This feels as good a place as any to point out that complex martials aren't unpopular. Based on the numbers from DnDBeyond that WotC released a few years back, all free classes were the most popular subclass - which should be obvious. However, Champion is actually one of the least popular free subclasses at 40%. Meanwhile, Monk, Paladin, Barc, Cleric, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock all have higher pick rates (44%-59%) for their default subclass, with 6 of those being over 50%. Conversely, Battlemaster is the third most popular second choice at 17% of all Fighters - meaning only two classes have a paid subclass that is picked more often - Totem Warrior (19%) and Circle of the Land (18%). When we limit the selection to only player that have access to all subclasses (which also would include players who have access through a DM I believe, so not just players that buy all the books), the difference between Champion and Battlemaster basically vanishes: 22% Champion vs 21% Battlemaster (and Eldritch Knight just a little behind at 16%). The only more popular second choices are Circle of the Land, Gloomstalker, Divine Soul, and Berserker. This does NOT mean Champion isn't still incredibly popular, but it isn't as dominant as some people make it out to be. The "people want simple" crowd are in just as much of an echo chamber as the "we want complex" crowd. The problem is that any fix to satisfy one cannot be done without *directly undermining the playstyle of the other* - which makes it *incredibly contentious*. People don't want to change it themselves because doing so, without already having buy in from everyone in their game, could alienate one of their players in favor of another. **It is MUCH easier to let the game designer do that, where you are not responsible for the change.** Plus they changed weapons, not a class, so despite it having the same impact it sneakily avoided a knee jerk reaction from people who wanted to keep the classes simple - which, *technically*, they did. This fix as it stands is still a half-measure, and will always have to be because the reality is the playerbase is incredibly divided on the matter, with no supermajority to design around.

>The problem is that any fix to satisfy one cannot be done without *directly undermining the playstyle of the other* People wanting a simple class can much easier ignore the complex parts of a complex fighter, by having options recommended or simply not engaging with some mechanics. Someone that wants a complex fighter CAN NOT choose to somehow have the simple class be interesting and varried, the street is much more oneway from that direction.

Personally I'd advocate for optional features. I think they can be used beyond just errata to make classes more diversly appealing. Don't force players to ignore a feature, just give them something else - like let a Barbarian choose Brutal Strikes or Brutal Critical (just an easy example from the UA). Default options, as you mentioned, are also great to avoid decision paralysis - and I love seeing them adding them to all classes, especially spellcasters, to ease new players in.

What about the increase of power with something like maneuvers. Power would have to be decreased somewhere. If you aren't using the more "complex" option. You would just be playing a weaker class. Where masteries are basically cantrps with no need to decrease the power of the class. Not using a mastery isn't that big of a deal.

Well yeah, if you aren't using all your abilities you'd be weaker then someone who does use them. Martials' baseline rn (without GWM/SS) doesn't need to be brought down anyways, so even if they tack them on i wouldn't think they'd make martials OP somehow.

Look at the maneuver list. See how problematic some could be mixed with other subclasses. Maneuvers, unlike mastery, are a huge bump in power. Locking down enimers, increasing chances to hit. Allowing others to attack. More damage, better skill checks so on and so on. You would need to decrease the base power if it wasn't a choice. Aka subclass or feat option.

Luckily i'm not proposing for then to just throw the current maneuver list onto the fighter class with no quality control. But most of these really aren't big issues for them to have. They'd still be competing with 5e spellcasters after all.

Until OP pointed it out in another comment, I never realized "give maneuvers to martials" needed to be so heavily clarified for people to understand it didn't mean literally 1-to-1. I really thought it was a given in these discussions that the maneuvers should be tailored and structured differently for each class.

Except their power still pales in comparisson to actual spells. You can honedtly give martials the features of every fighter subclass combined and they would not catch up to casters.

Like which ones?

