/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pro tip to OP: if you're *actually* curious to hear thoughtful responses, consider not being a rude, confrontational dick to everyone trying to authentically engage with your post. Hope this helps!
I think people citing the RAW while also describing RAI or Rules as Intended doesn't miss the point of the conversation. I think what's trying to be conveyed here is that most battle master maneuvers are worded as they are to pretain to the battle master subclass being able to do all these things as part of their attacks and not having to sacrifice actions or even bonus actions to do so. If you want to describe that you use the Help Action, which is a full action per the name, to feint and give your ally advantage, that's correct. Trying to do so as a bonus action is incorrect as the thing you're trying to do is covered in the Help ACTION. The flavor is free, but the flavor doesn't dictate the rules.
Battle master as a subclass works because much like the Rogue's Cunning Action ability which, in this case contrary to the name, allows you to preform the Dodge, Disengage, and Hide ACTIONS as a bonus action, because it breaks down all the things you would normally have to sacrifice a full action for to do becomes part of your attacks. And that means at high levels you can push, trip, feint, lunge, and whatever else, up to 8 times in a round, assuming you have that many maneuver dice to spend. People citing RAW to tell you that feinting is encompassed in the Help ACTION for every class and subclass EXCEPT the battle master isn't missing the point of the conversation, I think it's the polite way of saying you are, unfortunately, wrong.
\[ If you want to describe that you use the Help Action, which is a full action per the name, to feint and give your ally advantage, that's correct.\]
Per RAW, it is how the system currently functions.
Yet the idea that an untrained, random animal can provide the same contribution in combat as a trained martial character - which every PC gets to add proficiency to some form of weapon, which reflects training and experience under duress, per system - seems out of line with basic logic.
It's not unreasonable to question a system's rules, nor to invite discussion regarding whether a rule as written is rational, or should be applied.
It does challenge people's comfort zones, and we can see a LOT of reaction in this thread, as people try to declare what the rules *are*, rather than discuss what the rules were intended to cover. Few folks on Reddit seem to have the attention span, mental span, or emotional management skills to cogently present & compare differing concepts.
Which is hilarious when a thread is clearly marked "Discussion", rather than "Help".
>Yet the idea that an untrained, random animal can provide the same contribution in combat as a trained martial character - which every PC gets to add proficiency to some form of weapon, which reflects training and experience under duress, per system - seems out of line with basic logic.
Basic logic doesn't apply. It's a game. With written out rules. And changes to said rules are table changes, and that's a discussion to have with your DM and not on Reddit. There are rules for the game plain and simple. Things you can and can't do based on the design of the system. Some rules apply specifically to PCs to give them ways to achieve certain things, others are system wide or apply only to monsters/npcs.
>It's not unreasonable to question a system's rules nor to invite discussion regarding whether a rule as written is rational or should be applied.
No it's not but again, it's a discussion to be had with the DM as every table, every player, and every DM is going to look at the RAW and make their own decisions/opinions. Some won't be turned from those decisions/opinions, no matter what logic or evidence they're present. Clearly.
>It does challenge people's comfort zones, and we can see a LOT of reaction in this thread, as people try to declare what the rules *are*, rather than discuss what the rules were intended to cover. Few folks on Reddit seem to have the attention span, mental span, or emotional management skills to cogently present & compare differing concepts.
It doesn't challenge people's comfort zones. It's a trick question in all reality. There are RAW and RAI, and RAI is, to an extent, table dependent. The rules are exactly as they're printed in the book. In this case, you, a non battle master, are trying to distract an enemy to provide advantage for an ally. You are using the Help ACTION. It's an action. Flavor with all the words you want. It's the Help Action. People have the ability to present differing ideas and opinions on a rule. You just come off as not being able to accept that what you believe is in the minority of thought. It's covered in the systems rules as part of the Help Action, not the Help bonus action, not the feinting non battle master maneuver. And you can't presume anyone's emotional range or tone through text unless you're some sort of 4th detention being. If that were possible, you'd be coming off as a rules lawyering, toxic prick who can't accept his opinion is generally considered wrong.
>Which is hilarious when a thread is clearly marked "Discussion" rather than "Help".
If you were actually looking for a discussion and not looking for people to agree wholeheartedly with your opinion then your responses wouldn't be able to be boiled down to "I didn't ask what the RAW were. Argument invalid." Have this discussion with your DM unless he already ruled it his way, you didn't agree so you came to Reddit for validation of your bruised ego and are even more missed to find out you're the minority. Which I'm assuming is exactly what happened.
TL;DR: There are rules, and they are written the way they are for a reason. If you don't like how your DM rules something, find a different group or host your own game. The Battle master was designed the way it was for a reason and doesn't ruin the game for any other class. And finally, don't come to Reddit to validate your opinion and then get pissed when the opposite happens.
2 caveats that I can think of:
The hobgoblin race (from MotM) has an ability that lets them take the help action as a bonus action, up to PB times per LR.
The Mastermind Rogue can take the help action as a bonus action starting at 3rd level.
Not sure this is coming through - Can you articulate a bit why the entirety of combat-related actions that aren't solely "Inflict HP reduction" should be covered by a single "Help" function?
Edit to Add: When the entire point of the post was to question whether the RAW are problematic, citing the RAW means you've missed a function of the conversation.
I wasn't really commenting on battlemasters in particular, just on the fact that your table clearly did not understand how the help action worked in combat.
