@@Felrohan I think they're joking because they talked about psi warrior for like 30 seconds or something compared to the other subclasses getting a lot more screentime
1:05 *sigh* So, like... maybe those players just don't use the maneuver system, but you leave it in for everyone else? Like, there's a whole pile of rogue players that don't give a damn about Expertise. They just want to Sneak Attack. And an equal number that will never engage with Cunning Strike because it lowers their Sneak Attack damage. Easily a third of Warlock players just want the Pact of the Blade and will likely never choose Eldritch Invocations that do anything but make their blade better. By this logic, you should remove Expertise and you should nix all of the EIs that don't affect Pact of the Blade. Removing options because some players don't want them just feels like a stinkin' way of thinkin'. I think it's more that rewriting the Fighter Subclasses to make sense with Maneuvers proved to be too difficult. Which, ok, that's a fair reason. But that's not _for_ Fighter players.
I'll admit that the logic of "this thing that fighters don't have to use makes fighters too complex" is a poor reasoning not to add a thing, but I'd also like to note that they didn't actually remove a feature here, just considered it as an addition and added a different one instead... which is really just simpler maneuvers in practice. And it's compatible with Battlemaster anyways, so all fighters get a "battlemaster ultralite" added to them, and battlemasters get to be more battlemastery.
Right, because not adding something is exactly the same as removing it. I am not going to give you a second liver, do I now go to jail for stealing your liver? Fighters got better and Battlemaster got better, I don't know what your gripe is.
@@chiepah2 5e has rotted your brain. Fighters could be better in a more interesting and flavorful way than the generic and simple buffs they got, but they shot themselves in the foot for the second time. Balance changes are necessary, that's half the reason why the 2024 PHB is a thing to begin with. Also, balance changes aren't a liver transplant, id*ot. But while other classes are feasting and drinking, Fighters get oatmeal, after eating nothing but oatmeal. Just because the change isn't "needed" doesn't mean it's any less unfair.
those maneuver options were already there. i dont know how they get off saying its new options. they just took what they added as another book into the main book
The one thing I hated about the Battle Master is that it's level 18 feature was dumb. Switching a d10 to a d12 isn't that great, what I wish they did was once per round if the player rolls a 20 while using the attack action the player regains a superiority dice. If they did that, I be less likely to multi-class.
I just hope they add more to the level 10 and 18 features. Just getting a die increase is so boring and doesn't really change the strength of the subclass in any meaningful way
Everyone’s complaining about the decision to prioritize simplicity, but given that D&D is *the* most popular ttrpg and most people’s first game, this is a good call. Yeah, Pathfinder gives you more options, so go play pathfinder if that’s what you want. Let D&D have the option to be simpler and more inviting
Thank you. I get tired of people screaming how another system is better. Go play that system if you like it better. Other people like the simplicity of a fighter. I sometimes play a Barbarian or Fighter just because I want to hit hard and not miss with complexity.
I really wish the base fighter got some BM manoeuvres such as tripping attack, disarm etc and the BM went down to a more buffing/tactics role with some specialised damage options.
@@quillogist2875 Ah yes, Battle Master's identity of "good at battle" is totally worth preserving, along with Champion's identity of "for the guy who's gonna leave the group in three months out of boredom." /s You can literally put BM maneuvers in the base class and nothing will change in terms of theme, because Champion already serves as the "basic" Fighter subclass without any gimmick.
@@Lardo137 If complexity equals fun to you why are you playing a battlemaster when you could be a paladin or ranger and play a martial class that has spells on top of more class abilities than any fighter subclass?
(Know your enemy - resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non magical weapons) 90% of this features use unless the monsters in the monster manual have a had a large overhaul.
Yup, an ability to tell you that a Fire Elemental is immune to Fire damage, then a bunch of abilities that should've been made a part of the base Fighter. No idea how they think more base options stifles creative gameplay, or whatever he said
There are a number of creatures that it is hard to know their resistance, etc. That said, I would like to see vulnerabilities used more in the new monster manual.
Considering that a dragon’s claws or a bone devils tail are not considered magical it’s a better than what they had before. Yes elemental damage is common but non magical kinetic damage is guaranteed
@@FreelancerStudios100 Still, vulnerabilities are so rare the ability to detect them is beyond niche, and most monsters you can just guess their immunities and resistances by looking at them. So you're basically looking at a class ability that's major use is to tell you what you probably already guessed without it being meta
Battle Master is a miss because it should've gone 1 of 2 ways... Either it should've been absorbed into the base class, with players who didn't care to use the maneuvers able to simply ignore them, OR the BM needed more Superiority Dice.
