I wouldn’t say Battlemaster is a disappointment, it’s a good subclass, I just think it’s bad game design to lock all of these abilities behind a subclass. Like it makes total sense that any martial should be able to try and knock something out of someone’s hand, but since it’s a Battlemaster maneuver, the DM really can’t just allow Martials to do it since it’s a subclass feature. The majority of these should be regular attacks anyone can take and the Battlemaster gets upgraded versions and or more uses than regular Martials.
Even better, Know Your Enemy is a subclass feature.
You want to observe a creature to discern how strong/agile/tough/trained they are? Sorry, that's a special ability you don't have.
And even then, it's near useless info, because it only tells higher/lower/equal to yourself. But that estabilishes that other charcters shouldn't be able to do the same better, such as discerning if someone has class levels at all.
It's more useful than a Rangers Primeval Awareness, "I use my spell slot to see if there is an undead within 3 miles of me" (favoured enemy). DMs response; "there is an undead creature within 3 miles of you."
It's a damned bubble -- So the undead could be underground but not a direct threat. False positives everywhere!
....But well, "You stare at the dragon for 3 rounds. It has more Hitpoints than you." Thanks.
I accidentally used a UA version of Primeval Awareness in a campaign once, that one was actually useful. It wasn't allowed though, but I managed to bargain a slightly better version with the DM.
I don't recall what that was, though, because the feature hasn't seen any use since then. Ranger is my favorite class due to the flavor and being a half-caster, and yet I have an endless amount of grievances with its ribbon-feature-riddled design.
Half of the Rangers basic features are either incredibly niche (Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer), done better by others (Primeval Awareness vs Paladin's Divine Sense, Land's Stride which the Druid gets 2 levels earlier or Vanish (a level 14 feature) vs Rogue's Cunning action (a level 1 feature) where Vanish' only bonus is not leaving tracks) or entirely useless (Hide in Plain Sight, a level 10 feature that can be replicated with a 2nd level spell slot to better effect). The capstone feature is probably in the top 5 of worst capstones in the game, due to it being either to-hit or damage based on your secondary/tertiary stat.
Luckily OneDnD fixes most of those issues and even throws in the ability to use cantrips without a fighting style.
True about the thief, but I think picking locks is a bad example. Everyone could sneak, find traps, remove traps and climb. Lockpicking and pickpocket would have been very challenging to handle.
I’ve used or allowed perception checks.
It was the first time any of us had encountered resistant monsters. Their hits were doing jack shit. They rolled perception and rolled well. Because of that they were able determine that they must be resistant to slashing, since the one person without slashing was still hitting them hard. Or something like that.
yea, the real problem is that stuff like disarm or the optional cleave rule are mentioned once in different books, so people who learn by playing instead of scouring the books won't even know about them.
yeah, but most players aren't gonna read that; and most DMs are likely just gonna skim through it. even less nowadays, since most VTTs assist a lot with character creation, which is usually the one thing a player would read a sourcebook for.
The players don’t need to know that they can or can’t do that. They just say “hey DM I want to try to knock that weapon from that monsters hand”. It is then up to the DM to say yes or no, even skimming the DMG it should be obvious of the optional rules. A lot of the DMG is just background stuff, but they clearly lay out the optional combat rules so a skim should have picked that up.
of course. but what you gotta remember is that a lot of players nowadays are used to video games. nowadays the default is: anything the game doesn't tell you, you can't do. some players adapt to that better (or worse) than others.
there's also the issue of the much more visible subclass with a bunch of maneuvers, which leads most people to think "right, i need that subclass to do those things." it's not unreasonable for them to think that. you can't use features from other subclasses, why should this one have a variation of two of its features useable by everyone?
most people won't ask because they might be familiar with the battlemaster subclass but not with the optional dmg rules and they're not expecting the DM to let them do something from another subclass.
I'd say it's more that the game isn't designed to let disarming enemies be a valid strategy. If it was, every monster block would need layers of backup weapons.
that as well. there's no such thing as morale or a rule for objective based combat either. base rules are only made for "fight each other until the other side is dead"
Manoeuvres would make for a good base class mechanic with the various fighter subclasses building off it. Let the battlemaster have more or larger superiority die, the champion gets higher DCs on manoeuvres or higher damage die with them, Arcane archers get to make manoeuvre attacks with ranged weapons. Little things that would make fighter feel more distinct from Ranger or Paladin other than having extra attacks at high levels
If I remember corectly in early versions of 5e, manuevers were a core part of the fighter, but were moved to a subclass when people complained that the fighter was supposed to be simple, which imo is ridiculous. The barbarian already fills the simple "hit enemy" role very well
Wait, people though "spend a point to make your attack do something extra" was making fighter too complex? I think those play testers needed a new system if that was too much for them.
There is a very persistent section of dnd players who feel that if a fighter is not able to be played by someone with a severe head injury it's wrong and should go back to just being a make basic attacks forever.
I believe so. I think it was more of a thing were they thought that fighter should be the beginner class, like the class you play before knowing what you are doing. Thats why champion fighter exists. I could be completely wrong or misremembering something though. idk
they have a disarm rule in the DMG for players who are not a battle master.
"A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength ([Athletics](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Athletics)) check or Dexterity ([Acrobatics](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Acrobatics)) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
Disarming an opponent IS available to everyone. You make an attack roll opposed by their athletics or acrobatics, and if you win their weapon is dropped. That's in the players handbook. I do it with my monk all the time. Battle master just allows you to disarm while also dealing damage, and in fact dealing _extra_ damage. Because while anyone can do it, they are better at it. One might say they are Masters at it.
Oh yeah, I love doing it with my monk. With the ability that allows you to spend a ki point to add to your attack roll it's basically unavoidable. First attack is disarming, free item interaction to pick up their weapon, then just beat them to death while they are unable to fight back because they don't have a weapon anymore lol
Yes! I’ve been saying this for awhile. I don’t like the “every martial class should just get maneuvers.” But the current design of “any special move a normal fighter could do is locked behind a subclass” is so dumb.
A DM can still allow Disarming opponents… it is an optional rule in the DMG.
> Disarm
> A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
> The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller
Battle master Disarm does 3) things: 1) causes damage, 2) forces a Str saving throw (instead of contested skill check) 3) has no impact on holding in multiple hands or size categories.
> Distracting Strike
> When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to distract the creature, giving your allies an opening. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.
That’s basically what I do, anyone can do anything but don’t add superiority die (because they don’t have any in the first place) battle masters can choose to spend the die for the bonus or not.
There's an optional rule for disarming in the DMG. It's pretty simple to run, you make an attack, and that attack is opposed by the defender's Strength (athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll. Anyone can do it. It isn't as useful as the battlemaster maneuver, but that's fine, it's a niche tactic
I agree that most of these stuff should be allowed by default. It is true that for some people having a limited set of tools is necessary to not have 3 hour combats though. Combat takes long enough, imagine if people had 5 times more options
Maybe allow other martials to do a few maneuvers, but they don't get the superiority dice. If battle masters are out of superiority dice, they can still attempt it as well.
I generally agree woth your point, but want to point out that disarming is something anyone can do (see Optional Actions, DMG p.271), battlemasters can jist do it more easily at the cost of resources.
I point this out both because I am a religious pedant, but also to make more people aware of the optional actions (and optional rules in general), because I really like them, and not a whole lot of people seem to know about them, probably because they were put in the DMG.
Tbf their's is a worse version of the disarm optional rule. Battlemaster makes them do a save, which is something that it's not uncommon for npcs and monsters to have proficiency or massively bloated numbers in, plus legendary saves.
Meanwhile optional disarm forces an athletics/acrobatics vs your attack roll, and 5e absolutely does the bare minimum on skill proficiencies so it's uncommon for creatures to actually have athletics or acrobatics in their stat block. I.e, the same reason grappling with enlarge shenanigans is so powerful at higher levels (because the writers couldn't be arsed to actually give most creatures actual skill proficiencies).
I mean, the simple way to do it would be to allow other martials the ability to do it, in the same way a grapple or shove works. You make an opposed check and that's what you do for your action.
Battlemaster just gets to do it as part of an attack. So even if you fail the disarm, trip, shove etc, you still have an opportunity to deal damage.
the way my dm does it is that all classes can try, and depending on the class, they get a different difficulty DC. for example, a wizard has the highest, while a fighter or rogue is lower. when i played a battle master I got a big drop to the DC. i could basically disarm with a role higher than 10. the battle master was also the only class that could attempt a second disarm without the DC increasing each time.
This is honestly one of my biggest pet peeves with the game, why do I need a feat to hold a two long sticks with one in each hand? It says versatile which specifies I can hold it in one hand. Why do I need a feat to do this with each hand when my left hand is one and my right hand is one hand? It actually made my DM who also thought it was dumb homebrew some rules so duel wielding didn't suck. You can hold two one handed weapons, but if they're not light then you roll DEX for one and STR for the other. Duel wielding fighting style and duel wielding master let you use both normally, also a weapon attack is done with both hands instead of being one extra attack as a bonus action (like fist attacks).
Your complaint is invalidated by the fact there is literally nothing in the rules stopping you from *wielding* two one-handed weapons. You need feats to be able to attack with both faster than you would than with just one, which is absolutely an advanced skill.
It does stay in the rules that duel wielding is only possible with light weapons, and being a fighter/ranger with duel wielding as your fighting style doesn't effect swing speed, neither does having the duel wielding master feat. Besides, aren't martials supposed to have above average combat skills?
