, you lose hit points. The fact that you can't tell if you've taken a scratch, ruptured an internal organ, or sliced a muscle is because the abstraction is so weak...but it's an abstraction. Whatever the actual wound, as a player I know it's a wound, and thus I can figure I can do something about it by rest, seeking a medical practitioner, or cleric...even if the abstraction is terrible, I know my hit point loss is due to damage from a sword, and I respond reasonably to that.

Now let's consider the "sneak attack" mechanic as defined in 5e.

If you attack an enemy that's next to an ally, you do extra damage.

Why?

Is it because the enemy is distracted? If so, then mindless enemies shouldn't be affected, and super-genius (or multiheaded) enemies might not be affected, either.

Is it because the enemy has vulnerable points? If so, then enemies that have extra armor or lack vulnerable points shouldn't be affected.

Now we can rationalize about this being disassociated rather than abstracted, but now put yourself in the mind of player, being mauled by "sneak attack" damage.

Can he focus on the thing doing the damage, so he's not distracted? Nope.
Can he fight defensively or something, so as not to be so vulnerable? Nope.

The player can do *nothing* because the mechanic is so heavily disassociated from the game world. It's extra damage, more damage than before, because the rules say the damage is more, and that's that.

At least, that's my take on the difference between "abstracted" and "disassociated."

Sneak attack didn't work on enemies that lacked vital points, like undead and golems (and super-geniuses should have a class feature negating it, if they've learned to exploit that quality in combat:)). Did they change it in 5e to remove that restriction?
If so, it was probably because a big slew of whin...I mean, players objected to a major class feature not working against a given kind of enemy;).

Quote from: AsenRG;903817Sneak attack didn't work on enemies that lacked vital points, like undead and golems (and super-geniuses should have a class feature negating it, if they've learned to exploit that quality in combat:)). Did they change it in 5e to remove that restriction?
If so, it was probably because a big slew of whin...I mean, players objected to a major class feature not working against a given kind of enemy;).

In 5e Sneak attack has some different requirements.

QuoteYou know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack
if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

With the added quirk of.

QuoteYou do not need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.

So normally you have to somehow gain advantage on the target to be able to trigger sneak attack. Such as by attacking from concealment, flanking, etc.

But if someone else is annoying the target then you can capitalize on it and make your attack.

So you can put an dagger in a skeletons skull or slash a jello cube while its trying to eat your buddy. Dont have the MM handy so not sure if theres any monster that cant be sneaky pokied now.

So its more like dirty fighting, teamwork, cunning, opportunity and whatnod. Taking advantage of those little openings during the action.

Though Im pretty sure a knife sticking out of your ribs all of a sudden is anything but subtle. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;903829Though Im pretty sure a knife sticking out of your ribs all of a sudden is anything but subtle. :rolleyes:

Com'on, getting the knife IN to the ribs can be subtle, it's the result that isn't.

Quote from: Enlightened;903800Do you actually think that I changed my mind mid-thread?

No, the problem is that you assert something objective that people can discuss and potentially rebut, and only after a lot of effort do you reveal that it's just your taste. De gustibus non disputandum est; I resent the bait and switch. Either tell people more quickly that your statement is entirely a personal taste and there's no point to even presenting any counter argument, or consider the responses made from a more objective point of view even if it's never going to be to your taste.

QuoteDid you mean "character facing." It seeming player facing was the original issue.

Yes, my mistake there. (But like the theoretical physicist I can probably turn it upside down and make sense of it that way, too.)

QuoteAnd I personally have decided to go with your suggestion up-thread of considering them to be a form of magic. Done.

Welcome to the dark side. :D

QuoteAnd as for railing against it for being dumb, I didn't. My first post was a question "How do I need to think about it for it to be character facing?"

I didn't say you did, if you read more carefully; I said doing so before looking for a satisfactory explanation was a personal preference.

Quote from: rawma;903931No, the problem is that you assert something objective that people can discuss and potentially rebut, and only after a lot of effort do you reveal that it's just your taste.

Again, my very first post is asking about how I need to see them for them to be associative. That is as far from an assertion of objectivity as you can get.

The whole rest of the conversation has been about the distinction between abstract, unrealistic and dissociative.

I can't help but think we are reading two different conversations.

Also, there are two things being discussed: The definition of dissociative and whether or not a particular mechanic is dissociative.

The definition I am going by (which seems not to be universal) is dissociative = a mechanic that requires a meta decision by the player above the head of the character. It is possible to objectively determine whether or not a particular player's mental approach to a mechanic is in line with that definition, but that is the only objective thing involved in this.

Another 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. These mechanics are also dissociative as presented and remain so until a player comes up with their own personal explanation, which is easy or hard depending on the particular mechanic and the player involved. My comments about "X is dissociative where are Y isn't" are based on whether or not there was a pre-given explanation. They were not meant to mean that these mechanics are permanently locked into one or the other (associative/dissociative). I didn't feel that was necessary to call out because I was under the assumption that other people knew that giving knowledge and control to the character is all that is required to re-associate something.

Quote from: rawma;903931I didn't say you did, if you read more carefully; I said doing so before looking for a satisfactory explanation was a personal preference.

Sure, that's what you literally said, but as I said before, language isn't always literal.

My 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."

I am able to look past the literal wording to see the implied meanings. :)  ...Can you?*

*(For example, here I'm not actually asking you if you can or not. I'm implying that your points are based on a misreading of my posts due to taking certain common non-literal phrasings literally. Do you see how it works?)