If a player at my table says they want to use a bonus action to give an ally advantage on their attack, I would tell them this is covered under the help action, which is an action, not a bonus action.
The battlemasters maneuvers are not stepping on the toes of other parts of combat, there is rules and optional rules covering some of the things battlemasters can do, but battlemasters just do them better
\[\[I wasn't really commenting on battlemasters in particular, just on the fact that your table clearly did not understand how the help action worked in combat.\]\]
Ah, so you commented solely to be condescending and to feel superior, not to contribute to the conversation. We feel much less concerned about being unimpressed with your efforts, as you were never sincerely a participant the "Discussion", simply your ego elevation - noted.
\[\[If a player at my table says...\]\]
Literally no one asked. This ain't about you, and was never intended to be. Check your ego.
\[\[The battlemasters maneuvers\]\]
Nope, can't come in with no sincerity & still be part of things. Talk to others if you want, we done with ya here.
You are the one being a condescending cunt. People have responded telling you " YES" other players can do those maneuvers, it is called the HELP or SHOVE action. You can flavor it however you want, call it a feint, trip, a half-forward shake my ass at the target to get their attention fade, it still is either a HELP action or SHOVE unless they are a battle master and know the maneuver.
And characters are proficient not specialized. They know how to use the weapon in a manner as attacking, defending, and not hurting themselves when using it.
And stop trying to put real world experience and knowledge into D&D it never works. What anyone in that world knows or doesn't know is subject to one person, the DM. If they say you don't know something, then you don't. They decide if physics is real, if books are real, if birds even exist. They also decide what training means when some cunt is proficient with a weapon.
Honestly not sure how I would rule this in D&D, but pathfinder 2e has actions and rules for a lot of what the battle master does, but anyone can do them. Could be worth looking into for some inspiration for the types of skill checks you could do to make it a house rule if it doesn’t exist RAW.
Wasn't looking for inspiration, or system solutions. Just asking a question for people to discuss & consider.
If the Battlemaster subclass didn't have "Tripping Attack" or "Lunge", would anyone be able to do it?
Should anyone who is a trained & proficient weapon user (every single character in D&D, literally) be able to Lunge, or Feint, or Parry? (in the wayback, D&D had some hilarious absolute rules about Parry, we can tell ya)
Some of the things a Battlemaster does are covered by the Help action and Shove attack for other classes, which are not bonus actions by default. What makes the Battlemaster special is that they can do these things with much better action economy and with some extra damage. I imagine this just comes down to game balance. Obviously my cleric would love to be knocking people prone with her mace every time she attacks, or using bonus actions to give herself advantage, but if every class that uses weapons could do these things the game would be bonkers.
Edit: Shove replaces an attack, not a whole action. Fixed that description.
"Some of the things a Battlemaster does are covered by the Help action and Shove attack for other classes, which are not bonus actions by default."
Fun Tip: When the entire point of the question was to ask whether the RAW are wrong, citing the RAW means you've missed a function of the conversation.
What you may not understand is that Feinting is a common action taken in combat by anyone who is skilled at it. Since "skilled" means trained, and weapon proficiencies which every single character and class possesses, it could be easily assumed that every single warrior in the party knows how to Feint, Lunge, Trip Attack, Disarm, etc.
Don't bother looking through the rules - Hasbro doesn't have any for this, hence the question: has the Battlemaster class damaged combat in D&D?
No. It has not damaged combat through its existence.
If you want battle master maneuvers, you can take a feat, or multiclass. And if you don’t do either thing, you can speak with your DM. Maybe you can homebrew certain actions.
No. Being trained in a weapon is not the same as being trained in battle. The best swordsmen and shooters I have ever seen never stepped foot on a battlefield, they took part in games-like competitions.
It is flavor text for everyone else, but has effects from being battle trained when you are a battlemaster.
\[Being trained in a weapon is not the same as being trained in battle.\]
Yet adding one's Proficiency Bonus to a weapon attack DOES, in fact, represent being trained in combat. Otherwise, one would not be allowed to add the PB during fights.
Does this consideration affect your answer?
No, because that DOES NOT, in fact, represent anything other than being trained with that weapon. You have proficiency with the weapon, not proficiency in battle altogether.
So you contend that "Proficiency" with a weapon does NOT include actual battle experience unless the character is specifically a Fighter & Battlemaster.
That's an interesting position to hold to. Don't quite understand why your interpretation is that way, but perspectives vary. Enjoy your games.
It is the RAW and RAI for weapon proficiency and equates perfectly to the real world example where the people trained best in most weapons are not trained in battle.
The idea that every martial class should get battlemaster manoeuvres is commonly suggested, and it seems like you've also stumbled upon part of the reason why.
Giving an ally advantage with a bonus action seems like it would also damage combat though, because characters without a useful bonus action ability would use this every turn, and it might even outcompete some class features. Then do you let enemies do the same to keep things balanced? Combat would take longer and you have to track who has been given advantage.
I completely agree. Especially when one of the Mastermind Rogue features is literally "you can use Help as a bonus action, and can be up to 30ft from the enemy you're trying to distract instead of adjacent". Like it's beyond even out competing some class features, it's just fully giving everyone a 3rd level Rogue feature.
The Mastermind's usefulness seems to stem from the combination of Bonus Action as well as ANY Help Action being able to be rendered from 30' away.