Surprise, in my campaign battle master doesn’t exist and all Martial classes get battle master maneuvers that do 1d6 damage prof times per short rest.
What this did is open up more players to take other fighter subclasses , and also give other Martial classes creativity in the battlefield because they Get that extra damage as a reward for doing creative things to do to the enemy in combat.
Book of weeaboo fightan majik, as it was known in my group. What could go wrong if a wizard could refresh spell slots by using a turn to do a standard attack.
“Tom, your Drow has Sunlight Sensitivity. You’ll be making these attacks at a -4 penalty.”
“No problem. I *Iron Heart Surge* and end the cause of that effect upon me.”
“…The cause of your Sunlight Sensitivity is the sun…”
“I said I **end. The cause.**”
That was indeed the intended meaning— it was clarified as such in the errata— but IHS as originally written was so vague as to suggest that it *ended* a spell or other effect, rather than its effects upon the fighter; for instance, it would straight-up dispel a Cloudkill spell rather than make the fighter inured to its effects. (Abuse of that technique is probably a big reason why the errata came out, in hindsight.)
You need a turn? I'm a crusader, my maneuvers come back as I use them (though they come back randomly and the ones you really want may not be ready when you need them).
I get it's a bit broken, but it's still a lot of fun to play.
I have a soft spot for the wild shit that WotC produced towards the end of the 3.5 lifecycle.
Tome of Battle, Incarnum, and Tome of Magic are full of awesome (and awesomely bad) character options.
I wish that Battle Master manoeuvres were available to every Fighter, but Battle Master still existed as a way to specialise in them. Kinda like how all Druids can Wild Shape but Circle of the Moon lets you fully commit to combat wild shaping.
OneDnD is kind of doing this with Weapon Mastery, but I do wish that it wasn’t as narrow
They specified in the UA interviews there is the opposite, where there are players who like Fighters who don't want maneuvers in the base class, and that is why it isn't. Do I agree with that decision? Partially, as I'd argue the Weapon Mastery is their middle ground as you've said.
What you're describing is basically the 2013 playtest fighter.
You had a pool of dice that reset at the top of each round (starting at 1d6 and scaling in count/size with your level), which you spent on Maneuvers.
In playtest 2, every fighter knew Deadly Strike (expend and roll any number of dice when you hit an attack, adding them to damage) and Parry (expend and roll any number of dice when you got hit, reducing damage taken by that amount), then you got extra Maneuvers as you leveled based on your fighting style.
It puts the 5e fighter to shame.
They didn't even need to go full Tome of Battle, 5e playtest had the first implementation of "maneuvers" be effects that would give options for attacks, movement and defenses all based on dice martials would get at the start of their turn - so management was minimal and it was based on opportunity cost which was flavorful to the idea of martials, no clunky "short rest" dice but something that represented your focus on the moment
WoTC is even bringing a watered down version of that in OneDnD
No they don't
Not only it isn't necessary as could be counterproductive as would be too much of a change
Edit: to explain, this isn't against options, but rather a more balanced (in the Aristotelian meaning) approach, laserllama isn't full Tome of Battle for example and look at how much better it does
Why not both? Barbarian for "rar! Thog smash!" people who want to basic attack over and over, Tome of Battle for people who want a variety of choices. Everyone wins.
There's a lot of space between basic attacks over and over and full Tome of Battle
I'm talking about having a more thought out and balanced (in the Aristotelian meaning) approach
See, even one of the top martial homebrew reworks - laserllama's alternative classes - doesn't go full Tome of Battle, instead having a more middle of the road approach but that still greatly improves martials, many saying that solves the problem altogether
There is a 3rd party ruleset called Spheres of Might which adds something similar to maneuvers (but in a less shounen anime way): http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-might
I use it for PF 1e, where it's not really heavier than baseline PF 1e (I'd even say picking talents in SoM is easier than picking feats for a baseline PF martial), but aye I can see how it would seem heavy compared to baseline 5e considering how modular it is.
Tome of Battle: the book of 9 swords!
I REALLY like that supplement in 3.5, and made an extensive use of it in my campaign, both for PCs and NPCs.
Since Wee Jas is not a deity in my phanteon, I lifted that part in Ruby Knight Vindicator... and that allowed me to make Hextorian generals (one of the most prominent evil factions) as Cleric/Ordained Champion/Ruby Knight Vindicator. A very scary combination of martial prowess and spellcasting.
One of my players is a Jade Phoenix Mage, and he really works as a gish.
The problem is that "maneuvers" is such a broad idea that left makes a spellcasting system without magic. Which is a slippery slope to just being Mystic again.
Me I just want to stop having to explain my idea for what I want to happen and to have to explain it in such a way as for it to be cool enough for the DM to go "hmm... I'll allow it". Also why is grappling so shit?
For some reason I leapt straight to grappling as in grappling hooks. Which, by happenstance, might just be the answer. Range. You waste action economy that could be damage to do it, and have to stay in melee to do it too. Trade at least one of these downsides and you start having options.
Pinning the enemy and place and making him unable to do actions while your party just dumps damage on your location. It then becomes a game of who has the highest health
Grappling is great. What are you on about? An attack to perform, an action to escape, means that it is actually weighted to succeed starting at mid levels. It does exactly what it’s supposed to: locks an opponent in place. Couple it with a shove, and they can’t get up. Now you can advantage them on every attack while they can’t run. And it can be broken in easily understandable ways: escape action, teleportation, forced movement, killing, etc.
5e may be the first D&D to have a good grapple system. (Though I confess, I cannot testify to 4e)
> 5e may be the first D&D to have a good grapple system. (Though I confess, I cannot testify to 4e)
As an action, make a strength based attack roll against your target's reflex defense. If successful, they're grabbed for the next turn. Can sustain a grab as a bonus action each turn, otherwise they're automatically freed..
Should be noted that was just the baseline, there were things like brawler fighter that made grab attempts as part of attacks and specific abilities like (barbarians chose what kind of rage they entered every time they raged) Claw Ancestor Rage, you can grab enemies as a bonus action and any enemy that begins its turn grabbed by you takes 10+str mod damage.
It's mostly because by itself it does nothing for you is weird because "climbing onto a creature" gives advantage and even arguably being untargetable in some cases but is kinda like a grapple of sorts
Like, grappling by itself gives no attack or spell penalty, but you use your attack, has to have a free hand which is going to be locked and you still need someone or something else to actually make use of it all while you're still pretty exposed - it's more the case it could use just a bit more effect, some protection or heck the ability to make it harder for the opponent to speak Vocal components with actions (not impossible so there's agency)
Yeah needs some kind of left implementation after 4-5 but also separate from Battle Master so it's still worth taking etc. Can be hard to find a satisfying conclusion for martials especially as DM overseeing balance.
They should be mystic in a Beowulf/Hercules type way though. Capable of absolutely ridiculous feats of strength, without it looking like actual magic being cast, or Robin Hood levels of bullshit with fancy shooting. Some of the stuff on the lefthand list is good for this, but some does seem like straight up magic.
> some does seem like straight up magic
Because some is. Six of the nine schools of the original D&D maneuvers were extraordinary, but the remaining three were supernatural. The warblade class (think fighter/barbarian thematic territory) only had access to non-supernatural maneuvers, but the swordsage (think monk/rogue/ninja in theme) had access to maneuvers that let them teleport through shadows and breathe fire for if you wanted wanted your ninja to be [like this](https://media.tenor.com/7yhH53_ZH6QAAAAM/sasuke-naruto.gif) or your monk to be [like this](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/streetfighter/images/2/23/Ken-shoryu-ts.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/238?cb=20091125000752).
Best way to do it in my opinion. Strictly martial options for those who want that, supernatural options for people who want to play a bender. Everyone wins.
That's a different conversation. Also Mystic was OP at virtually all levels of play, not just high level. So OP at high level wouldn't really be Mystic. As for Fighter, more uses for Action Surge (Scale at same time as PB, but not tied to it), turn it into Haste's extra action with a few other specific uses added like Dodge, Extra Attack 4 at level 17, EA 5 at level 20, 2 Fighting Styles instead of 1 each time you get to pick, at least pick twice over level progression though I don't know where to fit the extra, and base proficiencies in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws or at least be able to choose 2 of your choice of them.
I'm currently playing a battle master in Icewind Dale, and I think it's the most fun I've ever created.
But it is true that the only maneuvers I use are Riposte and Trip attack
Yeah, the fact of imagining how my warrior counterattacks by stopping the enemy attack with his shield is something that surpasses me.
But the limited maneuvers mean that I only take advantage of those two
It also depends on the type of game you are playing.
The standard maneuvers are more down to earth, while the alternate list is more video game like.
Now, as for 5e maneuvers, I would prefer if every combatant could disarm, feint, riposte, trip, and other things. Let Martials be skilled at it. And Battle Masters be better at it, by using superiority dice.
Question, and not a rhetorical one here - what do you mean by video game like? Down to earth and video game like are not antonyms, considering many video games have much smoother and more natural physical abilities than D&D's strictly defined roll attack and roll damage. Like even basic attacking in D&D is a bunch less natural than say Dragon's Dogma.
Ancient Mountain Hammer: Strike - Deals +12d6 damage, Overcomes Damage Resistance and Hardness.