We're into this territory now, I think.
(http://orig09.deviantart.net/e355/f/2011/031/e/d/mario_vs__wario__slap_fight_by_mb111-d38i8rt.jpg)

They just posted the new design survey on the WotC website, and off-handedly mentioned that the battle-master is a "sore spot" in the current 5e paradigm. They keep re-applying its mechanics to more narrowly focused archetypes like the monster-hunter though. Not sure what to make of it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903985They just posted the new design survey on the WotC website, and off-handedly mentioned that the battle-master is a "sore spot" in the current 5e paradigm. They keep re-applying its mechanics to more narrowly focused archetypes like the monster-hunter though. Not sure what to make of it.

Because morons who cant even parse the basics of "other classes can do this too. This guy just can occasionally do it better" or are just bitching to bitch. Or because its 5e.

etc ad nausium

Quote from: Omega;903989Because morons who cant even parse the basics of "other classes can do this too. This guy just can occasionally do it better" or are just bitching to bitch. Or because its 5e.

etc ad nausium

Because some people don't like Fighters having nice things and agency? :-P

Quote from: Batman;904048Because some people don't like Fighters having nice things and agency? :-P

I 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'.

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'.

The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904137The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

I dunno, to be honest. Most of the the people I've talked to, when the M/CD issue comes up, feel the shift was very prominent with the beginning of 3.0 and continued mostly with 3.5 and Pathfinder. And while I admit that my gaming experience is very limited when it comes to TSR-D&D systems, the few times I played a Fighter I didn't feel the same way. Could be because we weren't high level. Could be because spellcasting was very long and that spells were so few, far between. But going into 3e and playing later character levels (11+ but I've seen broken shenanigans as early as 6th) ALL the limitations that were placed on spellcasters, how to interact with them, and the saving throw progressions were all sorts of wonky. Add in too many specifics, poorly designed feat trees, limitations like Full-Attack actions vs. Standard Attack actions, the codification of interesting combat stuff (Cleave, Tripping, Running people over, disarming all requiring feats to even be worth the attempt) and hugely inflated Hit Points and it's not terribly difficult to see why weapon-based characters were significantly hampered in that era. Further, I feel 4e is a direct result from a LOT of feedback to the designers for more balance, especially in this area hence the AEDU structure and the fact that most non-Ritual spells all have limited duration.

Then 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.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904137The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

To be completely fair, I use that argument.  But I don't claim it as fact, it's PURELY anecdotal, no facts, it's just that every time something comes up in a D&D style game that may, even if it's more of a placebo than actual, boost the Fighting Man there's this massive outcry against it.  And the counter is usually something to the effect that 'it'll unbalance the wizard/fighter dynamic.'  

The Fighter's Handbook for 2e, Combat and Tactics for 2e, The Book of Nine Swords for 3e, the At-Will, Encounter and Daily mechanic of 4e in which every class got, but people blasted it because it 'ruined' the wizard by making everyone 'the same' (But that's because none of those detractors ever bothered to read the books, simply happy to regurgitate the internet's 'wisdom' like baby birds in a nest.)  All of those got a massive backlash when they came out for trying to change the Fighter in a way that MIGHT be a power increase.

And 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'?

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. :D

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Enlightened;904264Barbarian 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 am surprised that this would be at all controversial for you (or tenbones, later on). Rage is obviously some powered up super adrenaline rush, making the barbarian effectively stronger (more damage and advantage on Strength checks and saves) and more enduring (damage reduction) (but unable to focus on concentration spells or casting, if they can do spells). Barbarians learn to bring this on, but it takes a heavy toll on their rage glands (or whatever organ), and they can't bring it on effectively after the number of rages determined by their level (they can still get angry; they just don't get any benefit in combat). Read the Wikipedia page on Berserkers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker). It suggests other possible causes; I would rather not make it dependent on genetics (anyone can multiclass later as Barbarian if they have the stats to do so) or ingesting something (could it be stolen or lost?) except if their initiation involved some shaman-brewed potion that opens up whatever rage gland is involved, and they don't need to take it again ever. The article does have the berserker unable to distinguish friend and foe, which is not in the D&D class (it's usually a cooperative game, and if it's not they can just attack whatever they feel like without a mechanic).

So, it's got an analog with a real world thing; we can argue whether the abstraction is good or not (that it lasts exactly ten rounds at most is probably the weakest point for me, but in fairness most players don't count rounds that accurately and so are surprised when it runs out, and lots of fights don't go that many rounds or they lose the rage earlier by not taking damage or having a target to attack). Can a barbarian withhold it to save it for a later more significant fight? Of course; in the same way they could decide not to dull their best battleaxe on weak opponents, and knowing that if they use it now they would have fatigue of the rage glands later and have to do without.

The fix would overpower the barbarian or require nerfing the effects of rage, for game balance reasons.

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

At least you're up front about it now. :)

QuoteCleric, 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.

Why not the "motes" of energy of differing sizes, or differing strengths of spirits that the caster "connects" to in rest and releases for power when casting? That seems fully associated to me; the caster can feel the power of each or its absence and know how much they have left (and might refer to them by level or by poetic names; using the latter would get tiresome for most players). I think I prefer this non-Vancian casting style (we pretty much house-ruled something similar all the way back in 1e, because selecting particular spells slowed down the start of an adventure too much). I think a common pool of spell points would sacrifice some of the flavor of D&D casting; given time and accepting some inefficiency, sorcerers can use sorcery points to convert spell slots of various levels into spell slots of a more desired level.

(Warlocks recover their fewer spell slots on a short rest; the magic is presumably granted by their patron rather than just their own resting. Also, some eldritch invocations give them an additional spell they can cast once, recovered by long rest; they can't use the implicit spell slot for any other purpose like Paladin smiting or Druid healing in wild shape or any other spell. So each such invocation is a separate supply of magical power.)

(Re "prepared" spells: divine casters can mostly choose from the entire list for their class; wizards can choose a subset of those in their spellbook; other arcane casters generally only know a small list that are all prepared, and have limited opportunities to expand the list or swap a spell out.)