4 subclasses are great improvements for every class except cleric and wizard. They will likely put out a players option book that updates the rest of the subclasses. I have no information that such a book is on the way, but I think there will be enough demand that it would be silly not to do one.
I think they second guessed themselves. The initial thought was correct. It would've made other archetypes that are weak stay relevant. It would also show depth of growth over time for the character. Huge mistake.
I kind of wish they’d split superiority dice and battle master maneuvers into two separate mechanics. Give the dice pool to all fighters and let you add the dice to your weapon damage rolls, but keep the maneuvers exclusive to the battle master. Then you could have other subclasses like psi knight, arcane archer, and samurai use superiority dice for their subclass resource pool instead of making an entirely new feature full of new mechanics players need to learn. It would unify all the fighter subclass resource pools, cut down on bloat, cut down on complexity, while at the same time offering a buff to the other subclasses besides battle master.
You been living under a rock? lol. It's the most played fighter subclass besides Champion (because it's in the PHB) and is arguably the best too. It's definitely the most customizable
Wouldn't adding all of the maneuver's to ALL fighter classes make it even more fun though? Psi Warrior or Echo Knight with all the cool maneuvers on top of their great abilities?? What a waste imo.
Yeah frfr, it could also be brought in with second with for just a unified Fighter system. While Monks use those escalating dice as their attacks and powers, Fighters could get escalating dice to amp their attacks and powers.
Why not give totem spirits to all barbarians or assassinate and death strike to all rogues? Oh, that's right, those subclasses would be s**t, and every other subclass would be op af.
@@mappybc6097 They would be OP, but that's not at all related to the fighter, now is it? I think I see what you're saying. My point, though, is why not roll the maneuvers from the battleaster into all fighter subclasses and be rid of the battleaster altogether? It would give the other subclasses much more utility, and versatility in combat, and make those who don't want to run a brick-headed fighter something more to do then just smash.
When I was a new player it took like 5 minutes on a guide to understand the battle master. The only reason I don't play battle master now is because If I go back to it I already know I'm never touching the other fighter subclasses again.
Sometimes, I feel like watching something that I can ponder about like Dark. Sometimes, I just want to turn off my brain and hear Dom Toretto hype up family bonds. In DND, sometimes I want to play an eladrin summoner wizard, and sometimes I just feel like cracking mofos skulls open with my great weapon fighting orc champion. Wanting simplicity =/= being simple-minded. My two cents on the matter.
I've listened to every update here. And read every update on DND beyond and took part in the unearthed arcana play test... This might be the greatest revision to any book every for over a thousand reasons. Including the King James version of the Bible... 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏.... Sorry guys... Some of us are HERE for the complexity. Some of us just cant be satisfied by a daydream.... We NEED to know how it works!
Rule 0. As a DM do whatever you want on your table. But they are creating a game for everyone. Not just you and yours or people like me who enjoy complexity. They also cater to people who want to play and enjoy a simple game. If Champion had manouvers those people wouldn't find the game fun. Its not that difficult to understand.
@@moonlight2870 For you. I am a teacher and have ran games for my kids. They are also the target audience and some of them find manouvers super complicated. The game isn't only For you
It's why PF 2E Fighters are better. They don't treat their players like idiots. Complexity is not an issue, curve can be fun and engaging. Get into your thick skulls.
As someone who plays at an AL and see new players all the time, maneuvers are hard and confusing for them. It would be cool if it was an optional rule sure but fighter is meant to be the beginner class, play one of the other classes if you want a more complicated fighter
Yep, dnd fighters are so bad that they were the .most popular class in the game on dnd beyond. It's OK to like pf2, where fighters are widely seen as OP, but that doesn't mean everyone wants that level of complexity.
Not making battle maneuvers the core of the new revamped fighter makes it completely pointless beyond just another WOTC excuse to try to squeeze more money from its userbase. I won't be buying this "5.5e" anytime soon with all the content I already have for 5e if this is the level of "updating" they are willing to go with.
Not a cash grab. This revision is ten years after debut of 5e in 2014. Other D&D editions lasted only three. This is overdue based on bugs in game (e.g. vague rules, improper challenge ratings, etc.) that have been discovered after a decade of playing.
With huge updates and still $50 when pf2 is charging $60 and .any other companies are charging $70. In 10 years, they have put out one set of core book revisions. What a cash grab. Sigh.
Look at D&D history on Wikipedia. Other revisions to previous editions came out after less than five years. This revision after a decade can be considered overdue.