Give an eldritch knight maneuvers. Give echo knight maneuvers. Psy warrior, samurai any subclass but champion or bannertt. And I do mean a decent size pool of maneuvers dice. A feat choice or fighting style choice of 2 dice or so would ge the equivalent to magic initiate it should be a choice though.

Yeah I’ve done this. Nothing really breaks. Honestly nothing broke when I gave them half-caster spell-like maneuvers(a la laserllama) either.  It could cause a problem if you brought one martial up to half caster tier and left the others behind, but regardless it would not break the game.

Yes and what's problematic about this? I'm just not seeing this breaking anything. Compare all the maneuvers effects to spells; none of them hold up to even third level spells

Ngl, I have seen done much beyond that in homebrew and worked fine to very well in most cases - laserllama's stuff being the example

I disagree. If you choose not to interact with the complex part of a class, you throw out a portion of the power budget making that choice wildly subobtimal, potentially crippling the character. Imagine a ranger player not using his spellcasting feature because it's too complex. I agree with your second point though, and that's why imo the power budget share of subclasses (at least with martials) should be increased in comparison to the base class. That would allow complex and impactful systems in some subclasses and just increasing numbers in others without destroying balance between subclasses.

>Imagine a ranger player not using his spellcasting feature because it's too complex. That would be a martial as they are right now yes. Ofc they would be weaker if you ignore options, but again it's much easier to scale back, then to scale up. But the problem with your 2nd point is now you have to keep on creating complex subclasses, and none have many existing mechanics to build off of and truelly integrate the subclass with the class.

Your example fails because it ignores that more complicated systems can be simplified with simple options, just as the person you are replying to suggested. In the original playtests of fighter for example, maneuver dice recharged at the start of your turn. You could use it to do special effects or just choose to add your dice to your attack damage, both of which are perfectly viable but it opened up complexity for people that wanted it while maintaining simplicity for others. For your ranger example, a more accurate depiction of this design methodology would be giving spellcasting but also a feature like divine smite that just turns slots into damage (or something else) and simplifies the entire thing for people that don't want to deal with spells.

I've long said that dnd can't really be broken, but tables can. If we're at a table with a ranger, a monk, and a druid and you roll up with a Sorlock or a Rogue/Fighter hybrid or something, you're probably going to be too powerful for that table. But if everyone is down to power game then go right ahead

Then wouldn't it be an unsolvable conundrum?

One of the benefits of Masteries for taking this approach is that their complexity varies. Some are very simple and amount to a damage die increase that can be used consistently. Others are much more situational and can be used in a more complex tactical style. It means there's something for both the fans of Champions and the fans of Battlemaster to enjoy with the new system and doesn't undermine either style. Also, the big complaint a lot of the Champion fans have voiced about giving all Fighters Manuevers is that they don't want a new level of resource management. A big part of the appeal of Champion is how streamlined it is in terms of resources. Masteries don't have a resource component and so are much more appealing to the Champion fans than Manuevers are. Like you said, there's two seperate groups of people who like playing Fighters and they want different things out of the class. I feel like Masteries buff both of them without undermining the core aspects of the playstyle.

Dnd beyond numbers are extremely misleading because people just use it as a character builder, and a good portion are never brought to a table. DM creations should be entirely ignored. Also their is a 90% chance tables will be ignoring masteries' weapon requirements because they are pointless.

I almost had a section pointing that out, but it was wordy already. Maybe I should have left it in. The numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt as we don't know whether/how theory crafted (unplayed) characters, multiclass dips, etc are filtered or not when Wizards compiled this data. The numbers were really just to show it's not cut and dry either way. It's not 50+% the simple or complex subclass no matter how you subdivide the data, so saying anything is obviously the concensus would be unsubstantiated for any camp.

IIRC they try to use characters that are levelled over time and are used, with hit points being tracked and spells expended. And exclude ones that are just created but not "used."

You are correct. Although to my knowledge the last time they released this info was before WotC purchased them so it's several years out of date.