QuoteFighter 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?

The mechanics of features like this are quite clear; the character uses this as a bonus action when they choose, can't do it again until after a long rest, and knows if it is available. A two weapon fighter who would rather attack with both weapons might put this off to use the bonus action for their second weapon; if you only have a scratch you might put this off. A half-orc might choose to delay this until after using Relentless Endurance, although not without significant risk. The game world meaning is given: "You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm." The well of stamina is filled (ready for use) or empty (used it already), and the fighter can sense its state, but it being empty has no other impact on the character's hit points or abilities. If you're OK with D&D hit points, which deplete but have no negative effect until they are all gone, I don't see why there would be any obstacle to understanding this from the character's point of view.

QuoteFighter 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."

Aside from the name, there's unfortunately no explanation of what this represents (as I noted earlier). But since it's recovered by resting, it must be another limited well of stamina (which grows with level, since you can do this two or three times at the right level). The main reason the fighter would hold back on it is to save it for something worse that's obviously going to happen; if they get bitten by a giant spider and there's a green dragon in the same fight, they save Indomitable for the expected dragon breath and just suffer the spider's poison. The fix is again too powerful relative to game balance.

(To quibble slightly, recovery is stated to be not "once per day" but "recovered after a long rest"; the former might cause me problems for physical things in terms of the timing - why would you recover it at dawn every day no matter what shift you work? That's OK for magic, since recharging might follow the movement of the sun, but would be weird for a non-magical ability like these. It works out very similarly, since long rest can be taken at most once per day, but long rest is triggered by the character doing something, which might even be interrupted.)

QuoteBattle 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.

Another limited well of stamina (like turtles, it's limited wells of stamina all the way down), but I have to admit that this one is probably the worst, since that well of stamina can be drawn on for such disparate things (interacting with allies or enemies, striking harder, striking quickly in reaction, striking more accurately). I can accept it as a mostly mental, slightly physical stamina (you have to have focus for any maneuver, and project some physical force even if you're only commanding an ally to attack).

Apropos of the original topic of the thread, I think the battle master bothers me because I cannot imagine playing a battle master without rationing out this stamina in a way that doesn't feel very masterful. The champion just rushes out there and hits as much as possible, hoping for extra criticals; the monk has enough Ki points to do meaningful things, some of which have a prerequisite (adding on a Ki point to convert a strike to a stunning strike, which can really swing a combat dramatically). I suggested an alternative that I think has a better feel ("charging" up maneuvers, subject to solving the balance problem) but I might even prefer the current system if there were fewer initial superiority dice but a chance of regaining one on dramatic events (reducing an opponent to 0 HP, rolling a critical hit, being targeted by a significant number of attacks, etc) and thus creating an incentive for the battle master to be in the center of things. As it stands, it feels like there are too few superiority dice, but I haven't played one or even with one much, so it may play better than it reads.

Quote(The Monk's Ki seems close to what I meant about "Motes of energy" above.)

This is the closest to the usual game implementation of spell points. Note that it is magic ("The Magic of Ki", page 76 of PHB).

QuoteMonk 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).

This could be almost the same kind of stamina as the fighter's Second Wind, except that it is recovered on a long rest, or perhaps it's like the healer feat, which can only benefit a given character once until that character takes a rest (although here it affects only the monk). The monk has to meditate to recover Ki points and probably this feature as well (although it doesn't say that meditation is necessary here).

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

The rogue would be the only interesting case remaining; the rest are casters of one sort or another. Note that the rogue has no recharging features (except for the caster Arcane Trickster), and that seems to be the common thread of dissociated mechanics: not described adequately in game world terms, and the player has a choice of using or conserving it. I'm still waiting to see an example of a dissociated mechanic that doesn't involve a limited resource.

QuoteInspiration: 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.

The inspired character uses it up to achieve a noteworthy success (maybe; it might be for nothing, since the advantage die might roll badly). For my DMing, the character has drawn positive attention from some appropriate being (the DM, of course, but the character interprets that as a god or nature or whatever), and knows that it can be called upon to give advantage once (or that its blessing can be passed on to another character). Yes, it's a reward for playing in some interesting way (or compensation for the bad effects of sticking with some flaw of the character), so really a reward for the player, but characters live in a world where gods and other powerful beings do arbitrary things, so not really outside character understanding. An example is in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner:
   

QuoteA spring of love gushed from my heart,
And I blessed them unaware:
Sure my kind saint took pity on me,
And I blessed them unaware.

The self-same moment I could pray;
And from my neck so free
The Albatross fell off, and sank
Like lead into the sea.

QuoteHit 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.

There are effectively two pools of hit points; the regular hit points, and an additional random amount (exact points are unknown, since the hit point dice have to be rolled when used). The character during a short rest can dig down into the deeper stamina (the hit dice) and convert them into regular hit points, but knows that it will take longer to recover the hit dice (since not all return on a long rest). The short rest is putting pressure on cuts to stop the bleeding, stretching strained muscles gently, massaging feeling back into numbed extremities, and generally "walking it off"; using hit dice might analogize to things a boxer's cutman would do between rounds (which might have long term health effects). It's more complicated than just hit points, but not really harder to understand in terms of the game world. I'm more bothered by some of the other implications of hit points (like knowing my druid can fall any distance and walk away), but I don't think it's dissociated.

The fix is not terrible; but there's a point at which the last hit die might be partially wasted, and the character has a choice of trading long term stamina for short term stamina at a loss, or risking being just under 100%, and should be allowed to make that choice, I think.

Quote from: rawma;904375Barbarians learn to bring this on, but it takes a heavy toll on their rage glands (or whatever organ), and they can't bring it on effectively after the number of rages determined by their level (they can still get angry; they just don't get any benefit in combat).