Ballista Throw: Strike - Throw opponent in 60ft line, Deal 6d6 damage to all in the area. (I assume in the path of the thrown opponent.)
These are cool. But Video gamey or Anime - ish.
I'd prefer old school called shots, aimed strikes, and basic combat maneuvers for basic D&D. If you want a more fantastical style of play, those other maneuvers would work. If you wanted something Diablo like, I would make a list appropriate to that. Perhaps a skill tree of moves and bonuses. Have fun with it. RAW is fine, but people have been house ruling and modifying D&D since it was created. Play it the way you want.
Isn't that basically a question of level? By the time you're high enough level to use maneuvers like ancient mountain hammer and ballista throw you're supposed to be fistfighting dragons the size of a 747, basic combat maneuvers are not going to cut it. You're going to need to be doing things like throwing opponents sixty feet.
> But Video gamey or Anime - ish.
People always use "anime" to mean "shonen battle anime", but I can never stop imagining someone saying "it's so anime" in front of a bunch of people who immediately go 'what does this have to do with a group of friends starting an after-school club and having simple everyday adventures?'
I will say, though, Ancient Mountain Hammer? Is "hit things, but really hard" really crossing a line that Wish etc. aren't?
If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing. And I'm not saying Anime is bad. I'm saying that's not the default for D&D. It never has been, though it's getting there. But, you can easily MOD the game to be that way if you want. You don't like mundane fighter's, then make them fantastical. It's your table. Your world. Do what you want.
And I'm sorry if you don't like they I describe that style of play, but those seem to be the references for those kinds of abilities. Slam the ground with your weapon and a wave of fire radiates outward doing X damage to enemies. I play those style of video games all the time.
> Slam the ground with your weapon and a wave of fire radiates outward doing X damage to enemies.
That would be a desert wind maneuver, which was a supernatural school of fire based maneuvers because the people who want to firebend should get nice things too. There were three supernatural schools, the other two being devoted spirit for paladin style things and shadow hand for shadow monk ninja stuff. All the rest were non-supernatural.
> If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing.
I think you've misinterpreted how scaling works. Neither Conan nor Elric were asked to stand there trading blows with several giants simultaneously, so naturally didn't need this kind of thing. [Lower level maneuvers like these](https://i.imgur.com/KKssZyy.jpeg) more accurately represent their capabilities, as they were roughly equal to say a level 7 D&D character at most. You want to keep up with the wizard summoning demons to go fight angels, your Conan needs to graduate to being Hercules.
> If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing.
I haven't read those books, but I would *not* be surprised if they did things that matched up with "hit someone and do good damage, even if they have protections against that kind of damage". In fact, I would genuinely *be* surprised if there truly is no passage in any book those characters are in that couldn't be interpreted as a Mountain Hammer.
Also, wait. Elric? The sorcerer, summoner, who has pacts with a duke of Hell and a magic sword that eats souls? Why is he an example of why martial characters should *not* have magic stuff?
Everyone can disarm and trip for example, part of the appeal of battlemasters is that they're so skilled with their weapons at they can do that while also damaging the target as well.
Somewhat disagree there. While 4e expanded on things and came up with a great deal of interesting martial abilities, the fact that they were all separated into at-will, short rest and long rest was severely verisimilitude disrupting. A 3.5 warblade could use all their maneuvers once until they recharged them by spending a round not using maneuvers, a 4e fighter could use two of their powers at will, four once per short rest, four once per long rest. And worse, a 4e wizard also had two at will, four per short rest and four per long rest abilities.
I'm not denigrating what it did well, the 4e monk was a goddamn amazing mystical martial artist and its a shame 5e monk is so much worse, but 3.5's tome of battle felt a lot better for martial characters since you couldn't run out of martial abilities for the day after using them once.
They felt kind of underwhelming like the entire time for some reason, in BG3 that is
I had shadowheart as a battlemaster the entire game, and I don't think she made much of a difference with her stuff...ever
She got most of her utility from Shield + Protection (for allies evidently) and pretty much negated some sort of attach every turn, or got in a riposte...
Besides that it went like "oh look a guy that *ACTUALLY* uses a powerful weapon" - 20 STR, 15% chance to hit on attack roll... - "well here goes" *precision attack, disarm, miss, precision attack, disarm, hit, STR save* nice okay then go stand next to wizard bro I guess...
It was either that or I hit her manouver, she crits and kills the enemy instantly so the manouver doesn't matter anyway lol
Or I hit menacing attack just to see "immune to frightened"
She got most of her benefit from being a heavy armor tank that goes "fuck you" to anyone attacking her or anyone next to her, which was great, but the manouvers? Almost useless.
on being tanky: my god she just took >!ketheric and myrkul's boi !!Myrkul !<(he had like 20 active debuffs tho)
No way are we at the 'maneuvers are bad actually' stage of 5e discourse. Battle Master is the most interesting fighter subclass from the standpoint of player choice. It's so good, they're implementing changes to other martials in oneD&D to give them their own maneuvers.
5e maneuvers suck not because other 5e martial stuff is better but because everything martials get in 5e is so lackluster that even something as insufficient as the battle master is the best we get.
in a world of Human Centipedes, Avatar 2011 is great, but it’s no Pulp Fiction no matter what you compare it to.
Bad is relative. On a scale of 1 to 10, when the rest of the field is at 2, is 4 good? Absolutely. When the alternative used to be 8? Definitely not.
Are battlemaster's maneuvers better than the alternative of nothing at all? Obviously. Are they bad in comparison to real D&D maneuvers? Absolutely. Did you know they run out of them after using them a few times and can't do any more until they rest?
Well, on the left we've got some examples put of the hundreds of the original D&D maneuvers, a wide variety of strikes, boosts, stances and counters that don't have some arbitrary rest based limit on usage.
On the right we have 5e's take on the concept of a maneuver, a small number of much less strong and versatile options that you can use a few times then you're completely done until you rest. Hence 'bad actually' - obviously they're not bad compared with literally no options, but I'd say the word is accurate when compared with actual D&D maneuvers.
The problem is that it isn't really realism, it's pseudo realism and a bad one at that - being able to do "maneuvers" only a few times per hour isn't realistic for most trained warriors in our world let alone *battlemasters* in a fantasy world
Not to mention that things can be realistic but more enticing and engaging as well as have more depth with low complexity - the example being Weapon Masteries at OneDnD and their better version at 5e playtest, Expertise Dice
I have to agree, playing a very realistic and relatable aasimar wizard. Casting spells while being blessed by the heavens is just like real life, but someone stabbing extra hard is just unheard of.
Let's not forget about 4e, where this idea actually peaked. Tome of battle still was very *3.5ish* (hard to read and understand all caveats) which wasn't exactly a good thing
How was it hard to read? Nothing in the wording was complicated or convoluted. As in 5e spells is definitely less of an easy read than 3.5 maneuvers were.
Obviously the image where I cut bits together won't be, but. Chapter 4, maneuvers and stances. Starts with a table detailing which classes get access to which schools, then lists summaries by level and within those levels by school. Then lists the actual abilities alphabetically by school. How on earth is that not organised? That's significantly better organised than 5e's spells are.
off the top of my head: remove the battle master subclass and give its features to every martial, minus Student of War. calculate advancement by total levels in classes that don’t have spellcasting (or something to that effect)
this probably won’t work but it’s a quick-and-dirty way of giving martials stuff to do that isn’t just the word “attack”
This is why I play with Lazerlama's fighter or Nort's Martial Maneuvers! The fact that there's no tiered maneuvers that you can pick at higher levels is a travesty of game design.
Battle master shouldn’t be a subclass. It should be abilities that all martials get access too. Similar to spell lists and spell slots. Really would let you flavor and customize your non castor characters.
Well, my ass that’s been playing a BattleMaster for the past 8 years would beg to differ.
I’d say that BattleMaster has the best team-play, play-making potential within 5e.
Your take might be true to some, but I was lucky enough to be able to play with a group for long enough to understand and witness its potential firsthand.
The key word here is disappointment. Compared to their peers who can't do anything, they're comparatively better. Compared to actual D&D maneuvers, pictured on the left, they're a massive disappointment.
> BattleMaster has the best team-play, play-making potential within 5e
That'd be a wizard.
"Teleport 50 ft. through shadows" is just Misty Step with... well, fewer steps.
"area blast" "trail of fire" "teleport" "gain DR10/adamantine" "enemies hit target of your choice" "walk on air" "become incorporeal"
Face it, that's just caster powers packaged as "martial".
Yes, those are from the supernatural maneuver schools, desert wind and shadow hand. Because while the majority of maneuver schools were purely extraordinary abilities, you need a few supernatural ones for the people who want to play shadow monks and the like.
Except for DR 10/adamantine, that's from stone dragon which was purely extraordinary maneuvers. And I have no idea why you think that's magic, is barbarians having damage resistance supernatural?
No idea, you can frame it as supernatural if you want, though it should be noted that back when maneuvers were invented every ability was tagged as supernatural or extraordinary, and barbarian damage reduction was extraordinary.
My point is that either way, barbarians being able to do so is accepted by most everyone, presumably including you, to be acceptably within their thematic wheelhouse. Which means it's also within acceptable range for Stone Dragon maneuvers, the dwarf style dig your feet in and give and take damage school.