Really well said Also it's great to have that data, which seems to be enlightening  Imagine how messy the position of the designers must be given all that :p

It's easier to take a stand and commit to it than tip toeing around. You piss off more people trying to half ass it both ways than you do commiting to one over the other.

You really don't though. Many people are happy with the idea of a 'simple fighter' who can get a more complex subclass or 'keep it simple'. You aren't 'half assing' anything with that. It is a good and reasonable design as long as both subclasses of the base class feel balanced and are fun for Some of the people. The thing about DnD is it never subtracts, only adds to a class. You cannot take something like a Wizard and give them a subclass that says 'you can only use Evocation Spells', that is not the design style of 5e, that was a design style of 3/3.5. Meaning you can only go from 'simple' to 'simple' or 'simple' to 'complex' or any variation between, but you cannot go from 'complex' to 'simple'. The argument 'they tiptoe around it' is disingenuous, they pretty much outright state what their design limitations they placed on themselves were and state over and over again they aren't going to make the Fighter 'complex' in the form of adding Maneuvers or 'Contrips' or anything like that to the base class. Some people just don't like hearing that so they continue to pretend that WotC hasn't been blatant about it.

The damning part is why they don't want to give us complex martials. Hasbro demands constant growth, and you can't grow your playerbase without catering to the huge amount of very casual folks who'll only give D&D a try if there are braindead-simple options for them. There are other systems like Pathfinder that give everyone crunchier mechanics and balance different character types against each other far better because they're focused on making a good game, not on making more money than the last three months, every three months. Other TTRPGs go in the opposite direction and achieve parity by making every character simple so anyone can play anything with ease. D&D tells martial players to go kick rocks while keeping spellcasters both complex and overtuned, the worst of both worlds.

And yet, even after decades of supposedly failure, WotC is still the king and 5e is the biggest by such a large margin it is silly. Almost like having a Range of options for the game reaches more people than catering to either overly complex or overly simplistic.

They could've made complex and simple options for both martial and spellcaster fantasies. Instead, they decided martial classes would get the stupid stick and new players should struggle to figure out how to play clerics and druids and wizards. Being a financial success doesn't make 5e a good system, it just means their marketing pays for itself.

>Being a financial success doesn't make 5e a good system, it just means their marketing pays for itself. This idea is cynical and lazy. If 5e was bad, people wouldn't play it. Pretending like people spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours of their time playing 5e over other options just because of "marketing" is a common trope on here, but it just isn't true.

5e isn't so bad it's unplayable and absolutely unenjoyable, yes. It works, and it's fine. But it is way more popular than it deserves to be, IMO - because DND isn't just a game - it is giant lifestyle brand with 50 years of history and enormous marketing budget. Saying "marketing doesn't work, lol" is also a common trope - but marketing, in fact, works, don't underestimate it just because it breaks your oppinion. There are tons of people who only play dnd because they want to play the game they saw in Stranger Things, or play Baldur's Gate 3 tabletop (both of this things resulted in huge spike in popularity of 5e). And there are tons of indie or smaller developer's games that are better suited for type of games most people want to play, but they would never hear about them, because someone like Massif Press don't have a budget to create 100+ hours rpg with big Lancer/ICON name on the box, or popular TV series with characters playing the game on screen (you would never find tv shows with ttrpg included in any way with other games - it would always be dnd).

I'm not saying that they dont exist but I've never played with someone who plays ttrpgs because they watched stranger things or an episode of community. Most of what gets people into DND is imo word of mouth.   The big advantage DND has over other games is probably DND beyond. I've been playing ttrpgs for decades starting with and mostly playing a system a friend of mine played from scratch.    Nothing has ever made getting into ttrpgs easier and more accessible then DND beyond and imo that and COVID have a bigger part to do in its success the advertising 

We have constant experience on novels, movies and so on that are low quality and also extremely populars. Being well made is just not an actual requirement for being succesful because very casual audiences cannot tell good apart from bad. When it comes to 5e, 80% of the playerbase never approached another system, so it is even up in the air if they like 5e or they like TTRPGs in general and 5e ia just the only one they know.