I don't know if I can wrap my head around the idea of a "rage gland" that gets tired.

 

Quote from: rawma;904375Can a barbarian withhold it to save it for a later more significant fight? Of course; in the same way they could decide not to dull their best battleaxe on weak opponents, and knowing that if they use it now they would have fatigue of the rage glands later and have to do without.

So they know they have a "rage gland" and they can feel how much juice is left in it? The whole thing just doesn't resonant with me.

Quote from: rawma;904375Why not the "motes" of energy of differing sizes, or differing strengths of spirits that the caster "connects" to in rest and releases for power when casting? That seems fully associated to me; the caster can feel the power of each or its absence and know how much they have left (and might refer to them by level or by poetic names; using the latter would get tiresome for most players).

This one isn't too hard for me to accept, but it does require a bit of mental gymnastics (for me at least).

Quote from: rawma;904375The game world meaning is given: "You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm." The well of stamina is filled (ready for use) or empty (used it already), and the fighter can sense its state, but it being empty has no other impact on the character's hit points or abilities. If you're OK with D&D hit points, which deplete but have no negative effect until they are all gone, I don't see why there would be any obstacle to understanding this from the character's point of view.

So, it's a tangible feelable "well of stamina" that can be volitionally tapped by the character?

Quote from: rawma;904375But since it's recovered by resting, it must be another limited well of stamina (which grows with level, since you can do this two or three times at the right level). The main reason the fighter would hold back on it is to save it for something worse that's obviously going to happen; if they get bitten by a giant spider and there's a green dragon in the same fight, they save Indomitable for the expected dragon breath and just suffer the spider's poison.

So this one is also a tangible feelable resource within the character? Do people in world have a name for it? Can two fighters talk about how one of them should be the one to face the giant spider because the other one doesn't have his [something] available?

Quote from: rawma;904375For my DMing, the character has drawn positive attention from some appropriate being (the DM, of course, but the character interprets that as a god or nature or whatever), and knows that it can be called upon to give advantage once (or that its blessing can be passed on to another character).

That's a good idea. I would then only award it for doing things that benefit that god, but I like the idea.

Quote from: rawma;904375The short rest is putting pressure on cuts to stop the bleeding, stretching strained muscles gently, massaging feeling back into numbed extremities, and generally "walking it off"; using hit dice might analogize to things a boxer's cutman would do between rounds (which might have long term health effects). It's more complicated than just hit points, but not really harder to understand in terms of the game world.

Actually, thinking of Hit Dice for healing as "Time spend tending to minor wounds" is an interesting idea. It's still weird from a dissociated point of view, but it's an interesting idea.

Quote from: Omega;904352Which 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.

Real Wizard players don't play the HP drain game.  Real Wizards hit foes with Save or Die/Suck effects.  Which is why this confuses me.  Also, the Battle Master, interesting?  It's a clunky bolt-on hodge-podge from the reviled Book of Nine Sword with 4e styled nomenclature.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904247So 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.

The Monk and Warlock do in a way.
The Paladin and Ranger do in a really roundabout way that I do not like. All their tricks were shuffled to spells in the form of the Smites and Volleys. Why?

But as I've been saying since playtest. The cantrips needed to be all dropped by at least one die stage. And reduced by one die in the playtest case because in the playtest the combat cantrips topped out at level 20 all at 5d8! While they did at least listen and reduce the number to 4 dice. They added in MORE cantrips, some that did a d10 of damage! WTF WOTC?

But as it stands. Oddly enough with 5e. With the right setup a Battle Master Fighter can get close to the wizards output. A a little effort, a little luck, and alot of patience and they can actually exceed that.

I think one problem was a ham handed attempt to "balance" the classes by only looking at the "DPS" of the classes and someone deciding that the wizard had to be as combat capable as the fighter at every step. On top of their versatility. The other problem was catering to caster class players whi whinned incessantly about being so weak at the start. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WEAK YOU MORON!

As mentioned many a time. I play wizards and other caster types alot. And this escalation of the casters side bugs me. ALOT!

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?

Its 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.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904380Real Wizard players don't play the HP drain game.  Real Wizards hit foes with Save or Die/Suck effects.  Which is why this confuses me.  Also, the Battle Master, interesting?  It's a clunky bolt-on hodge-podge from the reviled Book of Nine Sword with 4e styled nomenclature.

Save or die spells suck. They tend to fail far more than they succeed even in 5e. Power Word Kill only effects up to 100 HP. And just one creature. Monsters in 5e very quickly start to exceed 100 HP. And as pointed out in the other threads. There arent that many of them and their use is dubious at best.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904234In 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.

Embarassingly enough, somebody caught me twice in a *row* with the same trick move yesterday: large roundshield thrust up in toward my face, forcing my sword outside and blocking my vision, his sword looping low past my out-of-position buckler and rising to catch me on the nipple. Ouch.

Of course, if it had been sharp, I'd be dead, and so he'd have been catching two *different* opponents with the same trick move. But in practice, getting taken in by an opponent's attack, even if you're aware of exactly what he did, doesn't mean you'll spot it coming the next time or have a good idea of how to avoid it or be able to execute your avoidance given the tactical situation.

Quote from: Naburimannu;904419Embarassingly enough, somebody caught me twice in a *row* with the same trick move yesterday: large roundshield thrust up in toward my face, forcing my sword outside and blocking my vision, his sword looping low past my out-of-position buckler and rising to catch me on the nipple. Ouch.

Of course, if it had been sharp, I'd be dead, and so he'd have been catching two *different* opponents with the same trick move. But in practice, getting taken in by an opponent's attack, even if you're aware of exactly what he did, doesn't mean you'll spot it coming the next time or have a good idea of how to avoid it or be able to execute your avoidance given the tactical situation.

Off Topic...ish, that's the thing that always hung me up on 4e's Fighting Classes and their Daily thing.