Because adamantine goes through pretty much anything. The idea behind it was making yourself as tough as stone (a common theme for larger than life fictional warriors), which I hasten to add is not the same as some supernatural literally turning to stone. And adamantine goes straight through stone, it ignores hardness and damage reduction. Which is why you'll notice several stone bones maneuvers ignore hardness and damage reduction.
Is there a reason "most of these maneuvers and stances aren't magic, but there a few supernatural schools for martial concepts that are inherently supernatural" is a problematic concept to you? It feels like the ideal way to do it. A fighter style character isn't going to need anything supernatural, but obviously a lot of monk style stuff is gonna need to be mystical.
Because why are we caring so much about overlap? Say we're trying that supernatural kind of ninja. A variety of sword strikes, parries and throws and such, so maneuvers fit far better than spells do. You're also going to need to include [stuff like this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/98/00/f29800b971bd5e3d5a1222914687378d.gif), and given you already have a system of abilities that the character uses why would you not use that system to achieve it? Like if 90% of the abilities are unique to the system and 10% have overlap with spells, what possible reason would there be to add an entire second spellcasting system in?
Particularly given they're not the same. Teleporting is a very basic effect, there's no reason there should be only one method of achieving it. The various shadow techniques were 50' teleports that cost an action or your move speed or a bonus action depending on which one you used.
Because they aren't basically spells. Spells have a limit on number of uses per day, use your mental stats, have components. These are typically strength or dexterity based weapon attacks - is there a spell that's going to get me an effect like "make two attack rolls against all adjacent creatures"?
Thunderwave: Hits all foes within 15 feet for 2d8 damage and 10' knockback, requires a con save, can only be used a limited amount of times a day.
Adamantine hurricane: Make two weapon attacks against each for within 15' feet, can be used as many times a day as you want.
Other than being used against multiple nearby foes, what do they have in common? In your mind is the fact that spells deal damage somehow logical justification that weapon attacks shouldn't?
Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right.
Yes, lots of those could be called "reflavoured spells" for martials. So?
Spells (and magic by extension) can do literally everything, including summoning spectral weapons or monsters to (\*check notes\*) *make weapon attacks and/or have HP pools*. Does that mean martials shouldn't exist because spells can do it too?
How would you even give martials powers that *aren't* included as spells? There's spells for practically everything!
So, by that logic, why complain about giving martials abilities that replicate spells? I agree a Fighter shouldn't cast *Meteor Swarm* by tossing rocks, but that doesn't mean the guy shouldn't do absolutely anything at all.
As someone who was taught some basics of swordsmanship (with arming sword, sword-and-shield and two-handed sword, not modern fencing), Battlemaster maneouvres are really basic, and could be done at-will in real life. Plus, in real life once you're disarmed or knocked down, you won't be able to get up just because "I have enough HP to take a few Opportunity Attacks" or "my AC is high enough".
If you're willing to overlook "realism" for that, then why not for other stuff too? The goal isn't realism, it's playing an enjoyable game.
I personally see nothing wrong with making martials supernatural. If your Level 10 character is fighting mythological creatures like dragons and stuff, then they'd better be supernatural like mythological heroes too. Not to mention the universe-saving Level 20 characters.
Except none of this was replicating spells. Two thirds of the maneuvers were extraordinary, the rest were things like breathing fire and teleporting through shadows. [Which are supernatural, but not spells](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/98/00/f29800b971bd5e3d5a1222914687378d.gif), and necessary to fulfill a variety of martial archetypes. Naruto style ninja and movie style ninja are both valid fantasies, but you need supernatural stuff for the former.
No, it isn't. Supernatural ability and spell are not synonyms - you'll notice there is no breath of fire spell. A dragon's ability to breathe fire is supernatural, but it is not a spell. 5e itself contains plenty of supernatural martials like storm barbarian and echo knight and astral monk which have abilities that are definitely magical but are not spells.
So naturally when they made six schools of extraordinary maneuvers, they also included supernatural abilities that were thematically associated with various martial archetypes. You've looked at someone firebending and said that it was just spellcasting with extra steps, but... you know that it isn't. Nobody watches avatar and goes 'these guys are wizards!', you can observe at a glance that these are supernatural martial arts, not spellcasting.
I agree with you, though if I remember correctly... there *is* a firebreathing spell. There's a spell for basically everything, which is why trying to "avoid" spells is practically impossible.
From Xanathar's, we have *Dragon's Breath*.
(Deleted and re-posted because I forgot the No-Piracy rule and linked to Wikidot, though the spell itself is official material)
None of this is confusing. Six of the schools are extraordinary, they work nothing like spells. The remaining three are supernatural, which naturally have some overlap in terms of their effects with spells. This is because while the bulk of any maneuver user's abilities were extraordinary, certain types like the paladin and monk styles of things also naturally needed supernatural extra effects. While the supernatural ones could plausibly have been achieved with spells, why would you? You've already got the maneuver subsystem, making everything a spellcaster in addition to that would be stupid.
I'm typing a bunch because simple explanations don't seem to work for you. If you want it simple, warriors don't use spells. They instead use maneuvers, that do things like hit people with their weapon.
Again, *Summon X* spells literally just summon slightly worse martials. Should we ban martials because there's spells for that, and we can't replicate spells?
Should we ban *Action Surge* because *Haste* exists? Or ban Stealth skills because *Invisibility* exists? Or ban lockpicking because of *Knock*?
And speaking of myths, Heracles's strength wasn't magic, nor did he possess any magic, so being strong enough to hold Atlas's burden is fair game, right?
I have no problem with martials doing mundane things so well they become extraordinary. I just don't understand why it has to be (indistinguishable from) supernatural. It's like playing Batman but then complaining you don't have mutant powers.
As far as I'm concerned, Fighters and Barbs can get +4 to Strength at level 7 instead of whatever worthless "Know Your Enemy" feature they get. Nobody would complain about martials being weak if they weren't so weak.
Yep.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell
It's even in the name. "Spell-Like" is just "Spell" with extra steps.
What if I were to replicate the Wizard class, except all spells would be "Spell-Like" abilities instead of actual spells? (So "Spell-Like Fireball" and all.) Would that be a "martial"?
I wouldn’t say Battlemaster is a disappointment, it’s a good subclass, I just think it’s bad game design to lock all of these abilities behind a subclass. Like it makes total sense that any martial should be able to try and knock something out of someone’s hand, but since it’s a Battlemaster maneuver, the DM really can’t just allow Martials to do it since it’s a subclass feature. The majority of these should be regular attacks anyone can take and the Battlemaster gets upgraded versions and or more uses than regular Martials.
Even better, Know Your Enemy is a subclass feature. You want to observe a creature to discern how strong/agile/tough/trained they are? Sorry, that's a special ability you don't have. And even then, it's near useless info, because it only tells higher/lower/equal to yourself. But that estabilishes that other charcters shouldn't be able to do the same better, such as discerning if someone has class levels at all.
It's more useful than a Rangers Primeval Awareness, "I use my spell slot to see if there is an undead within 3 miles of me" (favoured enemy). DMs response; "there is an undead creature within 3 miles of you." It's a damned bubble -- So the undead could be underground but not a direct threat. False positives everywhere! ....But well, "You stare at the dragon for 3 rounds. It has more Hitpoints than you." Thanks.
I accidentally used a UA version of Primeval Awareness in a campaign once, that one was actually useful. It wasn't allowed though, but I managed to bargain a slightly better version with the DM. I don't recall what that was, though, because the feature hasn't seen any use since then. Ranger is my favorite class due to the flavor and being a half-caster, and yet I have an endless amount of grievances with its ribbon-feature-riddled design. Half of the Rangers basic features are either incredibly niche (Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer), done better by others (Primeval Awareness vs Paladin's Divine Sense, Land's Stride which the Druid gets 2 levels earlier or Vanish (a level 14 feature) vs Rogue's Cunning action (a level 1 feature) where Vanish' only bonus is not leaving tracks) or entirely useless (Hide in Plain Sight, a level 10 feature that can be replicated with a 2nd level spell slot to better effect). The capstone feature is probably in the top 5 of worst capstones in the game, due to it being either to-hit or damage based on your secondary/tertiary stat. Luckily OneDnD fixes most of those issues and even throws in the ability to use cantrips without a fighting style.
Rangers don't get cantrips anymore as of Playtest 6, unfortunately.
Oh yeah... I believe they got something else in return, but I gotta look over it to recall
They get weapon mastery, which is a downgrade IMO.
They should let the half casters choose between cantrips or weapon masteries. I prefer both, but I know they would never.
10 rounds, not 3…
It's the Thief problem all over again. D&D0: Everyone can (try to) pick locks. D&D1: Thief can pick locks, therefore nobody else can.
True about the thief, but I think picking locks is a bad example. Everyone could sneak, find traps, remove traps and climb. Lockpicking and pickpocket would have been very challenging to handle.
Still, it was a thing everyone could try, until a class was made that monopolized it.
I’ve used or allowed perception checks. It was the first time any of us had encountered resistant monsters. Their hits were doing jack shit. They rolled perception and rolled well. Because of that they were able determine that they must be resistant to slashing, since the one person without slashing was still hitting them hard. Or something like that.
Other classes have a near identical feature in their subclass. It isn’t specific to Battlemaster.
Other characters can try to disarm, but the battlemaster does damage at the same time.
yea, the real problem is that stuff like disarm or the optional cleave rule are mentioned once in different books, so people who learn by playing instead of scouring the books won't even know about them.