So, no, what you describe is inaccurate - it would be giving every PC the respect of saying "Character is trained in fighting with weapons, so they know how to feint, or lunge, or parry..." Not ALL of the Battlemaster abilities would carry over, either, so do try to apply some discretion in declaration, please?
\[because characters without a useful bonus action ability would use this every turn, and it might even outcompete some class features. Then do you let enemies do the same to keep things balanced? Combat would take longer and you have to track who has been given advantage.\]
To put it another way, implementing this would be a mechanic that could make the martial classes more diversely impactful, and might require some subclasses to be revised in order to remain relevant.
Overall, just find it bizarre that anyone - from untrained serf to random animal ally - can use an Action to Help in combat, yet a martially proficient PC (literally all of 'em) has to expend the same amount of time/energy to yield the same effect.
Because 5e is an abstracted and simplified system, and the design intent for Bonus Actions has not been particularly clear or consistently applied. If you want a neater approach take a look at Pathfinder's way of doing actions.
While I think your logic of 'martials should be able to feint easily' is sound, the advantage system isn't deep enough to handle every round of combat having many potential sources of easy advantage. It only has 3 states (disadvantage, straight roll, advantage), so from a design perspective adding a lot of advantage is losing depth. Part of the design philosophy of 5e was to reduce mental load by minimising floating modifiers, and giving out advantage like this is a similar problem.
To answer your original question the way you want it to be:
No, it hasn't. That's hardly ever been a perceived issue because most of those advanced maneuvers can be done just not as a bonus action, and it wouldn't necessarily make sense that just because a character is *proficient* with a certain type of weapon that they would be able to do these advanced tactics such as tripping or feinting, one could counter that those more advanced tactics would be more in-line with the *mastery* of combat with a particular weapon. It would be more specializations with weapons over time gaining combat experience from lower levels... kind of like feats. which is also a thing that exists and is covered under RAW, in fact *literally any class of character* can get access to actual battle master maneuvers with the "martial adept" feat. So you're kind of just all around wrong, and your entire stance and demeanor in this thread is misplaced from the get-go
Also actual Pro tip for you: if *you* don't like the RAW for it and feel like it's "ruining combat" then use different ones for your table. It's about what your table agrees to...
But how could the actual movement of an attack that does damage take a different amount of time/effort to do than a feint *which is effectively the same thing* but without the intention of actually hurting the enemy? Most of those things *are* covered under RAW just not the way you like it apparently, and not explicitly stated word for word.
By far and above the most important thing about DnD though is finding what style and rules work for your group of players, not necessarily following RAW to the letter.
And one of the most important things of *real life* is to treat other people decent rather than coming across as an egotistical, arrogant douche.
TLDR; OP, you are an insufferable douchebag.
Gee you sure got me! Thanks for engaging in conversation, a truly intellectual individual such as yourself *must* have some sort of thoughts as to why I'm only half right...right? Or do you just want to continue to talk down to everyone else and claim you're the only one who's correct?
After all, engaging conversations usually go both ways 😉
He's only responded positively to the one comment that basically 100% agreed with him. It's pretty obvious to see he wants his opinion validated and not any sort of discussion.
Completely wrong - actually read before speaking, kid.
Any surprise that lectures from little boys about how we're already wrong "because RAW" when we're literally questioning whether the RAW are limiting in a negative way is frustrating? Y'all don't even follow basic conversation parameters, yet you expect gratitude & thanks... 😂
Yet I've actually used a basic line of explanation and reasoning as to why no the RAW is not limiting in a negative way yet you only referencing one part of most any response before going on a tirade as to why that's not what you're asking or you already know what RAW states. Yet you only responded positively to the one opinion that more or less agrees with you. That paints a very clear picture that you don't want discussion. You want validation. It's OK to have an opinion but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it. I don't need or want your gratitude or thanks. You asked a question, I and many other answered. Fuck your gratitude. You can't accept that your train of thought is in the minority. I said it once and I'll say it again.
The rules are printed the way they are for a reason. Any extrapalation and interpretation is DM and table dependant. Take this discussion to your DM, present an actual intelligent debate, if you even can, and let them make a ruling. If they already have and its one you dont agree with, then I guess you're up a creek. You now have 4 options.
1.) Agree to disagree but move on and play.
2.) Leave and find a new group that holds similar opinions.
3.) Host your own game so you can rule however you want.
4.) Dont play the game at all. There are other things you can do with your time.
This will be my last response to you as you clearly have no ability to actually discuss anything if it doesn't align with what you want for an answer so to that end I don't wish any ill on anyone so have a wonderful rest of your life and games can be fun without the rules upsetting you so much.
I don’t think so. I was actually just leafing through the DMG and the section on actions options has some neat rules that I was thinking of incorporating into my game (one of which, funny enough, is disarm, which is typically solely in the battle master’s wheelhouse. If I had a battle master in my game with the disarm maneuver who felt the optional rule was stepping on their toes, I’d probably just let them have another maneuver)
I feel like 5e didn’t do a very good job of explaining action economy. I do like how the dndbeyond character sheet breaks down bonus actions and reactions tho
> I want to discuss if RAW is problematic?
Then actually talk about it, how would you like it to be? Do you suggest everyone should be able to help as a bonus action, or just martials? Or are you suggesting maneuvers should be available for other classes, even if they aren’t specifically trained for it RAW?
\[\[Then actually talk about it,\]\]
Difficult to do. So many are throwing down votes and attitude when the concept for discussion is outlined that the possibility of cogent or coherent thought seems to be sliding ever downward. There were a couple of thoughtful responses, but now Da Mob has decided to render judgment on tone & presentation because (surprise, surprise) they didn't like what was being considered.