Which is why a set of moves or abilities that require a skill roll or level of success result to invoke or use has always been a better way to do it then "I choose to succeed at this now, understanding I won't be able to later."  It just doesn't work with something physical and non-supernatural,  unlike spells, where you can kind of buy it because it comes with it's own science that has no bearing in reality.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904427Which is why a set of moves or abilities that require a skill roll or level of success result to invoke or use has always been a better way to do it then "I choose to succeed at this now, understanding I won't be able to later."  It just doesn't work with something physical and non-supernatural,  unlike spells, where you can kind of buy it because it comes with it's own science that has no bearing in reality.

Would argue that it's more because a lot of magic don't rely on randomness, but automatically work, even when they fail to stick.

I would maintain that having access to those maneuvers - whether it's a skill check, a hit-roll, whatever - is better than having it segregated off into one sub-class at the expense of *all* other classes and sub-classes as a general rule.

Quote from: tenbones;904440I would maintain that having access to those maneuvers - whether it's a skill check, a hit-roll, whatever - is better than having it segregated off into one sub-class at the expense of *all* other classes and sub-classes as a general rule.

You mean the stuff that characters can overall do anyhow? Disarm, distract, trip, feint, goad, lunge, menace etc. Theres only like 3 out of the maneuvers that cant be pulled off in some way by any PC in some manner via RPing and stat checks. (Command and Maneuver come to mind.)

So wimper some more about these "problems". :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;904465You mean the stuff that characters can overall do anyhow? Disarm, distract, trip, feint, goad, lunge, menace etc. Theres only like 3 out of the maneuvers that cant be pulled off in some way by any PC in some manner via RPing and stat checks. (Command and Maneuver come to mind.)

So wimper some more about these "problems". :rolleyes:

Oh you mean this whole time where you've been talking about people "bitching" and "whimpering" about the Battlemaster, you've been talking about me? LOLOLOL. (I was wondering why you were being so vitriolic - and who was it being directed at? Go figure) Well I guess you're not really reading or understanding my posts despite my better efforts to explain what "these problems" are. Because as I've said *repeatedly* they're not just about the Battlemaster. In fact, I'm not the only one saying it, not here, or other places. Your bar for "bitching" is set pretty low. You should adjust that, as I'm merely having a discussion about fiary-tale elf-games while I do my real work - what you want to inject into it, is of course, on you, I'll gladly cede you've apparently got more emotionally invested in this than myself, but I'd appreciate talking about it without the passive-aggression.

That said... your claim is off from the start. You're ignoring a very important point: I'm saying not only are they locked away intrinsically, their expressions in how the Battlemaster does them is clunky and bad design *IN CONTEXT* with the rest of the system. Please do us both the favor of having an honest discussion about the point. Since this is about the Battlemaster - I'll take you up on your claim.


"stuff that characters can overall do" -

Basic Actions- Attack, Grapple, Shove, Dodge, Dash, Disengage, Hide, Help, Ready, Search, Cast a Spell, Use an Object.

Battlemaster Manuevers: Commander’s Strike, Disarming Attack, Distracting Strike, Evasive Footwork, Feinting Attack, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Menacing Attack, Parry, Precision Attack, Pushing Attack, Rally, Riposte, Sweeping Attack, Trip Attack.

In the interests of intellectual honesty - If you're suggesting these two lists look the same, to you, you need your eyes checked and/or you're having the wrong conversation. You know which classes get all of these abilities built into their respective sub-classes outside of the ones *YOU* cited according to the RAW? Precisely none.

If you're going to say - "Use Feats, Optional Rules, etc." then you're being disingenuous because not everyone plays the same way at every table - hence they're optional rules, and if you did me the courtesy of actually reading my posts before saying "people are bitching", you'll see I'm discussing how I would *fix* this problem with minimal mechanical interference with what exists in context of the system. This thread is about the Battlemaster. If you're having this conversation based on your woo-woo "GM-fiat" - well then you're not participating honestly in the same conversation since we're talking about the class design, not what you think GM's can/can't do at the table. Or maybe you're just being obtuse on purpose?

Quote from: tenbones;904476Oh you mean this whole time where you've been talking about people "bitching" and "whimpering" about the Battlemaster, you've been talking about me? LOLOLOL. (I was wondering why you were being so vitriolic - and who was it being directed at? Go figure)

See. I knoew you could. Keep struggling.

Quote from: Enlightened;904376I don't know if I can wrap my head around the idea of a "rage gland" that gets tired.

So they know they have a "rage gland" and they can feel how much juice is left in it? The whole thing just doesn't resonant with me.

You can call it the adrenal gland, if you want; I think that's an actual thing in anatomy (maybe the Butcher will be kind enough to correct me if I'm wrong). I assume that someone who has voluntary control to cause the adrenal gland to go into crazy enough overdrive for a minute to get (more or less) +4 Strength (and resistance to physical damage) would have some limit as to how much they could do it without damaging themselves.

(Whether they know they can safely rage again because they can feel the state of their body (I'd probably rule that way) or have internalized the safe limits taught to them in barbarian training doesn't matter a lot; the latter case could let you trick a barbarian into hurting themselves in D&D by casting a spell to erase their memory of using their last rage earlier in the day and then goading them into exceeding that limit. Whether it could work would be a DM ruling. Apropos of that possibility, consider the Overchannel feature of the Evocation Wizard; they can get maximum damage on a spell no higher than 5th level, but if they do it again before a long rest they suffer significant necrotic damage which increases with every repeated use. Would that be a better model for a limit on rage uses and perhaps other limited use features?)