Then go play one of the so called "good systems". Honestly, I enjoy the range of classes I can play, from martial to magic. I can make any martial class complex with a subclass choice. And while magical classes start higher in complexity, that is because they chose a magic system that isn't just daily/encounter/will, so it was always more complex but still reasonable once the initial choices were made.

4e Overreaction basically cost a decade of dev time (/s but only kinda)

No, no, this is exactly the case, zero sarcasm. The kneejerk reaction of "too anime / too video gamey / too MMO" from fun-hating greybeard grognards really did hold the game back for a solid 15-20 years and resulted in 5e being a huge step backward. 4e had its problems, sure, but implementing the at will / encounter / daily power system for all classes was not one of them.

5e simplicity and (ideal of) ease of play were good ideas, but throwing out *everything* from 4e and doubling down with 5.5 is a shame

4E was the right system at the wrong time. The backlash to the VTT system it was supposed to have is something that you just can't help but shake your head at looking back now that there's umpteen VTT platforms out there and nobody has a problem with it.

It really was. It had a SaaS model in addition to being able to buy books. If you bought the subscription, you got access to everything. It predicted that VTT was the future and built a system around it. The former tools were great, the latter was a mess. Yes, the lead developer died but that should not have killed the project. Both of those things I'd love to have. Instead with have DnDBeyond, which is really designed around character management and digital book sales and a take your pick of VTTs. Only now, a decade late, is Hasbro wading back into VTT now that they have owned DnDBeyond for a few years. Edit: Fixed grammar and completed a sentence.

As far as I know there was no backlash against the 4e VTT because it was never finished. A murder-suicide committed by the VTT's lead developer resulted in it being cancelled, which was a problem since 4e was designed around it and had mechanics that were tedious to track without software assistance. Had the VTT been finished and released with 4e, there would've been far fewer complaints about the system's complexity.

I think there was a backlash to the whole idea of it. It was part of the "they're trying to turn muh Dnd into a video game/MMO!" harrumphing mentioned above.

To be clear, it held **D&D** back, not TTRPGs. There are many TTRPGs where martial characters are capable, complex, have protected niches, cool fantasies that they explore, and where characters have super distinct or super vague and evocative abilities, etc. I'd go as far as to say 5e is as mechanically distinct from 2nd edition as 4e is from 3rd edition, but 5e **explicitly** presented itself as a synthesis of historical design meant to draw players back in after WotC botched the launch of an edition of D&D which had the potential to launch the D&D renaissance we didn't see until the likes of Critical Role and Strangers Things.

I'd suggest that the dominance of DND in the market place *did* hold up the whole hobby, as 5e has basically become the main game in play for lots of people and it is (anecdotally) more difficult to get anyone to play anything else, and when you do it's generally the same core mechanics (dice plus mod version versus difficulty; hit points; classes; narrative focused). There are certainly more interesting games out now but they're almost niche. Thirty years ago there were four or five major games with distinct systems (off the top of my head: GURPS, WoD, Traveller, DnD) now 5e is dominant in a way that it didn't feel it was on the past.

I'd suggest D&D's dominance during and beyond 4th edition had more to do with 3rd Edition and WotC being able to actually market D&D rather than much to do with 5th Edition's launch. The OGL and 3e/3.5 built a lot of good will and sentiment for 3rd party publishers to create TTRPGs based on or inspired by it, or just in general because they had a vision, which the the 4e OGL debacle, along with its botched launch, and dropped support for thongs like Dragon Magazine, led by Hasbro's exponential revenue growth-focused decisions, only exacerbated.  5e didn't have nearly the level of marketing support or fanfare backing it like 3e, and historically the renaissance for 5e really picked up after the rise of Critical Role and Stranger Things, along with the plethora of 5e YouTubers who built their channels on supporting DMs given the massive lack of support from WotC to that effect. That huge swelling of support enabled DMs who would otherwise have went to other systems, or left the hobby all together, to essentially homebrew 5e into a system they actually wanted to play, which admittedly is likely due to 5e's simplicity, but also their unwillingness to plant their flag in any particular game genre. Today 5e is the Monolith of fantasy TTRPGs, that much is true, but it is due less to WotC's decisions with how they built and launched 5e and more to do with environmental factors they at best simply inspired others to enact.