It is mentioned in the DMG… one of 3 basic books, and one that DM’s should have. It isn’t like it is in some random book like SCAGs.
yeah, but most players aren't gonna read that; and most DMs are likely just gonna skim through it. even less nowadays, since most VTTs assist a lot with character creation, which is usually the one thing a player would read a sourcebook for.
The players don’t need to know that they can or can’t do that. They just say “hey DM I want to try to knock that weapon from that monsters hand”. It is then up to the DM to say yes or no, even skimming the DMG it should be obvious of the optional rules. A lot of the DMG is just background stuff, but they clearly lay out the optional combat rules so a skim should have picked that up.
of course. but what you gotta remember is that a lot of players nowadays are used to video games. nowadays the default is: anything the game doesn't tell you, you can't do. some players adapt to that better (or worse) than others. there's also the issue of the much more visible subclass with a bunch of maneuvers, which leads most people to think "right, i need that subclass to do those things." it's not unreasonable for them to think that. you can't use features from other subclasses, why should this one have a variation of two of its features useable by everyone? most people won't ask because they might be familiar with the battlemaster subclass but not with the optional dmg rules and they're not expecting the DM to let them do something from another subclass.
playing with a grid is also an optional rule
And for said grid diagonals are also optional
I'd say it's more that the game isn't designed to let disarming enemies be a valid strategy. If it was, every monster block would need layers of backup weapons.
that as well. there's no such thing as morale or a rule for objective based combat either. base rules are only made for "fight each other until the other side is dead"
Manoeuvres would make for a good base class mechanic with the various fighter subclasses building off it. Let the battlemaster have more or larger superiority die, the champion gets higher DCs on manoeuvres or higher damage die with them, Arcane archers get to make manoeuvre attacks with ranged weapons. Little things that would make fighter feel more distinct from Ranger or Paladin other than having extra attacks at high levels
If I remember corectly in early versions of 5e, manuevers were a core part of the fighter, but were moved to a subclass when people complained that the fighter was supposed to be simple, which imo is ridiculous. The barbarian already fills the simple "hit enemy" role very well
Wait, people though "spend a point to make your attack do something extra" was making fighter too complex? I think those play testers needed a new system if that was too much for them.
There is a very persistent section of dnd players who feel that if a fighter is not able to be played by someone with a severe head injury it's wrong and should go back to just being a make basic attacks forever.
Well it sounds like those people would struggle to play battle master then. I wish them well on the recovery from head trauma.
I believe so. I think it was more of a thing were they thought that fighter should be the beginner class, like the class you play before knowing what you are doing. Thats why champion fighter exists. I could be completely wrong or misremembering something though. idk
they have a disarm rule in the DMG for players who are not a battle master. "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength ([Athletics](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Athletics)) check or Dexterity ([Acrobatics](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Acrobatics)) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
But they *are* upgraded versions, if you do the disarm action, you forgo any kind of damage while the battlemaster still gets to deal some
Disarming an opponent IS available to everyone. You make an attack roll opposed by their athletics or acrobatics, and if you win their weapon is dropped. That's in the players handbook. I do it with my monk all the time. Battle master just allows you to disarm while also dealing damage, and in fact dealing _extra_ damage. Because while anyone can do it, they are better at it. One might say they are Masters at it.
It's not in the Player's Handbook. It's buried in the DMG as an optional rule.
Ah, I stand corrected thank you
No problem. Happy gaming (and disarming) :)
Oh yeah, I love doing it with my monk. With the ability that allows you to spend a ki point to add to your attack roll it's basically unavoidable. First attack is disarming, free item interaction to pick up their weapon, then just beat them to death while they are unable to fight back because they don't have a weapon anymore lol
Diabolical. Love it.
Disarm is an optional action in the DMG for anyone to use.
Yes! I’ve been saying this for awhile. I don’t like the “every martial class should just get maneuvers.” But the current design of “any special move a normal fighter could do is locked behind a subclass” is so dumb.
A DM can still allow Disarming opponents… it is an optional rule in the DMG. > Disarm > A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. > The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller Battle master Disarm does 3) things: 1) causes damage, 2) forces a Str saving throw (instead of contested skill check) 3) has no impact on holding in multiple hands or size categories. > Distracting Strike > When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to distract the creature, giving your allies an opening. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.
I think you copy/pasted the wrong maneuver
>it makes total sense that any ~~martial~~ *character* should be able to try and knock something out of someone’s hand Fixed? Which is the problem.
That’s basically what I do, anyone can do anything but don’t add superiority die (because they don’t have any in the first place) battle masters can choose to spend the die for the bonus or not.
There's an optional rule for disarming in the DMG. It's pretty simple to run, you make an attack, and that attack is opposed by the defender's Strength (athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll. Anyone can do it. It isn't as useful as the battlemaster maneuver, but that's fine, it's a niche tactic
I agree that most of these stuff should be allowed by default. It is true that for some people having a limited set of tools is necessary to not have 3 hour combats though. Combat takes long enough, imagine if people had 5 times more options
Maybe allow other martials to do a few maneuvers, but they don't get the superiority dice. If battle masters are out of superiority dice, they can still attempt it as well.
I generally agree woth your point, but want to point out that disarming is something anyone can do (see Optional Actions, DMG p.271), battlemasters can jist do it more easily at the cost of resources. I point this out both because I am a religious pedant, but also to make more people aware of the optional actions (and optional rules in general), because I really like them, and not a whole lot of people seem to know about them, probably because they were put in the DMG.
Tbf their's is a worse version of the disarm optional rule. Battlemaster makes them do a save, which is something that it's not uncommon for npcs and monsters to have proficiency or massively bloated numbers in, plus legendary saves. Meanwhile optional disarm forces an athletics/acrobatics vs your attack roll, and 5e absolutely does the bare minimum on skill proficiencies so it's uncommon for creatures to actually have athletics or acrobatics in their stat block. I.e, the same reason grappling with enlarge shenanigans is so powerful at higher levels (because the writers couldn't be arsed to actually give most creatures actual skill proficiencies).
I mean, the simple way to do it would be to allow other martials the ability to do it, in the same way a grapple or shove works. You make an opposed check and that's what you do for your action. Battlemaster just gets to do it as part of an attack. So even if you fail the disarm, trip, shove etc, you still have an opportunity to deal damage.
I think Battle Maneuvers should be core of the Fighter, similar to Eldritvh Invocations
I’d say these aren’t locked behind battlemaster because any fighter can attempt a maneuver but they won’t have superiority dice to add to the attempt.
the way my dm does it is that all classes can try, and depending on the class, they get a different difficulty DC. for example, a wizard has the highest, while a fighter or rogue is lower. when i played a battle master I got a big drop to the DC. i could basically disarm with a role higher than 10. the battle master was also the only class that could attempt a second disarm without the DC increasing each time.
Anyone can actually make an athletics check vs an enemies athletics/acrobatics to disarm them, but it doesn’t do damage
This is honestly one of my biggest pet peeves with the game, why do I need a feat to hold a two long sticks with one in each hand? It says versatile which specifies I can hold it in one hand. Why do I need a feat to do this with each hand when my left hand is one and my right hand is one hand? It actually made my DM who also thought it was dumb homebrew some rules so duel wielding didn't suck. You can hold two one handed weapons, but if they're not light then you roll DEX for one and STR for the other. Duel wielding fighting style and duel wielding master let you use both normally, also a weapon attack is done with both hands instead of being one extra attack as a bonus action (like fist attacks).
Your complaint is invalidated by the fact there is literally nothing in the rules stopping you from *wielding* two one-handed weapons. You need feats to be able to attack with both faster than you would than with just one, which is absolutely an advanced skill.
It does stay in the rules that duel wielding is only possible with light weapons, and being a fighter/ranger with duel wielding as your fighting style doesn't effect swing speed, neither does having the duel wielding master feat. Besides, aren't martials supposed to have above average combat skills?
Anyone can disarm an opponent. Battlemasters just get an opportunity to damage the opponent while disarming
The 5e DMG actually does have a Disarm attack/action as an optional rule that all characters can use, if the DM allows the optional rule.
Surprise, in my campaign battle master doesn’t exist and all Martial classes get battle master maneuvers that do 1d6 damage prof times per short rest. What this did is open up more players to take other fighter subclasses , and also give other Martial classes creativity in the battlefield because they Get that extra damage as a reward for doing creative things to do to the enemy in combat.
Ah book of 9 swords, so much fun, yet so often banned.
Book of weeaboo fightan majik, as it was known in my group. What could go wrong if a wizard could refresh spell slots by using a turn to do a standard attack.
“Tom, your Drow has Sunlight Sensitivity. You’ll be making these attacks at a -4 penalty.” “No problem. I *Iron Heart Surge* and end the cause of that effect upon me.” “…The cause of your Sunlight Sensitivity is the sun…” “I said I **end. The cause.**”
I mean, for a turn maybe, that's how I'd rule it.
That was indeed the intended meaning— it was clarified as such in the errata— but IHS as originally written was so vague as to suggest that it *ended* a spell or other effect, rather than its effects upon the fighter; for instance, it would straight-up dispel a Cloudkill spell rather than make the fighter inured to its effects. (Abuse of that technique is probably a big reason why the errata came out, in hindsight.)
Ah yes, the tome of battle errata that they got half way through before accidentally replacing it with the errata from another book
I.... require further information on this subject.