I assume you did see my reference to the Wikipedia article about berserkers, an actual real world thing corresponding to barbarian rage? Can I also interest you in pages on hysterical strength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength) and excited delirium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium)? The latter appears particularly relevant, given that it is said to include resistance to pain and superhuman strength. (Whether they exist in the real world or not, people think they do, and that's good enough for them to appear in a fantasy world, and the cause can be switched from whatever in the real world to barbarian training, which could also negate some of the negative properties that non-barbarians might experience.)

QuoteThis one isn't too hard for me to accept, but it does require a bit of mental gymnastics (for me at least).

Sign by the dungeon entrance: "you must have THIS MUCH imagination to adventure in this genre" with an arrow pointing to the Papers and Paychecks game world next door for those who don't measure up.  ;)

QuoteSo, it's a tangible feelable "well of stamina" that can be volitionally tapped by the character?

So this one is also a tangible feelable resource within the character? Do people in world have a name for it? Can two fighters talk about how one of them should be the one to face the giant spider because the other one doesn't have his [something] available?

It's unfortunate that the fighter in particular has, yes, something like seven separate wells of limited stamina (HP, Hit Dice, exhaustion, second wind, action surge, indomitable and battle master superiority dice). You know, I could sit here lifting heavy weights with my right arm until it's really really tired and my left arm would still be good to go, so it's not like it's an impossible concept that different parts of you can be tired separately and that you can tell which is which. Once you accept that that's true in some degree in the real world, then it's only a problem with pushing the idea too far in the game to be considered realistic, and given that a 20th level barbarian could have 345 hit points, I don't think you can argue that other non-magical class features are unrealistic without looking silly.

What do they call it with each other? Most likely "Second Wind" and "Action Surge" and "Indomitable", or at least that's what it translates back to for the player's benefit. Among themselves? Energy, reserves, focus, kick, pop, power, puissance, force, might, vigor, flair, whatever. (Don't you own a thesaurus?) Probably in some fantasy language that is totally not English at all. Or "you know, that thing I did in practice where I hit you repeatedly all at once, but it's really tiring?" They could call every different well of stamina "level", because that word can mean any number of things in D&D. Or maybe they call it Ki just to annoy the monk characters in the party.

I don't know if I would be any happier if indomitable, action surge, second wind and battle master maneuvers all were fed from the same well of stamina, provided this could be balanced; that's what the monk does with Ki, except wholeness of body (the one "long rest" feature) (so indomitable would still be its own thing for fighters if D&D went that way). That the fighter can't trade off among his abilities makes the class more distinctive and provides a different challenge for playing.

QuoteThat's a good idea. I would then only award it for doing things that benefit that god, but I like the idea.

You understand that if you're the DM you're free to not give it at all? It would be disappointing if you didn't feel that players improving the game experience for the whole group was a benefit to you as DM, but you could give it only to players who slipped you some cash and laughed convincingly at your jokes. The character still thinks it's divine whim, or (as with the Ancient Mariner's kind saint) intercession on their behalf by their guardian angel.

QuoteActually, thinking of Hit Dice for healing as "Time spend tending to minor wounds" is an interesting idea. It's still weird from a dissociated point of view, but it's an interesting idea.

Sure; my suggestion for Hit Dice was more "questionable practices by a cutman that you have to recuperate from later at length and for which there's a limit to their repeated effectiveness" but as long as you accept that "tending to minor wounds" has diminishing returns that eventually fall beneath 1 HP, that's reasonable and, I think, associated. After you've done strenuous physical exertion and you are out of breath and your heart is hammering and you have a stitch in your side, can't you recover enough to undertake some more exertion if you sit down in the shade, sip some water and visualize a calm scene and so on? That would be a short rest, since it's not clear that you gained HP, but maybe if you wrap an ankle and your coach is also giving you a rousing pep talk in the locker room at half time, thus invoking their bardic song (well, pep talk) of rest.... :D

I'm still searching for a dissociated mechanic that's not based on managing a limited resource that the character (allegedly) cannot understand. One idea I had was about initiative; consider the battle master B (back on topic! :)) acting just after enemy A and just before enemy C (both with high Dexterity and AC but low Strength) and many allied melee character D,E,F,etc acting after C, and able to engage either. B can use a Trip Attack¹ on either and have a good chance of success; tripping C is almost pointless, because they will immediately stand up (being the next to act) and have lost only half of their movement (and suffered disadvantage for any additional melee attack by B), while tripping A is better strategy -- the rest of the party can get advantage on melee attacks against A (although disadvantage on ranged attacks) until A finally acts and stands up. So how does the character B understand the initiative order and the tactical advantage for the party of tripping A? Invoking my superpower of Explaining Such Things To My Own Satisfaction, I conclude that clearly A, having just acted, is temporarily but visibly a little overextended and out of position (which slowly diminishes until they next act) while C is poised for action and can negate tripping almost immediately. So, I say it's still associated. (Neither player nor character may know when C acts in the first round, only that they haven't yet, so this might work more clearly in later rounds.)

¹ it doesn't really matter that the Trip Attack has limited uses; substitute a Moon Druid in Dire Wolf form, which can knock an enemy prone on every attack, if you prefer.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Omega;905084Lets see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London is training Battlemasters, the colonies are training Champions.



** All sorts of caveats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Batman;905155The Champion is fine by design because getting critical hits more often is going to increase your DPR, more so than attempting different combat maneuvers that aren't always beneficial all the time.

I am not so sure on that. The Champion goes gradually from a 1-in-20 chance of a crit to a 3-in-20. I compared the Battle Master, Wizard and Champion and the Champion triggers only 3 times compared to the Battle Masters eventual 6 uses. The Champion though get essentially regeneration/super endurance late in the game. And also allows you to trigger the Great Weapon feat's bonus attack potentially more often.

Havent done the math but at a guess they may be fairly close in output. But eventually the Champion may still be standing after the rest have fallen.

Lots of interesting dynamics in 5e that have yet to explore.