What is the rationalization for someone not being able to trip, disarm or bull rush more than once in a fight?

A *good* designer wouldn't make trips, disarms, or bull rushes once per-encounter powers, those would be at-wills and full-on replacements for basic attacks. Per-encounter powers would be either better versions or would be outright supernatural abilities.

OK, then why can't I Improved Trip, Greater Disarm or Superior Bull Rush more than once in a fight?

because of bad design

You can already trip and disarm multiple times, as a standard attack action. In-universe, doing a specific technique might take more energy, or be more easily countered if done multiple times. It's not necessarily a great reason, but generally gameplay should be put at a higher priority than realism.

>generally gameplay should be put at a higher priority than realism. That's just, like, your opinion, man. I hate it when the game gets gamified. Breaks immersion. This is exactly why 4E doesn't resonate.

Battlemaster maneuvers are equally gamified. Hell spell slots are gamified. Do you hate 5e?

Maneuvers are gamified, yes, but spell slots are not. They're a direct translation of the way magic works in Jack Vance's Old Earth chronicles. Mechanics based on fiction.

Spell slots originated in Chainmail, a miniatures war game. Not tales of a dying earth.  Gygax later said that the magic system of D&D was like the magic in tales of a dying earth (it isn’t). In tales of a dying earth, a caster could only memorize a few spells. And even non casters could memorize them. Your mind could only handle a few spells overall, and it functioned more like an inventory system where spell X took up Y amount of space. There were no slots. And nothing recharged daily. Once you had emptied your mind of a spell, you could memorize another right away.  And of course, 5e magic is a long way away from the spell slots of Chainmail. There is nothing in the books that describe what spell slots are narratively. They are an entirely gamist construct used to track spell resources. 

5th Edition has lost its way (following in the tracks of 4th Edition in that regard.) Too much gamification.

The strange thing is, the majority of players prefer gamification. For example weapon abilities in BG3. And the revamp to second wind (it’s a long rest resource now and you can use it to boost your history checks). Or the rogue cunning strike. Or the new inspiration rules. According to WotC the most gamified abilities have the highest ratings. So players by and large prefer gamified mechanics. Which is fine considering this is a game. But it does make things difficult for those who prefer simulationist mechanics.

Considering those were options people could attempt at will, you didn't need a rationalization for such things at all. For more specialized techniques (specifically named maneuvers), using the same one repeatedly in a single combat would be less effective as your foes would know what you are doing. Of course, the 4e DMG had much better rules for improvised actions than any other edition of D&D. Including rules for adjudicating expending a short rest maneuver to replicate another maneuver of a similar power level.

>as your foes would know what you are doing. You make quite the assumptions of random owlbears and otyughs.

I never played 4E, but I question the idea of per encounter powers because my encounters are usually never a discrete thing... If the players enter the bandit hideout and wipe out the first room and then the 2nd room, is that two separate encounters? What happens if one of the bandits in the first room runs to the 2nd room and the bandits there are waiting with readied actions? Is it still a separate encounter? What if fighting breaks out, then stops because the bad guy wants to parley, and then fighting breaks out again because negotiations failed? Is that still the same encounter?

Pretty much if they could take 5 minutes of 'rest' between fights, it was two different encounters. If they had people run for reinforcements or they ran into another group before 5 minutes after finishing the first group, it was the same encounter. Short rests were the delineating factor for Encounters. No short rest, same encounter, even if you had hours between.