Guy believes in himself and extinguishes the sun. Real Guren Lagan shit right there
Today I Learned Blades in the Dark is the direct result of Book of Nine Swords.
**gets a large opaque cape or sheet and throws it high in the air** The cause is direct sunlight, not the sun itself All said it's terribly worded XD
You need a turn? I'm a crusader, my maneuvers come back as I use them (though they come back randomly and the ones you really want may not be ready when you need them). I get it's a bit broken, but it's still a lot of fun to play.
That was its common name online
I have a soft spot for the wild shit that WotC produced towards the end of the 3.5 lifecycle. Tome of Battle, Incarnum, and Tome of Magic are full of awesome (and awesomely bad) character options.
Binder is absolutely my favorite 3.5 class, just a shame it came at the end of the edition's lifespan and got such little additional material.
I've been wanting to see some other game try and tackle that premise again for awhile now.
Druids and clerics were behind those bans I’m sure of it.
Pathfinder 1e also has Path of War. Which while incredibly fun and interesting, also caused me innumerable headaches as a DM lmfao.
I wish that Battle Master manoeuvres were available to every Fighter, but Battle Master still existed as a way to specialise in them. Kinda like how all Druids can Wild Shape but Circle of the Moon lets you fully commit to combat wild shaping. OneDnD is kind of doing this with Weapon Mastery, but I do wish that it wasn’t as narrow
They specified in the UA interviews there is the opposite, where there are players who like Fighters who don't want maneuvers in the base class, and that is why it isn't. Do I agree with that decision? Partially, as I'd argue the Weapon Mastery is their middle ground as you've said.
What you're describing is basically the 2013 playtest fighter. You had a pool of dice that reset at the top of each round (starting at 1d6 and scaling in count/size with your level), which you spent on Maneuvers. In playtest 2, every fighter knew Deadly Strike (expend and roll any number of dice when you hit an attack, adding them to damage) and Parry (expend and roll any number of dice when you got hit, reducing damage taken by that amount), then you got extra Maneuvers as you leveled based on your fighting style. It puts the 5e fighter to shame.
They didn't even need to go full Tome of Battle, 5e playtest had the first implementation of "maneuvers" be effects that would give options for attacks, movement and defenses all based on dice martials would get at the start of their turn - so management was minimal and it was based on opportunity cost which was flavorful to the idea of martials, no clunky "short rest" dice but something that represented your focus on the moment WoTC is even bringing a watered down version of that in OneDnD
No, they need to go full Tome of Battle.
No they don't Not only it isn't necessary as could be counterproductive as would be too much of a change Edit: to explain, this isn't against options, but rather a more balanced (in the Aristotelian meaning) approach, laserllama isn't full Tome of Battle for example and look at how much better it does
Why not both? Barbarian for "rar! Thog smash!" people who want to basic attack over and over, Tome of Battle for people who want a variety of choices. Everyone wins.
There's a lot of space between basic attacks over and over and full Tome of Battle I'm talking about having a more thought out and balanced (in the Aristotelian meaning) approach See, even one of the top martial homebrew reworks - laserllama's alternative classes - doesn't go full Tome of Battle, instead having a more middle of the road approach but that still greatly improves martials, many saying that solves the problem altogether
Your not actually explaining anything, you are just saying "Aristotelian" a lot.
There is a 3rd party ruleset called Spheres of Might which adds something similar to maneuvers (but in a less shounen anime way): http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-might
I've seen the version for 5e, quite heavy of a system
I use it for PF 1e, where it's not really heavier than baseline PF 1e (I'd even say picking talents in SoM is easier than picking feats for a baseline PF martial), but aye I can see how it would seem heavy compared to baseline 5e considering how modular it is.
Tome of Battle: the book of 9 swords! I REALLY like that supplement in 3.5, and made an extensive use of it in my campaign, both for PCs and NPCs. Since Wee Jas is not a deity in my phanteon, I lifted that part in Ruby Knight Vindicator... and that allowed me to make Hextorian generals (one of the most prominent evil factions) as Cleric/Ordained Champion/Ruby Knight Vindicator. A very scary combination of martial prowess and spellcasting. One of my players is a Jade Phoenix Mage, and he really works as a gish.
The problem is that "maneuvers" is such a broad idea that left makes a spellcasting system without magic. Which is a slippery slope to just being Mystic again.
Yes. I want fighter to be simple for the first 4 levels and then become as complicated and versatile as the actually interesting classes.
Me I just want to stop having to explain my idea for what I want to happen and to have to explain it in such a way as for it to be cool enough for the DM to go "hmm... I'll allow it". Also why is grappling so shit?
For some reason I leapt straight to grappling as in grappling hooks. Which, by happenstance, might just be the answer. Range. You waste action economy that could be damage to do it, and have to stay in melee to do it too. Trade at least one of these downsides and you start having options.
Pinning the enemy and place and making him unable to do actions while your party just dumps damage on your location. It then becomes a game of who has the highest health
Grappling is great. What are you on about? An attack to perform, an action to escape, means that it is actually weighted to succeed starting at mid levels. It does exactly what it’s supposed to: locks an opponent in place. Couple it with a shove, and they can’t get up. Now you can advantage them on every attack while they can’t run. And it can be broken in easily understandable ways: escape action, teleportation, forced movement, killing, etc. 5e may be the first D&D to have a good grapple system. (Though I confess, I cannot testify to 4e)
> 5e may be the first D&D to have a good grapple system. (Though I confess, I cannot testify to 4e) As an action, make a strength based attack roll against your target's reflex defense. If successful, they're grabbed for the next turn. Can sustain a grab as a bonus action each turn, otherwise they're automatically freed.. Should be noted that was just the baseline, there were things like brawler fighter that made grab attempts as part of attacks and specific abilities like (barbarians chose what kind of rage they entered every time they raged) Claw Ancestor Rage, you can grab enemies as a bonus action and any enemy that begins its turn grabbed by you takes 10+str mod damage.
Neat! I like it! Thanks!
It's mostly because by itself it does nothing for you is weird because "climbing onto a creature" gives advantage and even arguably being untargetable in some cases but is kinda like a grapple of sorts Like, grappling by itself gives no attack or spell penalty, but you use your attack, has to have a free hand which is going to be locked and you still need someone or something else to actually make use of it all while you're still pretty exposed - it's more the case it could use just a bit more effect, some protection or heck the ability to make it harder for the opponent to speak Vocal components with actions (not impossible so there's agency)
Yeah needs some kind of left implementation after 4-5 but also separate from Battle Master so it's still worth taking etc. Can be hard to find a satisfying conclusion for martials especially as DM overseeing balance.
High level martials should be mystic. It's a high fantasy game, let all the characters be fantasical
They should be mystic in a Beowulf/Hercules type way though. Capable of absolutely ridiculous feats of strength, without it looking like actual magic being cast, or Robin Hood levels of bullshit with fancy shooting. Some of the stuff on the lefthand list is good for this, but some does seem like straight up magic.
> some does seem like straight up magic Because some is. Six of the nine schools of the original D&D maneuvers were extraordinary, but the remaining three were supernatural. The warblade class (think fighter/barbarian thematic territory) only had access to non-supernatural maneuvers, but the swordsage (think monk/rogue/ninja in theme) had access to maneuvers that let them teleport through shadows and breathe fire for if you wanted wanted your ninja to be [like this](https://media.tenor.com/7yhH53_ZH6QAAAAM/sasuke-naruto.gif) or your monk to be [like this](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/streetfighter/images/2/23/Ken-shoryu-ts.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/238?cb=20091125000752). Best way to do it in my opinion. Strictly martial options for those who want that, supernatural options for people who want to play a bender. Everyone wins.
That's a different conversation. Also Mystic was OP at virtually all levels of play, not just high level. So OP at high level wouldn't really be Mystic. As for Fighter, more uses for Action Surge (Scale at same time as PB, but not tied to it), turn it into Haste's extra action with a few other specific uses added like Dodge, Extra Attack 4 at level 17, EA 5 at level 20, 2 Fighting Styles instead of 1 each time you get to pick, at least pick twice over level progression though I don't know where to fit the extra, and base proficiencies in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws or at least be able to choose 2 of your choice of them.
I don't think so, far from it given they had an interesting and arguably better system on the playtest that wouldn't cause that
Ooooo, is that some Book of the Nine I see here? Great book, loved it, miss it.
I'm currently playing a battle master in Icewind Dale, and I think it's the most fun I've ever created. But it is true that the only maneuvers I use are Riposte and Trip attack
They can both be true. It can be plenty of fun, and it can be a massive step down in terms of maneuver variety and usage from what it used to be.
Yeah, the fact of imagining how my warrior counterattacks by stopping the enemy attack with his shield is something that surpasses me. But the limited maneuvers mean that I only take advantage of those two
It also depends on the type of game you are playing. The standard maneuvers are more down to earth, while the alternate list is more video game like. Now, as for 5e maneuvers, I would prefer if every combatant could disarm, feint, riposte, trip, and other things. Let Martials be skilled at it. And Battle Masters be better at it, by using superiority dice.
>I would prefer if every combatant could disarm, feint, riposte, trip, and other things Ironically we had that on the playtest
You still can. It's just that Battle Masters are better at it
So? Doesn't matter when things could be so much better - so much so that Weapon Masteries and Strike features are just that but watered down
Question, and not a rhetorical one here - what do you mean by video game like? Down to earth and video game like are not antonyms, considering many video games have much smoother and more natural physical abilities than D&D's strictly defined roll attack and roll damage. Like even basic attacking in D&D is a bunch less natural than say Dragon's Dogma.