No Conjurer sub class for Wizards? No Necromancer? No Enchanter? No Tempest Cleric? No Peace Cleric? No Twilight Cleric... No Bladesinger!! Sigh. I hope they can give you options to build these Sub-Classes we love that are not in the Core of the core rule books so we can play them "Officially". 4 Sub-Classes for each Class are not enough!
I'm guessing the dozens of times they've explicitly said anything that's not updated by the revised core rulebooks can still be used with no changes was lost on you. If you want so much to play your plasmoid bladesinger/twilight cleric you will be able to and it will be considered official. Adventurer's league is more complicated, as they only allow you to use the core rulebooks plus one source book.
Can't wait to see the PSI Warrior video! 🥲
LMAO
if you watched the fighter video, theyve just reposted the info from that video. So there's nothing new if you watched that one.
@@Felrohan I think they're joking because they talked about psi warrior for like 30 seconds or something compared to the other subclasses getting a lot more screentime
@@Felrohan I know I was just hoping for changes because I had a lot of problems with psi warrior when I played it and I was hoping for revisions
They should add the arcane archer arrow abilities to the battle master
No.
The other way around, I think. Some of the battlemaster maneuvers would make the arcane archer stronger
The arcane archer just needs to get one more arrow use at about 7th level to be fine.
1:05 *sigh* So, like... maybe those players just don't use the maneuver system, but you leave it in for everyone else?
Like, there's a whole pile of rogue players that don't give a damn about Expertise. They just want to Sneak Attack. And an equal number that will never engage with Cunning Strike because it lowers their Sneak Attack damage. Easily a third of Warlock players just want the Pact of the Blade and will likely never choose Eldritch Invocations that do anything but make their blade better. By this logic, you should remove Expertise and you should nix all of the EIs that don't affect Pact of the Blade.
Removing options because some players don't want them just feels like a stinkin' way of thinkin'. I think it's more that rewriting the Fighter Subclasses to make sense with Maneuvers proved to be too difficult. Which, ok, that's a fair reason. But that's not _for_ Fighter players.
I'll admit that the logic of "this thing that fighters don't have to use makes fighters too complex" is a poor reasoning not to add a thing, but I'd also like to note that they didn't actually remove a feature here, just considered it as an addition and added a different one instead... which is really just simpler maneuvers in practice.
And it's compatible with Battlemaster anyways, so all fighters get a "battlemaster ultralite" added to them, and battlemasters get to be more battlemastery.
Right, because not adding something is exactly the same as removing it. I am not going to give you a second liver, do I now go to jail for stealing your liver? Fighters got better and Battlemaster got better, I don't know what your gripe is.
@@chiepah2 5e has rotted your brain. Fighters could be better in a more interesting and flavorful way than the generic and simple buffs they got, but they shot themselves in the foot for the second time. Balance changes are necessary, that's half the reason why the 2024 PHB is a thing to begin with. Also, balance changes aren't a liver transplant, id*ot.
But while other classes are feasting and drinking, Fighters get oatmeal, after eating nothing but oatmeal. Just because the change isn't "needed" doesn't mean it's any less unfair.
Nothing was removed it was never there, what you talking about
The difference is that the Champion is supposed to be the easy subclass for beginners
those maneuver options were already there. i dont know how they get off saying its new options. they just took what they added as another book into the main book
They said "more" not "new," which is true since they're referencing the PHB without additional rule books.
The one thing I hated about the Battle Master is that it's level 18 feature was dumb. Switching a d10 to a d12 isn't that great, what I wish they did was once per round if the player rolls a 20 while using the attack action the player regains a superiority dice. If they did that, I be less likely to multi-class.
Im sorry but that just sound worse
I just hope they add more to the level 10 and 18 features. Just getting a die increase is so boring and doesn't really change the strength of the subclass in any meaningful way
Everyone’s complaining about the decision to prioritize simplicity, but given that D&D is *the* most popular ttrpg and most people’s first game, this is a good call. Yeah, Pathfinder gives you more options, so go play pathfinder if that’s what you want. Let D&D have the option to be simpler and more inviting
Amen to that
Thank you. I get tired of people screaming how another system is better. Go play that system if you like it better. Other people like the simplicity of a fighter. I sometimes play a Barbarian or Fighter just because I want to hit hard and not miss with complexity.
I really wish the base fighter got some BM manoeuvres such as tripping attack, disarm etc and the BM went down to a more buffing/tactics role with some specialised damage options.
I can see the logic, but I'm glad they didn't, so the bm remained distinct. With 5e, I think it's important each subclass has it's own identity.