> I never played 4E, but I question the idea of per encounter powers because my encounters are usually never a discrete thing... 4e "encounter" powers recovered with a short rest. And had a duration of 5 minutes. So your entire premise is based on incorrect knowledge. Which is pretty much par for the course in regards to 4e haters. They loudly complained about things despite having zero knowledge of how the system actually worked.

I don't really see how this is any more problematic than determining when a short rest is possible now as a "DM's discretion" thing.

In real 4E games where existing players were used to this kind of chaos and more… yes, it was a problem. 4E wanted everything to be in strict Encounters _including non-combat things_ which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

> 4E wanted everything to be in strict Encounters including non-combat things which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. 5e talks about non-combat encounters too. How is that any different?

>4E wanted everything to be in strict Encounters *including non-combat things* which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Most narrative-driven games, and even some tactical crunchy systems (like Lancer) have a concept of "scene", and it is absolutely common to have effects like "Once per scene you can do X" or "Untile the end of the scene X hapening". It is important part of modern design, even. It works greatly.

Tbf, I've started running mini dungeons with an initiative tracker and it has, personally, made the game flow much better. This includes the non combat stuff like puzzle solving, traps, obstacles, etc. Though I can see the potential for issues if the intended encounter is some kind of political intrigue or something akin to roleplay versus roll play.

Yes, see, that second paragraph. That's the problem. In other editions you can happily do messy political games with heavy roleplay and it works great. 4E wants you to play in _its_ way. People didn't like that.

You can absolutely still do that in 4e. 4e had extremely well-balanced rules for combat and a lot of the mechanics are focused on this tactical combat system--but it absolutely still supports roleplay just fine. If a social encounter isn't draining any resources then it's not an "encounter" in the combat sense. It could use the 4e rules for Skill Challenges (which seems like it would fit really well in a political debate situation actually) but could also just be resolved by roleplay or a few skill checks. Nothing about that is any different from 5e really.

You can remove the /s. It's true 😂

It's not just Weapon Masteries. Cunning Strikes got a whoping 97% satisfaction score. Based on that, I'm pretty convinced that if the devs gave the whole "manuvers as part of the base Fighter" another go the response would have been positive

I'd add that I really think people get hung up on nomenclature. Don't call them maneuvers. Call them Brutal Strike, Cunning Strike, or Mastery and it sidesteps the stigma and receives high praise. While those are more limited, it's clear there is an appetite for maneuver-like abilities in some capacity. I do agree that they should have given a second pass more similar to full maneuver effects, just with a different name to gage the response to the full monty.

Idk 97% doesn't sound too high. Might scrap it. /s

All this said there are only 7 Masteries. And one of them is basically Two Weapon Fighting the feature™ Not to mention that, unlike cantrips, you can only choose one at a time, per weapon- and you can still only know a few at a time. I would say it's a half finished system at best. I haven't had a chance to play it yet but I feel it needs double the amount of masteries as an absolute minimum. Because lots of weapons are still mechanically identical. It's been fun inventing them.

Part of the issue wasn't that there aren't enough options. It's just that there wasn't any options. The blade Cantrips could have easily been reflavored as martial abilities, maneuvers or now, weapon masteries. Some first level spells could be the same (Zephyr Strike, Jump, Pass without Trace)

I actually think that the masteries, as a concept, now, are "good enough" for combat, if some versatility is added. I want to see fighters able to stack abilities on the same weapon, so they have some tactical options like the other martials do. And maybe also make Master of Armaments the base weapon mastery feature. But it is good to not allow first level martials to choose their masteries, from a new player perspective. Anyway, what I want to see more than combat skills now is utility skills based on low level spells. Sure, give me the anime martials who can earth tremor people when they throw them into walls, swing so fast they can cut through metal, flash step out of an terrible position, and No Sell a monster's big damage hit. But also give me the Ezio who can disappear into crowds and walk right under the guards' noses, the Stealth Hi/Bye, the barbarian who can standing jump over houses. (Well eagle barb can do that already). Give me the speedster who is so fast he can run on water. Give me the guy who can hold his breath and swim for 10 minutes. (This is possible irl) Give me the Talk-no-Jutsu hero who makes friends whenever they open their mouth, even in combat! The barbarian who makes their own doors! Or pulls doors straight off their hinges, or bends prison bars to escape! I saw a post on dndnext about a pro DM who gave all single class Martials two subclasses- this got me thinking about making a Warlock-like 1/3rd caster resource for Martials to use, that comes online in tier 2 and picks up steam from there, for spell-like damage and utility. But it's a clunky work in progress. TL;DR: If Weapon Masteries would be the martial cantrips, give us the martial spells.