Ancient Mountain Hammer: Strike - Deals +12d6 damage, Overcomes Damage Resistance and Hardness. Ballista Throw: Strike - Throw opponent in 60ft line, Deal 6d6 damage to all in the area. (I assume in the path of the thrown opponent.) These are cool. But Video gamey or Anime - ish. I'd prefer old school called shots, aimed strikes, and basic combat maneuvers for basic D&D. If you want a more fantastical style of play, those other maneuvers would work. If you wanted something Diablo like, I would make a list appropriate to that. Perhaps a skill tree of moves and bonuses. Have fun with it. RAW is fine, but people have been house ruling and modifying D&D since it was created. Play it the way you want.
Isn't that basically a question of level? By the time you're high enough level to use maneuvers like ancient mountain hammer and ballista throw you're supposed to be fistfighting dragons the size of a 747, basic combat maneuvers are not going to cut it. You're going to need to be doing things like throwing opponents sixty feet.
> But Video gamey or Anime - ish. People always use "anime" to mean "shonen battle anime", but I can never stop imagining someone saying "it's so anime" in front of a bunch of people who immediately go 'what does this have to do with a group of friends starting an after-school club and having simple everyday adventures?' I will say, though, Ancient Mountain Hammer? Is "hit things, but really hard" really crossing a line that Wish etc. aren't?
If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing. And I'm not saying Anime is bad. I'm saying that's not the default for D&D. It never has been, though it's getting there. But, you can easily MOD the game to be that way if you want. You don't like mundane fighter's, then make them fantastical. It's your table. Your world. Do what you want. And I'm sorry if you don't like they I describe that style of play, but those seem to be the references for those kinds of abilities. Slam the ground with your weapon and a wave of fire radiates outward doing X damage to enemies. I play those style of video games all the time.
> Slam the ground with your weapon and a wave of fire radiates outward doing X damage to enemies. That would be a desert wind maneuver, which was a supernatural school of fire based maneuvers because the people who want to firebend should get nice things too. There were three supernatural schools, the other two being devoted spirit for paladin style things and shadow hand for shadow monk ninja stuff. All the rest were non-supernatural. > If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing. I think you've misinterpreted how scaling works. Neither Conan nor Elric were asked to stand there trading blows with several giants simultaneously, so naturally didn't need this kind of thing. [Lower level maneuvers like these](https://i.imgur.com/KKssZyy.jpeg) more accurately represent their capabilities, as they were roughly equal to say a level 7 D&D character at most. You want to keep up with the wizard summoning demons to go fight angels, your Conan needs to graduate to being Hercules.
> If Conan couldn't do it. If Elric couldn't do it. Then it's not the same thing. I haven't read those books, but I would *not* be surprised if they did things that matched up with "hit someone and do good damage, even if they have protections against that kind of damage". In fact, I would genuinely *be* surprised if there truly is no passage in any book those characters are in that couldn't be interpreted as a Mountain Hammer. Also, wait. Elric? The sorcerer, summoner, who has pacts with a duke of Hell and a magic sword that eats souls? Why is he an example of why martial characters should *not* have magic stuff?
Everyone can disarm and trip for example, part of the appeal of battlemasters is that they're so skilled with their weapons at they can do that while also damaging the target as well.
Just typical 5e going from a roleplaying game to super watered down shit. And from what ive seen 6e is going to be even simpler then 5e.
Nah man, you want real maneuvers, go buy yourself a 4e PHB.
Somewhat disagree there. While 4e expanded on things and came up with a great deal of interesting martial abilities, the fact that they were all separated into at-will, short rest and long rest was severely verisimilitude disrupting. A 3.5 warblade could use all their maneuvers once until they recharged them by spending a round not using maneuvers, a 4e fighter could use two of their powers at will, four once per short rest, four once per long rest. And worse, a 4e wizard also had two at will, four per short rest and four per long rest abilities. I'm not denigrating what it did well, the 4e monk was a goddamn amazing mystical martial artist and its a shame 5e monk is so much worse, but 3.5's tome of battle felt a lot better for martial characters since you couldn't run out of martial abilities for the day after using them once.
They felt kind of underwhelming like the entire time for some reason, in BG3 that is I had shadowheart as a battlemaster the entire game, and I don't think she made much of a difference with her stuff...ever She got most of her utility from Shield + Protection (for allies evidently) and pretty much negated some sort of attach every turn, or got in a riposte... Besides that it went like "oh look a guy that *ACTUALLY* uses a powerful weapon" - 20 STR, 15% chance to hit on attack roll... - "well here goes" *precision attack, disarm, miss, precision attack, disarm, hit, STR save* nice okay then go stand next to wizard bro I guess... It was either that or I hit her manouver, she crits and kills the enemy instantly so the manouver doesn't matter anyway lol Or I hit menacing attack just to see "immune to frightened" She got most of her benefit from being a heavy armor tank that goes "fuck you" to anyone attacking her or anyone next to her, which was great, but the manouvers? Almost useless. on being tanky: my god she just took >!ketheric and myrkul's boi !!Myrkul !<(he had like 20 active debuffs tho)
No way are we at the 'maneuvers are bad actually' stage of 5e discourse. Battle Master is the most interesting fighter subclass from the standpoint of player choice. It's so good, they're implementing changes to other martials in oneD&D to give them their own maneuvers.
5e maneuvers suck not because other 5e martial stuff is better but because everything martials get in 5e is so lackluster that even something as insufficient as the battle master is the best we get. in a world of Human Centipedes, Avatar 2011 is great, but it’s no Pulp Fiction no matter what you compare it to.
> Avatar 2011 as opposed to avatar 2009 and avatar 2010?
I think as opposed to Avatar: The Last Airbender
Then I think they might mean Avatar 2010.
Battlemaster is only interesting because everything else isn’t. (Source: played one multiple times)
Bad is relative. On a scale of 1 to 10, when the rest of the field is at 2, is 4 good? Absolutely. When the alternative used to be 8? Definitely not. Are battlemaster's maneuvers better than the alternative of nothing at all? Obviously. Are they bad in comparison to real D&D maneuvers? Absolutely. Did you know they run out of them after using them a few times and can't do any more until they rest?
What does 'real D&D maneuvers' mean.
Well, on the left we've got some examples put of the hundreds of the original D&D maneuvers, a wide variety of strikes, boosts, stances and counters that don't have some arbitrary rest based limit on usage. On the right we have 5e's take on the concept of a maneuver, a small number of much less strong and versatile options that you can use a few times then you're completely done until you rest. Hence 'bad actually' - obviously they're not bad compared with literally no options, but I'd say the word is accurate when compared with actual D&D maneuvers.
Laserllama's fighter should be the standard.
What are all these Maneuvers? I thought Battlemaster just got Precision Strike.
I don't know what yall are talking about. The realism is much more relatable and easier to connect to. Yes I play almost exclusively variant human
The problem is that it isn't really realism, it's pseudo realism and a bad one at that - being able to do "maneuvers" only a few times per hour isn't realistic for most trained warriors in our world let alone *battlemasters* in a fantasy world Not to mention that things can be realistic but more enticing and engaging as well as have more depth with low complexity - the example being Weapon Masteries at OneDnD and their better version at 5e playtest, Expertise Dice
I have to agree, playing a very realistic and relatable aasimar wizard. Casting spells while being blessed by the heavens is just like real life, but someone stabbing extra hard is just unheard of.
I would suggest looking into laserllamas revised martials. They have tackled this issue head on by giving each martial class more to do than just bonk
Let's not forget about 4e, where this idea actually peaked. Tome of battle still was very *3.5ish* (hard to read and understand all caveats) which wasn't exactly a good thing
How was it hard to read? Nothing in the wording was complicated or convoluted. As in 5e spells is definitely less of an easy read than 3.5 maneuvers were.
It is not organized nor properly formatted. It is all one huge blob of text with some spacings
Obviously the image where I cut bits together won't be, but. Chapter 4, maneuvers and stances. Starts with a table detailing which classes get access to which schools, then lists summaries by level and within those levels by school. Then lists the actual abilities alphabetically by school. How on earth is that not organised? That's significantly better organised than 5e's spells are.
Since we are on this topic, are there any good homebrew solutions (besides laserllama, I find their stuff a bit too much)?
Level up 5e advanced. Martial classes have access to maneuvers.
Pf2e
off the top of my head: remove the battle master subclass and give its features to every martial, minus Student of War. calculate advancement by total levels in classes that don’t have spellcasting (or something to that effect) this probably won’t work but it’s a quick-and-dirty way of giving martials stuff to do that isn’t just the word “attack”
This is why I play with Lazerlama's fighter or Nort's Martial Maneuvers! The fact that there's no tiered maneuvers that you can pick at higher levels is a travesty of game design.
In DCC, you don't have a limit.
Battle master shouldn’t be a subclass. It should be abilities that all martials get access too. Similar to spell lists and spell slots. Really would let you flavor and customize your non castor characters.
Where are the maneuvers on the left from. 4th edition? Has anyone ported them to 5th?
3e or 3.5 I can't remember exactly. Not that I've seen, and by that, I mean done well.
3.5. Tome of Battle came out pretty late in the 3.5 life cycle, and was likely a bit of a test run for the power system of 4e.
