D&D 5E The Fighter Battlemaster Maneuvers

[CapnZapp]

Do you know of any good effort to stratify or tier these manuevers.

So that any given Battlemaster needs to pick some of the less good manuevers and not just the best ones over and over?

There are lots of ways to do the design on this.

Adding a level requirement might be the first solution that comes to mind, but that has the drawback that every low-level Battlemaster has now been nerfed, and that every high-level one will still pick the best ones.

Making them depend on each other is probably a better solution. For instance, if we agree Precision Attack is one of the better ones, we say Precision Attack requires, say, Riposte Attack. This way you can't just pick the best ones but you can still pick at least one of the good ones.

As an alternative, just strata them. For each tier III manuever, you need one tier II. For each tier II, you need one tier I. So you can get a single tier III maneuver already at level 3, provided your other choices are one from tier I and one from tier II. At level 10, you gain your sixth and seventh manuever, which allows you to have two tier III's.

Or, we assign a cost to every Maneuver, and say you have a number of points equal to your level to spend, say. If one manuever costs 4 points while another costs just 1, you will have to decide which is the most fun: having lots of manuevers (and getting them already at the lowest levels) or holding off until you can pick your choice maneuver.

Pointers to discussion threads or houserule documents appreciated. Thanks

The designers themselves have conceded it makes it very hard to create new Fighter subclasses when the Battlemaster can just pick the best maneuvers every time. I guess I have given up hope they'll ever act on this and issue official errata preventing this.

 

[Barolo]

Which maneuvers are the best? And why?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Which maneuvers are the best? And why?

I was wondering this myself. I'm playing a 9th level battle master in a campaign now. I didn't take precision attack because I didn't think it was the best option. My character is a dual weapon fighter who also fights with a bow when tactics dictate. The maneuvers I chose:

Riposte- being able to get in an attack as a reaction AND add the superiority die to the damage.

Menacing Attack- note that this is usable with a missile weapon. Great for keeping nasty things from closing to melee AND bonus damage.

Trip Attack- leading with this attack allows two follow up attacks with advantage if it works. Even if it doesn't its extra damage. Also usable with a bow shot.

Maneuvering Attack- great utility for getting a comrade a free disengage, with a side of extra damage-also usable with a bow.

Distracting Strike- great situational maneuver to use with a missile weapon. I can use it to give one of our two rogues advantage (and thus sneak damage) on a target if there is no other ally nearby to grant them advantage, and (wait for it!) a side of extra damage.

I have no earthly idea what "tier" these maneuvers are suppose to be but functionally they work great for my character's fighting style. If I had rolled with a different kind of fighter then I might have chosen differently.

 

[DaviMMS]

Do you know of any good effort to stratify or tier these manuevers.

So that any given Battlemaster needs to pick some of the less good manuevers and not just the best ones over and over?

There are lots of ways to do the design on this.

Adding a level requirement might be the first solution that comes to mind, but that has the drawback that every low-level Battlemaster has now been nerfed, and that every high-level one will still pick the best ones.

Making them depend on each other is probably a better solution. For instance, if we agree Precision Attack is one of the better ones, we say Precision Attack requires, say, Riposte Attack. This way you can't just pick the best ones but you can still pick at least one of the good ones.

As an alternative, just strata them. For each tier III manuever, you need one tier II. For each tier II, you need one tier I. So you can get a single tier III maneuver already at level 3, provided your other choices are one from tier I and one from tier II. At level 10, you gain your sixth and seventh manuever, which allows you to have two tier III's.

Or, we assign a cost to every Maneuver, and say you have a number of points equal to your level to spend, say. If one manuever costs 4 points while another costs just 1, you will have to decide which is the most fun: having lots of manuevers (and getting them already at the lowest levels) or holding off until you can pick your choice maneuver.

Pointers to discussion threads or houserule documents appreciated. Thanks

I think you're going the wrong way to promote variety.

Forcing people to choose subpar options is just an unneeded and arbitrary nerf.

IMO, the right way to do it is to buff the bad options till they become on par with the others. This way you will see people picking different options without penalizing anyone.

The designers themselves have conceded it makes it very hard to create new Fighter subclasses when the Battlemaster can just pick the best maneuvers every time. I guess I have given up hope they'll ever act on this and issue official errata preventing this.

The problem is not that the Battlemaster will overshadow anyone because they can choose any maneuver. The problem is that the BM and the Champion have simply no theme.