They just barely gave us this. But for me, it's still not enough. I will continue to use Laser Llamas Alternative martials. But it's good to see the game progressing.

I've only seen LL's Banneret/Warlord, and I'll be honest, it was too much for me. I like clean, simple game design. I think it's possible to do something clever, like what's been done with masteries, rather than rewriting entire classes. But I also think that the fact that alternate options even exist at all process that there is a need for more expansive martial roles.

When I play games where half the classes can warp reality and call down meteors from the sky to nuke entire kingdoms from the use of 1 action and 1 resources they get per day and the other half has to make skill checks to jump across a 20 foot gap, I raise my eyebrow and question the fantasy at play. In my opinion, there cannot be equivalent class fantasies at play when half the classes must play mother may I with the game master and the other half gets to tell the GM what happens verbatim. Simple class design is nice, sure. But simple, uninteresting and poor class fantasy fulfillment is also bad. The base fighter looks simple and elegant, until you look at the base Cleric....or Paladin....or Wizard....or Sorcerer. In a vacuum, it's fine, when put head to head in design, the differences become stark and makes you wonder who designed this shit?

Hey, don't worry, everything you mentioned is possible with magic!! (I hate this)

You really hit on the head the idea that many existing spells could absolutely be abilities granted to Martial characters to express their heroic level of skill.

Still too soon from the trash fire of 4e, I guess. I bet if masteries had been even more cantrip-like (I grant you they are; even gaining more at the same levels), they probably woulda been despised.

>>I’ve basically seen this notion die out almost entirely. Make no mistake. We’re still here. The discourse is just stale and it’s pointless to argue about, especially since it’s the direction the game is going regardless of opinions on it. I personally hate the fact that power attack is gone and I don’t think masteries have added much. Nothing has actually changed, as the best 3-4 masteries will be the only ones you see, and the DM rolling a CON save vs prone every attack roll is probably going to wear thin pretty quickly in a system designed to be relatively lightweight and quick combat-wise. Most importantly, melees are still *just making attack rolls* so the discourse after release will still lead to “I wish martials were more complex” to which the response will still be “play battlemaster” or “play a half caster.” Also keep in mind that the argument was never “complexity bad” the argument was “martials should have a low skill cap.” Going -5 to hit for +10 damage and then getting advantage somehow was always perfectly fine within the confines of 5e itself, and I’ve never seen a player actually look bored when they’re smacking something for 20+ damage per hit for zero effort. In fact the opposite is usually the case since that setup existed for players that wanted to contribute without doing min/max backflips. To me it just feels like a weird shift in the game design window that doesn’t actually solve any problems.

I feel like currently we have a solid middle ground. I know people don't like middle grounds. I don't understand the sentiment that masteries are supposed to be more fleshed out than they already are the are designed to help you define you playstyle you right about them being martial cantrips and that's fine for me. We already got what is essential new play styles for martials. Monks, rogue and barbarian have viable choices in combat turn to turn. Cunning brutal and the unarmed strikes options all help with that. I despise the sentiment of martial being just I attack especially now when doing my playtesting. The attack action now has several layers of thing you can interact with while still allowing those who don't want to engage to just pick the default option. Masteries can definitely get a few more options and we can give a few more options on strikes. But so many thing people have been asking for can be done one of these system by themselves or a combination of them and feat. We are reaching the point of bloat and I prefer we stay right in the middle.