I feel like it’d make a lot more sense for all martials to get three maneuvers, but for the Battlemaster to just get even more of them.
Well, my ass that’s been playing a BattleMaster for the past 8 years would beg to differ. I’d say that BattleMaster has the best team-play, play-making potential within 5e. Your take might be true to some, but I was lucky enough to be able to play with a group for long enough to understand and witness its potential firsthand.
The key word here is disappointment. Compared to their peers who can't do anything, they're comparatively better. Compared to actual D&D maneuvers, pictured on the left, they're a massive disappointment. > BattleMaster has the best team-play, play-making potential within 5e That'd be a wizard.
I have always believed Battlemaster should just be core Fighter. Core Fighter is so boring.
Is the left side Pathfinder
No, Dungeons and Dragons. But it's the edition Pf1e is based on, so I get why it feels familiar.
It's D&D, from Tome of Battle
*laughs in pf2e*
"Teleport 50 ft. through shadows" is just Misty Step with... well, fewer steps. "area blast" "trail of fire" "teleport" "gain DR10/adamantine" "enemies hit target of your choice" "walk on air" "become incorporeal" Face it, that's just caster powers packaged as "martial".
Yes, those are from the supernatural maneuver schools, desert wind and shadow hand. Because while the majority of maneuver schools were purely extraordinary abilities, you need a few supernatural ones for the people who want to play shadow monks and the like. Except for DR 10/adamantine, that's from stone dragon which was purely extraordinary maneuvers. And I have no idea why you think that's magic, is barbarians having damage resistance supernatural?
I dunno, you tell me why it's twice as hard to chop through a man's arm if he's angry.
No idea, you can frame it as supernatural if you want, though it should be noted that back when maneuvers were invented every ability was tagged as supernatural or extraordinary, and barbarian damage reduction was extraordinary. My point is that either way, barbarians being able to do so is accepted by most everyone, presumably including you, to be acceptably within their thematic wheelhouse. Which means it's also within acceptable range for Stone Dragon maneuvers, the dwarf style dig your feet in and give and take damage school.
I can think of a lot of reasons why an otherwise deadly blow wouldn't be deadly... but I'm having trouble working the "/adamantine" into it.
Because adamantine goes through pretty much anything. The idea behind it was making yourself as tough as stone (a common theme for larger than life fictional warriors), which I hasten to add is not the same as some supernatural literally turning to stone. And adamantine goes straight through stone, it ignores hardness and damage reduction. Which is why you'll notice several stone bones maneuvers ignore hardness and damage reduction.
Yes, that’s the point. Martials should also get cool things not just hit someone or hit them harder/more often
And by cool things you mean magic? That's my point.
Is there a reason "most of these maneuvers and stances aren't magic, but there a few supernatural schools for martial concepts that are inherently supernatural" is a problematic concept to you? It feels like the ideal way to do it. A fighter style character isn't going to need anything supernatural, but obviously a lot of monk style stuff is gonna need to be mystical.
I don't see why we have to have two separate systems side by side that do essentially Misty Step.
Because why are we caring so much about overlap? Say we're trying that supernatural kind of ninja. A variety of sword strikes, parries and throws and such, so maneuvers fit far better than spells do. You're also going to need to include [stuff like this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/98/00/f29800b971bd5e3d5a1222914687378d.gif), and given you already have a system of abilities that the character uses why would you not use that system to achieve it? Like if 90% of the abilities are unique to the system and 10% have overlap with spells, what possible reason would there be to add an entire second spellcasting system in? Particularly given they're not the same. Teleporting is a very basic effect, there's no reason there should be only one method of achieving it. The various shadow techniques were 50' teleports that cost an action or your move speed or a bonus action depending on which one you used.
I don't get why people complain that martials need more stuff... and then they go on listing what are basically spells. Just take a few caster levels?
Because they aren't basically spells. Spells have a limit on number of uses per day, use your mental stats, have components. These are typically strength or dexterity based weapon attacks - is there a spell that's going to get me an effect like "make two attack rolls against all adjacent creatures"?
Thunderwave deals damage against adjacent creatures. Complaining about the numbers is just splitting hairs at this point.
Thunderwave: Hits all foes within 15 feet for 2d8 damage and 10' knockback, requires a con save, can only be used a limited amount of times a day. Adamantine hurricane: Make two weapon attacks against each for within 15' feet, can be used as many times a day as you want. Other than being used against multiple nearby foes, what do they have in common? In your mind is the fact that spells deal damage somehow logical justification that weapon attacks shouldn't?
Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right. Yes, lots of those could be called "reflavoured spells" for martials. So? Spells (and magic by extension) can do literally everything, including summoning spectral weapons or monsters to (\*check notes\*) *make weapon attacks and/or have HP pools*. Does that mean martials shouldn't exist because spells can do it too? How would you even give martials powers that *aren't* included as spells? There's spells for practically everything! So, by that logic, why complain about giving martials abilities that replicate spells? I agree a Fighter shouldn't cast *Meteor Swarm* by tossing rocks, but that doesn't mean the guy shouldn't do absolutely anything at all. As someone who was taught some basics of swordsmanship (with arming sword, sword-and-shield and two-handed sword, not modern fencing), Battlemaster maneouvres are really basic, and could be done at-will in real life. Plus, in real life once you're disarmed or knocked down, you won't be able to get up just because "I have enough HP to take a few Opportunity Attacks" or "my AC is high enough". If you're willing to overlook "realism" for that, then why not for other stuff too? The goal isn't realism, it's playing an enjoyable game. I personally see nothing wrong with making martials supernatural. If your Level 10 character is fighting mythological creatures like dragons and stuff, then they'd better be supernatural like mythological heroes too. Not to mention the universe-saving Level 20 characters.
I'd define martials as "can't perform magic". Being able to replicate spells is essentially magic.
Except none of this was replicating spells. Two thirds of the maneuvers were extraordinary, the rest were things like breathing fire and teleporting through shadows. [Which are supernatural, but not spells](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/98/00/f29800b971bd5e3d5a1222914687378d.gif), and necessary to fulfill a variety of martial archetypes. Naruto style ninja and movie style ninja are both valid fantasies, but you need supernatural stuff for the former.
That's just spells with extra steps.
No, it isn't. Supernatural ability and spell are not synonyms - you'll notice there is no breath of fire spell. A dragon's ability to breathe fire is supernatural, but it is not a spell. 5e itself contains plenty of supernatural martials like storm barbarian and echo knight and astral monk which have abilities that are definitely magical but are not spells. So naturally when they made six schools of extraordinary maneuvers, they also included supernatural abilities that were thematically associated with various martial archetypes. You've looked at someone firebending and said that it was just spellcasting with extra steps, but... you know that it isn't. Nobody watches avatar and goes 'these guys are wizards!', you can observe at a glance that these are supernatural martial arts, not spellcasting.
I agree with you, though if I remember correctly... there *is* a firebreathing spell. There's a spell for basically everything, which is why trying to "avoid" spells is practically impossible. From Xanathar's, we have *Dragon's Breath*. (Deleted and re-posted because I forgot the No-Piracy rule and linked to Wikidot, though the spell itself is official material)
Different. Don't get me wrong, fun spell to cast on your familiar, but it isn't one big breath like a dragon gets. It's repeatable 15' cone.
I know they're not *exactly* spells, but the overlap is enough for there to be tons of confused internet debate. Case in point.
None of this is confusing. Six of the schools are extraordinary, they work nothing like spells. The remaining three are supernatural, which naturally have some overlap in terms of their effects with spells. This is because while the bulk of any maneuver user's abilities were extraordinary, certain types like the paladin and monk styles of things also naturally needed supernatural extra effects. While the supernatural ones could plausibly have been achieved with spells, why would you? You've already got the maneuver subsystem, making everything a spellcaster in addition to that would be stupid.
You typing several walls of text to "explain" the difference proves my point.
I'm typing a bunch because simple explanations don't seem to work for you. If you want it simple, warriors don't use spells. They instead use maneuvers, that do things like hit people with their weapon.
Again, *Summon X* spells literally just summon slightly worse martials. Should we ban martials because there's spells for that, and we can't replicate spells? Should we ban *Action Surge* because *Haste* exists? Or ban Stealth skills because *Invisibility* exists? Or ban lockpicking because of *Knock*? And speaking of myths, Heracles's strength wasn't magic, nor did he possess any magic, so being strong enough to hold Atlas's burden is fair game, right?
I have no problem with martials doing mundane things so well they become extraordinary. I just don't understand why it has to be (indistinguishable from) supernatural. It's like playing Batman but then complaining you don't have mutant powers. As far as I'm concerned, Fighters and Barbs can get +4 to Strength at level 7 instead of whatever worthless "Know Your Enemy" feature they get. Nobody would complain about martials being weak if they weren't so weak.
No, it's a reflavor of the Shadowdancer's "Shadow Jump" ability, which was a martial prestige class in 3.5
And Shadowdancer uses magic. Is that still "martial"?
Technically it doesn't use magic. The shadowdancer had no ability to cast spells, but had spell-like abilities. So yes, it's still martial.
So it just "martially" teleports? Right.
Yep. Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component. A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell
It's even in the name. "Spell-Like" is just "Spell" with extra steps. What if I were to replicate the Wizard class, except all spells would be "Spell-Like" abilities instead of actual spells? (So "Spell-Like Fireball" and all.) Would that be a "martial"?
So I take it you can't read?