Quote from: tenbones;905160Wow someone is mad about someone not liking his elf-game. There's a shock. I feel so... "punted" LOL.

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

Mad? Sorry to burst your fragile ego but... No. Not really at all.

I've run round this enough times and you keep repeating the same tired false screed over and over. So really its you who arent talking about the topic. Try again please while we punt you some more.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;905214When every class assumes the role of a fighter there isn't really much point in a fighter class anymore. That archetype has become assumed in every individual who becomes an adventurer. A fighter archetype has no reason to exist unless it is better at fighting than every other archetype. This is directly at odds with the "everyone must be equally good at battle" paradigm that is pervasive in the game today. Those who bitch and moan about the fighter not being allowed to have nice things often don't stop to realize that it was the other classes who took those things away, and plugging in wuxia powers for the fighter in an attempt to return them does nothing but transform the genre of the game from heroic fantasy to heroic fantasy superheroes. The classic fighter archetype cannot be restored by heaping more mechanics on it.

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

"When everyone is super. No one will be."

And this was one of the things we argued bitterly with WOTC over during playtest. The caster classes were even more powerful with cantrips alone and it was absurd. We got it reigned in some. But I still argue that the casters need to be curbed further.

Some observations.

The Champion, then Warrior, in the playtest got their 18-20 crit bonus at 7th level instead of 15th.And at 15th level their criticals now caused some sort of effect based on the damage type. Stun, Stop or Wound

The Battle Master, then Weaponmaster, in the playtest had fewer superiority dice, but could regain them by using an action. And their use had a chance of failure to cause an effect. But even on a fail at least added the roll as extra damage.

I think restoring the champion's power crits and the Battle Masters ability to regain dice would work in 5e.

I think Exploderwizard brings up a great many things that help illuminate, at least as the Fighter is concerned, the loss of what classes represent in the D&D verse. As to Cantrips, I'm not even that concerned with their damage out put because it's still pretty small compared to a weapon-based class using a bow and adding Dex to the damage roll. And if you're a cool DM you'll allow arrows to be modified to create various effects like smoking, fire, holy water, acid-tipped arrows.

Quote from: Batman;905295I think Exploderwizard brings up a great many things that help illuminate, at least as the Fighter is concerned, the loss of what classes represent in the D&D verse. As to Cantrips, I'm not even that concerned with their damage out put because it's still pretty small compared to a weapon-based class using a bow and adding Dex to the damage roll. And if you're a cool DM you'll allow arrows to be modified to create various effects like smoking, fire, holy water, acid-tipped arrows.

I was kicking around an idea to give the Fighter types a scaling weapon die, as per the Magic users Cantrips, but I'm not entirely sure how that would interact with the extra attack mechanic...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;905302I was kicking around an idea to give the Fighter types a scaling weapon die, as per the Magic users Cantrips, but I'm not entirely sure how that would interact with the extra attack mechanic...

In early playtests they didn't have multiple attacks per turn but instead did something similar in scaling the damage at certain levels. I wish I had the old playtest material but my old computer died and was wiped (thanks Windows 10 upgrade!) so I pretty much lost most of that stuff. If I remember correctly the Fighter got the most benefit, getting something like 4d6 with their swing. It ended up on the cutting room floor because people wanted more attack rolls to emulate combat better (or something arbitrary like that) and so they went back to previous incarnations of pre-4e.

Quote from: Naburimannu;905216The two groups I've trained with most recently are the London Sword & Dagger Club and the Triangle Sword Guild. They're working with identical weapons - what 5e (and modern scholarship) calls the Longsword, but many earlier editions called the Bastard Sword. The London group works in the Italian school (Fiore dei Liberi), the North Carolina group in the German school (Liechtenauer).

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

London is training Battlemasters, the colonies are training Champions.



** All sorts of caveats:

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

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

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

Thats a very interesting insight into sword schools. I enjoyed that and it seems pertinent to the discussion. Thank you.

Quote from: Omega;905288"When everyone is super. No one will be."

And this was one of the things we argued bitterly with WOTC over during playtest. The caster classes were even more powerful with cantrips alone and it was absurd. We got it reigned in some. But I still argue that the casters need to be curbed further.

Well, it has always been mighty hard to rein in 'infinity'... Cantrips is one of several glaring abominations I saw upon first contact with 5e. To see warlock class dip builds proliferate as a current multiclass exploit for cantrips was only a matter of time, in my expectation.

But 5e is the only WotC edition I would ever deign to play, so it's not irredeemable in my eyes...

Quote from: Batman;905315In early playtests they didn't have multiple attacks per turn but instead did something similar in scaling the damage at certain levels. I wish I had the old playtest material but my old computer died and was wiped (thanks Windows 10 upgrade!) so I pretty much lost most of that stuff. If I remember correctly the Fighter got the most benefit, getting something like 4d6 with their swing. It ended up on the cutting room floor because people wanted more attack rolls to emulate combat better (or something arbitrary like that) and so they went back to previous incarnations of pre-4e.

I have the first playtest packets and one of the early ones. In the first, up to level 3, the fighter was getting a bonus to damage on level up. +2 at level 1, +3 at level 3. And it started with a "theme" Slayer which meant you dealt your stat mod as damage even if you missed.

Fastforward 7 months and now the fighter now has "Martial dice" that can spend on a hit to add more damage. 6 by level 20. and got damage bonus a little later. Maneuvers were now part of the class propper and instead the style you choose determined which you had access to or not.

The monk had a simmilar mechanic running with martial dice and all that.

Quote from: Omega;905288"When everyone is super. No one will be."

And this was one of the things we argued bitterly with WOTC over during playtest. The caster classes were even more powerful with cantrips alone and it was absurd. We got it reigned in some. But I still argue that the casters need to be curbed further.