"A fighter who approches combat as an academic field."
and
"A fighter who develops raw phisical power"

You can simply build any kind of mundane weapon user with those subclasses. Because of that, every single time they launch a fighter subclass some one complains "I can already do that theme with the current subclasses".

The simple fighter (Champion) and the complex fighter (BM) should have been something analogous as the Warlock pact boons and the archetypes should have been something like Archer, Slayer, Knight, Samurai, etc.

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO, the right way to do it is to buff the bad options till they become on par with the others. This way you will see people picking different options without penalizing anyone.

Sure, if you have a good recommendation in that vein I'll happily look at it too.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem is not that the Battlemaster will overshadow anyone because they can choose any maneuver. The problem is that the BM and the Champion have simply no theme.

"A fighter who approches combat as an academic field."
and
"A fighter who develops raw phisical power"

You can simply build any kind of mundane weapon user with those subclasses. Because of that, every single time they launch a fighter subclass some one complains "I can already do that theme with the current subclasses".

The simple fighter (Champion) and the complex fighter (BM) should have been something analogous as the Warlock pact boons and the archetypes should have been something like Archer, Slayer, Knight, Samurai, etc.

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

Brevity is the soul of wit. I believe that they got the subclasses pretty much spot on. Creating loads of subclasses that force the character into a narrow niche just for the sake of having a lot of subclasses is a step backwards.

 

[DaviMMS]

Brevity is the soul of wit. I believe that they got the subclasses pretty much spot on. Creating loads of subclasses that force the character into a narrow niche just for the sake of having a lot of subclasses is a step backwards.

That goes against how almost all other subclasses of the game were made, that's the problem. Almost every single subclass or the game tries to focus on a theme, except the fighter ones.

And we would not even need that many subclasses. One focusing on one or couple of Fighting Styles would already be enough.

Slayer = GWM
Knight = Protection and Dueling
Archer = Archery
Duelist = 1 one handed weapon (no shield) and TWF.

Leave defense as a generic FS for anyone. That would already cover the basics pretty well without subclass bloat.

The problem with the current ones is that they leave no thematic space for additional archetypes of the mundane fighter.

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[DaviMMS]

Sure, if you have a good recommendation in that vein I'll happily look at it too.

Now,going back to the focus of the thread,

I think the best way to start would be putting valuing the best ones.

My opinion is

Good ones (Needs no changes)
Menacing, Precise, Commander (kind of niche but pretty good with the right party), Riposte, Trip

Average Ones (Minor Buffs needed)
Distracting

Feinting (Make it only usable on the first attack of the turn but do not use your bonus action)

Goading (It is not bad by itself but is overshadowed by Menacing. Maybe enemies adjacent to the target also have to make the save)

Maneuvering

Parry (Make it useful for anyone. damage reduced by twice the SD and remove the dex mod)

Pushing

Rally

Distracting

Evasive

Bad Ones (Huge buffs needed)
Lunging

Disarming (The problem with it is not the maneuver, but the enemy being able to just pick his weapon on the ground with no penalty it it hits. It should make the weapon fly a few feet away, maybe superiority dice x 2 feet, odd numbers make weapon fly to the right, and even numbers make it fly to the left.)

Sweeping ( Change it to
When you hit with an attack, choose another creature within 5 feet of your original target and within your reach. Roll a d20+your SD. If the result is higher than the targets AC, the damage of the attack is dealt to both targets)

This is what comes to my mind reading the list without further though.

(Sorry for double posting. I have no idea of how to quote 2 people on the phone app)

Sent from my SM-G900M using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

Interesting you would call disarming terrible. First, there's nothing in the rules to my knowledge to say the fighter can't just reach over and pick up the dropped weapon, if he has a free hand. Or that another character couldn't do it. Of course, a DM could rule otherwise. I guess if you assume most DMs would disallow it, that suggests that it is potentially powerful.

If your DM does say you can't pick up weapon at another creature's feet, then all you need is a push or other forced movement. That isn't hard to arrange, by yourself or with other party members. Failing that, get a player with mage hand.

And if you succeed in taking the weapon, then in many cases you've virtually shut down your opponent. That doesn't seem weak to me!

 

[Mephista]

I have to agree with DaviMMS here. The lack of theme in Fighter is an openly acknowledged problem. Not just because it makes subclass design more difficult, but because it has a direct impact on things like being able to have social and exploration abilities.

Right now, our "best" new subclass options involve a revised Arcane Archer, or making a spell-less ranger using the Fighter chasis.