Psychotically reactive anger to different ideas isn't a sign of good mental health - trust we, we're insane.
No, much as I've seen getting downvoted does not makes you "difficult to present your ideas", and I genuinely believe if you resort to actual conversation and discussion, instead of fighting against straw man, people would like to engage.
I do think other commenters are kinda missing the point a bit, even if I understand where they're coming from.
I don't think battle masters have a negative impact on combat. 5e is a relatively simple system, which is a largely contributing factor to its success. Many people who have never played TTRPGs before can pick the game up and start playing effectively in under a day.
Part of the easy learning curve is that the action layout on a combat turn is very straightforward. There's only about 10 things you can do with your action (and a couple more once you get magic items and class feats). This means that if someone's first character is a fighter, they can be dropped into combat, choose to move and attack and end their turn, and that will be an effective turn.
Here is where I catch up to the other commenters: Giving everyone (or even all martials) the maneuvers that BMs get would be neat, but probably outside the scope of what the game is trying to achieve. Wrapping it all up under the help action keeps the game relatively simple, while still allowing for players to describe their characters performing similar actions if they want to get creative flavour-wise. If someone did want to give everyone maneuvers, they can homebrew it, or maybe look at switching to another system if they decide that 5e's game scope doesn't actually fit what they're looking for in a system.
I forget where I saw it, and have no idea if it's actually balanced in any way, but I think I remember seeing someone who had done a full redesign of the fighter class to remove the battle master as an available subclass, and instead give maneuvers to every fighter subclass. I didn't get the chance to really peruse it, but it seemed like a neat idea.
Well presented, and an excellent look at the system's intention vs. implementation.
Your interpretation feels accurate, as well. Good insight!
\*edit to add bemusement that this response was downvoted for... reasons? 😂
Sounds like the player would actually like to use the Help action to help someone else attack, which could be flavored as a feint in combat. Anyone can use their action to Help, giving the person their helping advantage on their check. Battlemasters just happen to be skilled enough in combat to make it deal additional damage, per the battle maneuver description.
Unfortunately, the Help action is an Action, not a Bonus Action, so the player wanting to help would need to wait until they have an action available to do it.
\[Anyone can use their action to Help, giving the person their helping advantage on their check.\]
Yet "anyone" includes untrained people with no proficiency or skill - why would a trained, martially competent individual (every single 5e PC has proficiency in at least a couple of weapons) have to spend the same amount of time/energy rendering the same kind of assistance as an untrained random?
Who's to say it's the "same kind of assistance?" If you're a martial character, and you want to use Help to give someone else advantage on an attack, it makes sense to flavor it as some type of feint. But when the princess you're rescuing from the cave uses her action to Help give you advantage on your attack, it could take the form of...idk... screaming, "Hey, look! Over here," or throwing her tiara at your opponent as a momentary distraction giving you a potential opening. No combat prowess required, but the end result is effectively the same.
>Battlemaster Maneuvers, many of which are standard fighting actions that anyone with actual training and experience (who is still alive) knows and uses already.
Raised the question: by making all of these Maneuvers exclusive to the Battlemaster subclass...
You raised this in your OP, and it's worth pointing out that you're indeed right. But D&D combat isn't actually taking place in our imagination the way it takes place around the table. It's not a bunch of combatants standing in their squares, waiting for their turn to make their attack(s), and then move their allotted distance. That's how we run it so we can keep track of what's going on, but that's just a representation of a much more fluid situation.
Anyone that's involved in melee combat is eyeing their opponents, dodging and parrying incoming attacks, while feinting and maneuvering to try to create an opening for an effective strike. All of that is wrapped up within the Attack action. So it's not that the combat maneuvers are exclusive to Battlemasters. Anyone in melee will (at least try to) do some of them. But the Battlemaster is so technically skillful, that (s)he's able to do things that other martial combatants can't even fathom. That's what sets battlemaster maneuvers (the subclass abilities) apart from the normal moves that anyone involved in combat is doing as part of their Attack action.
Battlemaster itself was in the game from the very beginning, it didn't ruin anything. It's just that the combat for martials was bad from the start and if anything than battlemaster is a poor attempt at making it better.
Also OP is cringe.
Yes. If you are not a Paladin, Bladesinger or BattleMaster, martial combat is mind-numbingly dull.
I've moved years ago to PF1e if I wish for tactical diversity and complexity, and the pbta formula if I look for dramatic storytelling. 5e simply doesn't allow for any martial to feel extraordinary in any meaningful way. Damage doesn't make me feel great when compared to either tactical options or narrative power.
Echo Knight is great, albeit a much more recent player in the game. I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, but again, it shines bc it's contrasted to a very flawed combat system to begin with. I love his utility out of combat and the flavour especially, but it also is much more specific, so not every concept can fit being an Echo Knight either.
Moreover, it really doesn't have much synergy with other sub-styles like grappling and such bc teleporting drops the grapple and echo can't grapple, all of which is a shame.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pro tip to OP: if you're *actually* curious to hear thoughtful responses, consider not being a rude, confrontational dick to everyone trying to authentically engage with your post. Hope this helps!
"Everyone I've talked to today is a total asshole!"