The problem lies not with the Cantrips, but with how the magic system was original, as back in 1974, was designed.  It's still crazy powerful because spells just don't fail without outside stimulus, and smart casters won't use spells that are that 'fragile'.

But trying to change that got us 4e and the subsequent backlash, and with the prevalence of the OGL managed to kill any real chance at changing the most useful and reliable rules in the game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;905430The problem lies not with the Cantrips, but with how the magic system was original, as back in 1974, was designed.  It's still crazy powerful because spells just don't fail without outside stimulus, and smart casters won't use spells that are that 'fragile'.

But trying to change that got us 4e and the subsequent backlash, and with the prevalence of the OGL managed to kill any real chance at changing the most useful and reliable rules in the game.

Most of the "big gun" spells in pre-3e D&D had relatively long cast times. (Power Word Kill very much does not). Even the short spells like Cloudkill and Fireball can be interrupted. Oh do I know how well they can be interrupted!

Something of note though.

Masque of the Red Death, the Ravenloft setting that was set on "gothic Earth" 1890 had a very interesting little rules change to casters.

1: Casting spells required a skill check. Roll the appropriate stat or less. With a -2 penalty. And. There was a -1 penalty to the check per level of the spell. (No level penalty if you took the skill twice.) Failure meaning it fizzled as if interrupted and is lost. And. On a check roll of natural 20 the spell took effect. But in some unhelpful way. Attack spells would hit the caster or allies, defensive spells made more vulnerable, etc.

2: As if that weren't bad enough. EVERY cast of a spell had a percent chance to taint the caster. 1% per level of spell. Double that if for evil purpose. Double that again if necromantic.

And we arent done yet!

3: Due to the low mana ebb of the world. Casting times were in ROUNDS(minutes), not segments.

So that min/max spiritualist casts Reversed Resurrection - Destruction on some merchant so he does not have to pay him. That is a base 20% (18 -2 = 16) chance of failure. With an additional 45% (-9) chance of failure if said spiritualist didn't hit the books hard. Assuming he didn't just annihilate himself then that is a 36% chance to be tainted. Its going to take 100 rounds to cast by the way. Hope there's no interruption! Even something as simple as Lightning Bolt is going to tie the caster up for 3 minutes and even with focused proficiency its still a 20% chance of failiure and a 5% chance of disasterous failure.
 
Oh yeah. And No elves, dwarves, etc. Humans only.

Masque was so much fun to play and one of these days I will replace my copy that was stolen.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904993I am pretty much in this same boat, except for the "clearly inferior that nobody ever used them" part.

There seem to be three options for "unusual" combat techniques like tripping, pushing or disarming:

• Don't include them in the RPG at all.
• Include them but make them so unattractive that they're only used in very specialized circumstances.
• Include them but make them better than basic hitting an opponent with a weapon (so players who want to be effective tend to use them excessively).

I meant 2, although I see I stated it a little too strongly; if an opponent who can't fly insists on standing on the edge of a cliff, then pushing becomes attractive even if it's very unlikely, because the payoff is high enough. But otherwise I don't see anyone in 5e shoving a creature per the rules in the PHB; do you? (There's a unicorn you can hunt in between 2 and 3 where the unusual techniques are exactly balanced and will be chosen just as frequently as in reality, but I would wager it's going to end up in 3 as soon as a clever player figures out how to abuse the rules.)

QuoteThe 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.

I think that it would be better to list how all the various maneuvers would work for non-battle masters, and then express the battle master maneuvers by explaining the difference from the basic rule. This would have the following benefits:

* Make the battle master less peculiar (or less 4e, if that's what it is; I'm not familiar enough with 4e to comment).

* Point up weird anomalies in how the maneuvers work. For example, it's complicated to list the circumstances in which Pushing Attack or Trip Attack are more likely to succeed than the ordinary "Shoving a Creature" rules. The battle master rules seem to assume that the battle master will have Medium size: a halfling battle master (Small) could push or trip a rhinoceros (Large) but not under the shoving rules (one size larger only); conversely an Enlarged human battle master (Large) could not push or trip an elephant (Huge) but could under the shoving rules. The saving throw in the maneuver forces the defender to use Strength, not Dexterity, and lets the battle master use Dexterity (and proficiency bonus without Athletics proficiency) but if both favor Strength and the fighter has proficiency in Athletics, then it's equivalent to the contest under "Shoving a Creature" except that the battle master effectively rolls 8 (and has no option to augment it with various reroll mechanisms like Luck or inspiration), and the battle master had to hit the target's AC first as well (but gets damage plus the superiority die for it, and 15 feet in the case of successful pushing).

* Force various posters to find new things to complain about.

So I guess that we are in the same boat, and apparently even paddling in the same direction. I still want to play a battle master or at least play in a group with one; the anomalies above might be irrelevant to how it actually plays.

I get it, maneuvers as situational advantages. Nothing so good so as to outright replace basic attacks, but a lateral spread of power by doing different things well. I'm with you there.

And it's not like the generically available example maneuvers had to be hard and fast mechanically. It just had to be a dialogue like the old games on how the designers would go about handling such a challenge. An example for everyone to crib off of, and a dialogue about why those design choices, is great for those who need more guidance than "whatever your wildest imagination's desire!" there'll be those brave enough to make rule variants, but at least they have a metric to guide them why in their adjudicated choice of mechanical resolution.

Like, go read an old D&D rule about grenade scatter, shooting into melee from outside, or overbearing an opponent. Sure they can get esoteric in the minutae of creature sizes, facing, and randomization of results. But there was a method to that madness -- it showed what the designers prized from the game in relation to the setting's logic: how to make the mechanics serve the unpredictable feel of the world versus a disconnected spew of metagameable functions.

There's an adult consideration going on in that sort of presentation.