@@quillogist2875 Ah yes, Battle Master's identity of "good at battle" is totally worth preserving, along with Champion's identity of "for the guy who's gonna leave the group in three months out of boredom." /s
You can literally put BM maneuvers in the base class and nothing will change in terms of theme, because Champion already serves as the "basic" Fighter subclass without any gimmick.
Bro for real if they wanted a martial that is meant for brain dead casuals just make it barbarian, the name says it all
The fighter gets multiple weapon mastery for free on any weapon so it’s already the case
I absolutely disagreed on you battle master take
@@Lardo137 If complexity equals fun to you why are you playing a battlemaster when you could be a paladin or ranger and play a martial class that has spells on top of more class abilities than any fighter subclass?
(Know your enemy - resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non magical weapons)
90% of this features use unless the monsters in the monster manual have a had a large overhaul.
Yup, an ability to tell you that a Fire Elemental is immune to Fire damage, then a bunch of abilities that should've been made a part of the base Fighter. No idea how they think more base options stifles creative gameplay, or whatever he said
There are a number of creatures that it is hard to know their resistance, etc. That said, I would like to see vulnerabilities used more in the new monster manual.
Considering that a dragon’s claws or a bone devils tail are not considered magical it’s a better than what they had before. Yes elemental damage is common but non magical kinetic damage is guaranteed
@@FreelancerStudios100 Still, vulnerabilities are so rare the ability to detect them is beyond niche, and most monsters you can just guess their immunities and resistances by looking at them.
So you're basically looking at a class ability that's major use is to tell you what you probably already guessed without it being meta
You forgot immunity to poison damage
Battle Master is a miss because it should've gone 1 of 2 ways...
Either it should've been absorbed into the base class, with players who didn't care to use the maneuvers able to simply ignore them, OR the BM needed more Superiority Dice.
4 subclasses are great improvements for every class except cleric and wizard. They will likely put out a players option book that updates the rest of the subclasses. I have no information that such a book is on the way, but I think there will be enough demand that it would be silly not to do one.
I think they second guessed themselves. The initial thought was correct. It would've made other archetypes that are weak stay relevant. It would also show depth of growth over time for the character. Huge mistake.
But that would make the fighter to complicated. It is supposed to be a good class for beginners, which is why the Champion is supposed to be simple
No, they did market research and talked to their community.
Anyone know when the next season of battle for beyond coming out?
I kind of wish they’d split superiority dice and battle master maneuvers into two separate mechanics. Give the dice pool to all fighters and let you add the dice to your weapon damage rolls, but keep the maneuvers exclusive to the battle master. Then you could have other subclasses like psi knight, arcane archer, and samurai use superiority dice for their subclass resource pool instead of making an entirely new feature full of new mechanics players need to learn. It would unify all the fighter subclass resource pools, cut down on bloat, cut down on complexity, while at the same time offering a buff to the other subclasses besides battle master.
I actually think this is a genius way of looking at it
Imagine all the Fighter subclasses having 1 or 2 features that consume it then battle master is well the master of using it
I hadn't heard of Battlemaster till this video. I'm definitely going to check it out further, sounds fascinating! (I love playing fighter-types.)
Reading the books helps. Lol
You been living under a rock? lol. It's the most played fighter subclass besides Champion (because it's in the PHB) and is arguably the best too. It's definitely the most customizable
Battlemaster is the new Warlord?
What similarities exist with this and the old legacy subclass?
Wouldn't adding all of the maneuver's to ALL fighter classes make it even more fun though? Psi Warrior or Echo Knight with all the cool maneuvers on top of their great abilities?? What a waste imo.
Yeah frfr, it could also be brought in with second with for just a unified Fighter system. While Monks use those escalating dice as their attacks and powers, Fighters could get escalating dice to amp their attacks and powers.
Unfortunately it wouldn't. Many players don't enjoy using maneuvers. I've played with many that think they are confusing and unfun.
Not for new players who find it to complicated, which is what the Champion is for
Why not give totem spirits to all barbarians or assassinate and death strike to all rogues?
Oh, that's right, those subclasses would be s**t, and every other subclass would be op af.
@@mappybc6097 They would be OP, but that's not at all related to the fighter, now is it?
I think I see what you're saying. My point, though, is why not roll the maneuvers from the battleaster into all fighter subclasses and be rid of the battleaster altogether? It would give the other subclasses much more utility, and versatility in combat, and make those who don't want to run a brick-headed fighter something more to do then just smash.
Oh come on, they didnt include this in the main class because of complexity? Come on WotC, your players aren't idiots...