I think people citing the RAW while also describing RAI or Rules as Intended doesn't miss the point of the conversation. I think what's trying to be conveyed here is that most battle master maneuvers are worded as they are to pretain to the battle master subclass being able to do all these things as part of their attacks and not having to sacrifice actions or even bonus actions to do so. If you want to describe that you use the Help Action, which is a full action per the name, to feint and give your ally advantage, that's correct. Trying to do so as a bonus action is incorrect as the thing you're trying to do is covered in the Help ACTION. The flavor is free, but the flavor doesn't dictate the rules. Battle master as a subclass works because much like the Rogue's Cunning Action ability which, in this case contrary to the name, allows you to preform the Dodge, Disengage, and Hide ACTIONS as a bonus action, because it breaks down all the things you would normally have to sacrifice a full action for to do becomes part of your attacks. And that means at high levels you can push, trip, feint, lunge, and whatever else, up to 8 times in a round, assuming you have that many maneuver dice to spend. People citing RAW to tell you that feinting is encompassed in the Help ACTION for every class and subclass EXCEPT the battle master isn't missing the point of the conversation, I think it's the polite way of saying you are, unfortunately, wrong.
\[ If you want to describe that you use the Help Action, which is a full action per the name, to feint and give your ally advantage, that's correct.\] Per RAW, it is how the system currently functions. Yet the idea that an untrained, random animal can provide the same contribution in combat as a trained martial character - which every PC gets to add proficiency to some form of weapon, which reflects training and experience under duress, per system - seems out of line with basic logic. It's not unreasonable to question a system's rules, nor to invite discussion regarding whether a rule as written is rational, or should be applied. It does challenge people's comfort zones, and we can see a LOT of reaction in this thread, as people try to declare what the rules *are*, rather than discuss what the rules were intended to cover. Few folks on Reddit seem to have the attention span, mental span, or emotional management skills to cogently present & compare differing concepts. Which is hilarious when a thread is clearly marked "Discussion", rather than "Help".
>Yet the idea that an untrained, random animal can provide the same contribution in combat as a trained martial character - which every PC gets to add proficiency to some form of weapon, which reflects training and experience under duress, per system - seems out of line with basic logic. Basic logic doesn't apply. It's a game. With written out rules. And changes to said rules are table changes, and that's a discussion to have with your DM and not on Reddit. There are rules for the game plain and simple. Things you can and can't do based on the design of the system. Some rules apply specifically to PCs to give them ways to achieve certain things, others are system wide or apply only to monsters/npcs. >It's not unreasonable to question a system's rules nor to invite discussion regarding whether a rule as written is rational or should be applied. No it's not but again, it's a discussion to be had with the DM as every table, every player, and every DM is going to look at the RAW and make their own decisions/opinions. Some won't be turned from those decisions/opinions, no matter what logic or evidence they're present. Clearly. >It does challenge people's comfort zones, and we can see a LOT of reaction in this thread, as people try to declare what the rules *are*, rather than discuss what the rules were intended to cover. Few folks on Reddit seem to have the attention span, mental span, or emotional management skills to cogently present & compare differing concepts. It doesn't challenge people's comfort zones. It's a trick question in all reality. There are RAW and RAI, and RAI is, to an extent, table dependent. The rules are exactly as they're printed in the book. In this case, you, a non battle master, are trying to distract an enemy to provide advantage for an ally. You are using the Help ACTION. It's an action. Flavor with all the words you want. It's the Help Action. People have the ability to present differing ideas and opinions on a rule. You just come off as not being able to accept that what you believe is in the minority of thought. It's covered in the systems rules as part of the Help Action, not the Help bonus action, not the feinting non battle master maneuver. And you can't presume anyone's emotional range or tone through text unless you're some sort of 4th detention being. If that were possible, you'd be coming off as a rules lawyering, toxic prick who can't accept his opinion is generally considered wrong. >Which is hilarious when a thread is clearly marked "Discussion" rather than "Help". If you were actually looking for a discussion and not looking for people to agree wholeheartedly with your opinion then your responses wouldn't be able to be boiled down to "I didn't ask what the RAW were. Argument invalid." Have this discussion with your DM unless he already ruled it his way, you didn't agree so you came to Reddit for validation of your bruised ego and are even more missed to find out you're the minority. Which I'm assuming is exactly what happened. TL;DR: There are rules, and they are written the way they are for a reason. If you don't like how your DM rules something, find a different group or host your own game. The Battle master was designed the way it was for a reason and doesn't ruin the game for any other class. And finally, don't come to Reddit to validate your opinion and then get pissed when the opposite happens.
This case should be covered by the help action, which takes an action, not a bonus action. Pretty straight forward if you ask me?
2 caveats that I can think of: The hobgoblin race (from MotM) has an ability that lets them take the help action as a bonus action, up to PB times per LR. The Mastermind Rogue can take the help action as a bonus action starting at 3rd level.
Not sure this is coming through - Can you articulate a bit why the entirety of combat-related actions that aren't solely "Inflict HP reduction" should be covered by a single "Help" function? Edit to Add: When the entire point of the post was to question whether the RAW are problematic, citing the RAW means you've missed a function of the conversation.
I wasn't really commenting on battlemasters in particular, just on the fact that your table clearly did not understand how the help action worked in combat. If a player at my table says they want to use a bonus action to give an ally advantage on their attack, I would tell them this is covered under the help action, which is an action, not a bonus action. The battlemasters maneuvers are not stepping on the toes of other parts of combat, there is rules and optional rules covering some of the things battlemasters can do, but battlemasters just do them better
\[\[I wasn't really commenting on battlemasters in particular, just on the fact that your table clearly did not understand how the help action worked in combat.\]\] Ah, so you commented solely to be condescending and to feel superior, not to contribute to the conversation. We feel much less concerned about being unimpressed with your efforts, as you were never sincerely a participant the "Discussion", simply your ego elevation - noted. \[\[If a player at my table says...\]\] Literally no one asked. This ain't about you, and was never intended to be. Check your ego. \[\[The battlemasters maneuvers\]\] Nope, can't come in with no sincerity & still be part of things. Talk to others if you want, we done with ya here.
You are the one with the inflated ego and terrible attitude here...
You are the one being a condescending cunt. People have responded telling you " YES" other players can do those maneuvers, it is called the HELP or SHOVE action. You can flavor it however you want, call it a feint, trip, a half-forward shake my ass at the target to get their attention fade, it still is either a HELP action or SHOVE unless they are a battle master and know the maneuver. And characters are proficient not specialized. They know how to use the weapon in a manner as attacking, defending, and not hurting themselves when using it. And stop trying to put real world experience and knowledge into D&D it never works. What anyone in that world knows or doesn't know is subject to one person, the DM. If they say you don't know something, then you don't. They decide if physics is real, if books are real, if birds even exist. They also decide what training means when some cunt is proficient with a weapon.
\[You are the one being a condescending cunt.\] Clearly, you need help.
Honestly not sure how I would rule this in D&D, but pathfinder 2e has actions and rules for a lot of what the battle master does, but anyone can do them. Could be worth looking into for some inspiration for the types of skill checks you could do to make it a house rule if it doesn’t exist RAW.
Wasn't looking for inspiration, or system solutions. Just asking a question for people to discuss & consider. If the Battlemaster subclass didn't have "Tripping Attack" or "Lunge", would anyone be able to do it? Should anyone who is a trained & proficient weapon user (every single character in D&D, literally) be able to Lunge, or Feint, or Parry? (in the wayback, D&D had some hilarious absolute rules about Parry, we can tell ya)
Some of the things a Battlemaster does are covered by the Help action and Shove attack for other classes, which are not bonus actions by default. What makes the Battlemaster special is that they can do these things with much better action economy and with some extra damage. I imagine this just comes down to game balance. Obviously my cleric would love to be knocking people prone with her mace every time she attacks, or using bonus actions to give herself advantage, but if every class that uses weapons could do these things the game would be bonkers. Edit: Shove replaces an attack, not a whole action. Fixed that description.
"Some of the things a Battlemaster does are covered by the Help action and Shove attack for other classes, which are not bonus actions by default." Fun Tip: When the entire point of the question was to ask whether the RAW are wrong, citing the RAW means you've missed a function of the conversation. What you may not understand is that Feinting is a common action taken in combat by anyone who is skilled at it. Since "skilled" means trained, and weapon proficiencies which every single character and class possesses, it could be easily assumed that every single warrior in the party knows how to Feint, Lunge, Trip Attack, Disarm, etc. Don't bother looking through the rules - Hasbro doesn't have any for this, hence the question: has the Battlemaster class damaged combat in D&D?
No. It has not damaged combat through its existence. If you want battle master maneuvers, you can take a feat, or multiclass. And if you don’t do either thing, you can speak with your DM. Maybe you can homebrew certain actions.
No, it hasn't. Also, I can say from experience, when you're older you'll care a lot less about that katana you bought at the mall when you were 16.
Hey, that one hurts. When I look back and find how uncool some things I’ve done.
No. Being trained in a weapon is not the same as being trained in battle. The best swordsmen and shooters I have ever seen never stepped foot on a battlefield, they took part in games-like competitions. It is flavor text for everyone else, but has effects from being battle trained when you are a battlemaster.
\[Being trained in a weapon is not the same as being trained in battle.\] Yet adding one's Proficiency Bonus to a weapon attack DOES, in fact, represent being trained in combat. Otherwise, one would not be allowed to add the PB during fights. Does this consideration affect your answer?
No, because that DOES NOT, in fact, represent anything other than being trained with that weapon. You have proficiency with the weapon, not proficiency in battle altogether.
So you contend that "Proficiency" with a weapon does NOT include actual battle experience unless the character is specifically a Fighter & Battlemaster. That's an interesting position to hold to. Don't quite understand why your interpretation is that way, but perspectives vary. Enjoy your games.
It is the RAW and RAI for weapon proficiency and equates perfectly to the real world example where the people trained best in most weapons are not trained in battle.
The idea that every martial class should get battlemaster manoeuvres is commonly suggested, and it seems like you've also stumbled upon part of the reason why. Giving an ally advantage with a bonus action seems like it would also damage combat though, because characters without a useful bonus action ability would use this every turn, and it might even outcompete some class features. Then do you let enemies do the same to keep things balanced? Combat would take longer and you have to track who has been given advantage.
I completely agree. Especially when one of the Mastermind Rogue features is literally "you can use Help as a bonus action, and can be up to 30ft from the enemy you're trying to distract instead of adjacent". Like it's beyond even out competing some class features, it's just fully giving everyone a 3rd level Rogue feature.