Maybe not us diehard fans, but new players find this complicated. Its a learning curve and the Champion should stay simple because of that
Judging by some of the comments in this video, some of them absolutely are
When I was a new player it took like 5 minutes on a guide to understand the battle master. The only reason I don't play battle master now is because If I go back to it I already know I'm never touching the other fighter subclasses again.
Sometimes, I feel like watching something that I can ponder about like Dark. Sometimes, I just want to turn off my brain and hear Dom Toretto hype up family bonds.
In DND, sometimes I want to play an eladrin summoner wizard, and sometimes I just feel like cracking mofos skulls open with my great weapon fighting orc champion.
Wanting simplicity =/= being simple-minded. My two cents on the matter.
I've listened to every update here. And read every update on DND beyond and took part in the unearthed arcana play test... This might be the greatest revision to any book every for over a thousand reasons. Including the King James version of the Bible... 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏.... Sorry guys... Some of us are HERE for the complexity. Some of us just cant be satisfied by a daydream.... We NEED to know how it works!
And that's the only reason You EVER have a decent dm.... We're invested.... Literally.😂😂😂
Recommend the 5e alternative fighter, which is battlemaster ala fighter.
Fix the marketplace
Yeah in my tables battlemasters are gone and all fighters have maneuvers, AS THEY SHOULD.
Rule 0. As a DM do whatever you want on your table. But they are creating a game for everyone. Not just you and yours or people like me who enjoy complexity. They also cater to people who want to play and enjoy a simple game. If Champion had manouvers those people wouldn't find the game fun.
Its not that difficult to understand.
@williamtorres4140 nah man. Champion sucks. There's simplicity and there's brain dead boring. And maneuvers are not that complicated to begin with.
Yeah! Game balance sucks! Break the game and then wonder why building encounters is hard! YEAH!
@@moonlight2870 For you. I am a teacher and have ran games for my kids. They are also the target audience and some of them find manouvers super complicated. The game isn't only For you
Yeah, in my tables, assassins are gone, and all rogues have assassinate and death strike, AS THEY SHOULD.
It's why PF 2E Fighters are better. They don't treat their players like idiots. Complexity is not an issue, curve can be fun and engaging. Get into your thick skulls.
Different target group, get that in your skull
It can also be an absolute cluster *uck and bring the game right down, your view point is not the 100% truth
As someone who plays at an AL and see new players all the time, maneuvers are hard and confusing for them. It would be cool if it was an optional rule sure but fighter is meant to be the beginner class, play one of the other classes if you want a more complicated fighter
It can also be a huge problem that bring down the game, it’s not like your point of view is solely correct
Yep, dnd fighters are so bad that they were the .most popular class in the game on dnd beyond. It's OK to like pf2, where fighters are widely seen as OP, but that doesn't mean everyone wants that level of complexity.
Not making battle maneuvers the core of the new revamped fighter makes it completely pointless beyond just another WOTC excuse to try to squeeze more money from its userbase. I won't be buying this "5.5e" anytime soon with all the content I already have for 5e if this is the level of "updating" they are willing to go with.
Cool. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Not a cash grab. This revision is ten years after debut of 5e in 2014. Other D&D editions lasted only three. This is overdue based on bugs in game (e.g. vague rules, improper challenge ratings, etc.) that have been discovered after a decade of playing.
They should just take away abilities. I think it limits players problem solving
🛌😴😪😴😪😴😪😴😪
Oh boy more rulebooks to pay for in the same edition.
With huge updates and still $50 when pf2 is charging $60 and .any other companies are charging $70. In 10 years, they have put out one set of core book revisions. What a cash grab. Sigh.
You felt the same when Paizo "made you buy," PF, aka DND 3.75?
Look at D&D history on Wikipedia. Other revisions to previous editions came out after less than five years. This revision after a decade can be considered overdue.
No Conjurer sub class for Wizards?
No Necromancer?
No Enchanter?
No Tempest Cleric?
No Peace Cleric?
No Twilight Cleric...
No Bladesinger!! Sigh.
I hope they can give you options to build these Sub-Classes we love that are not in the Core of the core rule books so we can play them "Officially".
4 Sub-Classes for each Class are not enough!
You do realise this is just 1 book, and it would simply not fit with all the other things the phb needs
I'm guessing the dozens of times they've explicitly said anything that's not updated by the revised core rulebooks can still be used with no changes was lost on you.
If you want so much to play your plasmoid bladesinger/twilight cleric you will be able to and it will be considered official. Adventurer's league is more complicated, as they only allow you to use the core rulebooks plus one source book.
Thank you all for setting that straight for me.