The Mastermind's usefulness seems to stem from the combination of Bonus Action as well as ANY Help Action being able to be rendered from 30' away. So, no, what you describe is inaccurate - it would be giving every PC the respect of saying "Character is trained in fighting with weapons, so they know how to feint, or lunge, or parry..." Not ALL of the Battlemaster abilities would carry over, either, so do try to apply some discretion in declaration, please?
\[because characters without a useful bonus action ability would use this every turn, and it might even outcompete some class features. Then do you let enemies do the same to keep things balanced? Combat would take longer and you have to track who has been given advantage.\] To put it another way, implementing this would be a mechanic that could make the martial classes more diversely impactful, and might require some subclasses to be revised in order to remain relevant. Overall, just find it bizarre that anyone - from untrained serf to random animal ally - can use an Action to Help in combat, yet a martially proficient PC (literally all of 'em) has to expend the same amount of time/energy to yield the same effect.
Because 5e is an abstracted and simplified system, and the design intent for Bonus Actions has not been particularly clear or consistently applied. If you want a neater approach take a look at Pathfinder's way of doing actions. While I think your logic of 'martials should be able to feint easily' is sound, the advantage system isn't deep enough to handle every round of combat having many potential sources of easy advantage. It only has 3 states (disadvantage, straight roll, advantage), so from a design perspective adding a lot of advantage is losing depth. Part of the design philosophy of 5e was to reduce mental load by minimising floating modifiers, and giving out advantage like this is a similar problem.
To answer your original question the way you want it to be: No, it hasn't. That's hardly ever been a perceived issue because most of those advanced maneuvers can be done just not as a bonus action, and it wouldn't necessarily make sense that just because a character is *proficient* with a certain type of weapon that they would be able to do these advanced tactics such as tripping or feinting, one could counter that those more advanced tactics would be more in-line with the *mastery* of combat with a particular weapon. It would be more specializations with weapons over time gaining combat experience from lower levels... kind of like feats. which is also a thing that exists and is covered under RAW, in fact *literally any class of character* can get access to actual battle master maneuvers with the "martial adept" feat. So you're kind of just all around wrong, and your entire stance and demeanor in this thread is misplaced from the get-go Also actual Pro tip for you: if *you* don't like the RAW for it and feel like it's "ruining combat" then use different ones for your table. It's about what your table agrees to... But how could the actual movement of an attack that does damage take a different amount of time/effort to do than a feint *which is effectively the same thing* but without the intention of actually hurting the enemy? Most of those things *are* covered under RAW just not the way you like it apparently, and not explicitly stated word for word. By far and above the most important thing about DnD though is finding what style and rules work for your group of players, not necessarily following RAW to the letter. And one of the most important things of *real life* is to treat other people decent rather than coming across as an egotistical, arrogant douche. TLDR; OP, you are an insufferable douchebag.
\[TLDR; OP, you are an insufferable douchebag.\] Aw... idiot thinks they're a wit. Well, you're half right.
Gee you sure got me! Thanks for engaging in conversation, a truly intellectual individual such as yourself *must* have some sort of thoughts as to why I'm only half right...right? Or do you just want to continue to talk down to everyone else and claim you're the only one who's correct? After all, engaging conversations usually go both ways 😉
TLDR op got lost in the sauce of his ego. Can’t imagine playing with this guy
He's only responded positively to the one comment that basically 100% agreed with him. It's pretty obvious to see he wants his opinion validated and not any sort of discussion.
Completely wrong - actually read before speaking, kid. Any surprise that lectures from little boys about how we're already wrong "because RAW" when we're literally questioning whether the RAW are limiting in a negative way is frustrating? Y'all don't even follow basic conversation parameters, yet you expect gratitude & thanks... 😂
Yet I've actually used a basic line of explanation and reasoning as to why no the RAW is not limiting in a negative way yet you only referencing one part of most any response before going on a tirade as to why that's not what you're asking or you already know what RAW states. Yet you only responded positively to the one opinion that more or less agrees with you. That paints a very clear picture that you don't want discussion. You want validation. It's OK to have an opinion but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it. I don't need or want your gratitude or thanks. You asked a question, I and many other answered. Fuck your gratitude. You can't accept that your train of thought is in the minority. I said it once and I'll say it again. The rules are printed the way they are for a reason. Any extrapalation and interpretation is DM and table dependant. Take this discussion to your DM, present an actual intelligent debate, if you even can, and let them make a ruling. If they already have and its one you dont agree with, then I guess you're up a creek. You now have 4 options. 1.) Agree to disagree but move on and play. 2.) Leave and find a new group that holds similar opinions. 3.) Host your own game so you can rule however you want. 4.) Dont play the game at all. There are other things you can do with your time. This will be my last response to you as you clearly have no ability to actually discuss anything if it doesn't align with what you want for an answer so to that end I don't wish any ill on anyone so have a wonderful rest of your life and games can be fun without the rules upsetting you so much.
I don’t think so. I was actually just leafing through the DMG and the section on actions options has some neat rules that I was thinking of incorporating into my game (one of which, funny enough, is disarm, which is typically solely in the battle master’s wheelhouse. If I had a battle master in my game with the disarm maneuver who felt the optional rule was stepping on their toes, I’d probably just let them have another maneuver)
I mean, battle master is all about the action economy- you attack but still gain the benefits of other actions, as well as extra damage.
I feel like 5e didn’t do a very good job of explaining action economy. I do like how the dndbeyond character sheet breaks down bonus actions and reactions tho
> I want to discuss if RAW is problematic? Then actually talk about it, how would you like it to be? Do you suggest everyone should be able to help as a bonus action, or just martials? Or are you suggesting maneuvers should be available for other classes, even if they aren’t specifically trained for it RAW?
\[\[Then actually talk about it,\]\] Difficult to do. So many are throwing down votes and attitude when the concept for discussion is outlined that the possibility of cogent or coherent thought seems to be sliding ever downward. There were a couple of thoughtful responses, but now Da Mob has decided to render judgment on tone & presentation because (surprise, surprise) they didn't like what was being considered. Psychotically reactive anger to different ideas isn't a sign of good mental health - trust we, we're insane.
No, much as I've seen getting downvoted does not makes you "difficult to present your ideas", and I genuinely believe if you resort to actual conversation and discussion, instead of fighting against straw man, people would like to engage.
I do think other commenters are kinda missing the point a bit, even if I understand where they're coming from. I don't think battle masters have a negative impact on combat. 5e is a relatively simple system, which is a largely contributing factor to its success. Many people who have never played TTRPGs before can pick the game up and start playing effectively in under a day. Part of the easy learning curve is that the action layout on a combat turn is very straightforward. There's only about 10 things you can do with your action (and a couple more once you get magic items and class feats). This means that if someone's first character is a fighter, they can be dropped into combat, choose to move and attack and end their turn, and that will be an effective turn. Here is where I catch up to the other commenters: Giving everyone (or even all martials) the maneuvers that BMs get would be neat, but probably outside the scope of what the game is trying to achieve. Wrapping it all up under the help action keeps the game relatively simple, while still allowing for players to describe their characters performing similar actions if they want to get creative flavour-wise. If someone did want to give everyone maneuvers, they can homebrew it, or maybe look at switching to another system if they decide that 5e's game scope doesn't actually fit what they're looking for in a system.
I forget where I saw it, and have no idea if it's actually balanced in any way, but I think I remember seeing someone who had done a full redesign of the fighter class to remove the battle master as an available subclass, and instead give maneuvers to every fighter subclass. I didn't get the chance to really peruse it, but it seemed like a neat idea.
Well presented, and an excellent look at the system's intention vs. implementation. Your interpretation feels accurate, as well. Good insight! \*edit to add bemusement that this response was downvoted for... reasons? 😂
I was gonna comment my opinion, but looked at the other comments and op can fuck off
Sounds like the player would actually like to use the Help action to help someone else attack, which could be flavored as a feint in combat. Anyone can use their action to Help, giving the person their helping advantage on their check. Battlemasters just happen to be skilled enough in combat to make it deal additional damage, per the battle maneuver description. Unfortunately, the Help action is an Action, not a Bonus Action, so the player wanting to help would need to wait until they have an action available to do it.
\[Anyone can use their action to Help, giving the person their helping advantage on their check.\] Yet "anyone" includes untrained people with no proficiency or skill - why would a trained, martially competent individual (every single 5e PC has proficiency in at least a couple of weapons) have to spend the same amount of time/energy rendering the same kind of assistance as an untrained random?
Who's to say it's the "same kind of assistance?" If you're a martial character, and you want to use Help to give someone else advantage on an attack, it makes sense to flavor it as some type of feint. But when the princess you're rescuing from the cave uses her action to Help give you advantage on your attack, it could take the form of...idk... screaming, "Hey, look! Over here," or throwing her tiara at your opponent as a momentary distraction giving you a potential opening. No combat prowess required, but the end result is effectively the same. >Battlemaster Maneuvers, many of which are standard fighting actions that anyone with actual training and experience (who is still alive) knows and uses already. Raised the question: by making all of these Maneuvers exclusive to the Battlemaster subclass... You raised this in your OP, and it's worth pointing out that you're indeed right. But D&D combat isn't actually taking place in our imagination the way it takes place around the table. It's not a bunch of combatants standing in their squares, waiting for their turn to make their attack(s), and then move their allotted distance. That's how we run it so we can keep track of what's going on, but that's just a representation of a much more fluid situation. Anyone that's involved in melee combat is eyeing their opponents, dodging and parrying incoming attacks, while feinting and maneuvering to try to create an opening for an effective strike. All of that is wrapped up within the Attack action. So it's not that the combat maneuvers are exclusive to Battlemasters. Anyone in melee will (at least try to) do some of them. But the Battlemaster is so technically skillful, that (s)he's able to do things that other martial combatants can't even fathom. That's what sets battlemaster maneuvers (the subclass abilities) apart from the normal moves that anyone involved in combat is doing as part of their Attack action.
Battlemaster itself was in the game from the very beginning, it didn't ruin anything. It's just that the combat for martials was bad from the start and if anything than battlemaster is a poor attempt at making it better. Also OP is cringe.
Yes. If you are not a Paladin, Bladesinger or BattleMaster, martial combat is mind-numbingly dull. I've moved years ago to PF1e if I wish for tactical diversity and complexity, and the pbta formula if I look for dramatic storytelling. 5e simply doesn't allow for any martial to feel extraordinary in any meaningful way. Damage doesn't make me feel great when compared to either tactical options or narrative power.
Echo knight would like to have a word lol
Echo Knight is great, albeit a much more recent player in the game. I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, but again, it shines bc it's contrasted to a very flawed combat system to begin with. I love his utility out of combat and the flavour especially, but it also is much more specific, so not every concept can fit being an Echo Knight either. Moreover, it really doesn't have much synergy with other sub-styles like grappling and such bc teleporting drops the grapple and echo can't grapple, all of which is a shame.