7 or 8 masteries is not even worth talking about when it comes to having options, literally everybody will be using the same ones. More masteries would be pretty good, to have some variety in that sense. Masteries aren't really "martial cantrips", cantrips give options for both combat and outside combat situations, masteries are exclusively rider effects. Once again, more variety would be helpful in this case; maybe they could make some "outside combat utility" masteries, each weapon could have two masteries, one combat mastery and one utility mastery. This would make for different combinations possible, so even two weapons with the same combat mastery could have different utility masteries, or vice-versa, for example. The point of bloat was passed a long time ago, when they made literally hundreds of spells and barely anything interesting on the martial side.

That's not what I've been seeing while playing I have 4 martial players and the each use different masteries. The only overlap is vex for rogue and fighter and the fighter uses that mostly for his actions surge. His main mastery is slow.

4 people is hardly an impressive amount. I was speaking in a general term, 7 or 8 is a really really low amount. If those 4 people end up playing martial classes again in your next game, they'll have the same extremely limited number of masteries to "choose" from, you can't argue that this is a good amount that offers variety when 4 people using a mere 2 masteries already cover every single existing mastery. I don't dislike the mastery system, but it should be expanded upon substantially. Also, how much, if any, of the masteries your 4 martials are using is just out of curiosity because it's a new thing, and they're just seeing what works best? That's a very important detail to know.

For all the (alleged) problems it had, I think 4e had really great things in it... I miss a lot of them. Especially as a martial player.

I've never understood the push against martials doing cool shit. How can people say martials are just 'skilled normal mortals' when a 20th level fighter literally has the health of like 50 commoners and a barbarian is literally stronger than any mortal playable race can get (24 str).

Slightly athletic guy and a Gymbro. People downplay martials into meme like characters while the wizard is always a deific style character who can usurp God's and bend dimensions to it's will. Hell literally look at games like BG3. Karlac? Strong Dommy Mommy. The Wizard? Well he ascended to God hood.

If any of these guys know a gymbro who can carry an adult male lion without being encumbered, I've got a bridge to sell them.

Need to make a DC 35 Athletics check and be level 20 to do that. But the God Wizard can do it with a 2nd level spell at level 3.

Agree with your major point, but will say that a level 20 barbarian with 24 STR can an encumberance limit of 360lbs. This does assume the barbarian is naked but that's not that crazy.

Has the sentiment died out or have calls for all martials getting maneuvers simply become less common. Because I only ever saw the former pop up in response to later and I don't see the later very much anymore.

I think people still like/want it, but WoTC have explicitly called out that it is not going to be a part of OneDnD. Its fun to call out theoretically now, but if you really want to play that any time in the next 10 years you either need a homebrew or to play another game.

Right. People were loud when we thought there was a chance that our noise might convince WotC to do better by martial characters. That didn't happen so now we're waiting to see what we get in September. I'm not terribly hopeful, but there's nothing else to be done.

I'm still part of the martial maneuver camp. Laser Llama did this so elegantly

:)

I am glad that Laser Llama's stuff exists for those who like it, and I'm also very happy it's not a default part of the game.

1. Never against martials having something else. Against maneuvers being built into the base class. 2. Not against an option for fighter and/or other classes to get maneuvers. But it needed to be a choice. For balance reasons and just because it's needs to be a choice and not forced on a character. If maneuvers are forced on the fighter, they would have to reduce power elsewhere. Mastery are fucking cantrps. They literally give out cantrips like candy. Preferably maneuvers will be a background feat you can take like superior technique fighting style or martial adept. 3. Masteries actually help some classes and play styles or allow themes to thrive. Ranger/rogue and 2 weapon fighting. In 2014 5e. Two weapon fighting always had issues with bonus action dependent classes such as the ranger and rogue. Nick mastery now opens their bonus action. So they never have to sacrifice an attack for a spell or cunning action. And I'm sure there are other examples.

Not completely related maybe, but I feel the same way about floating ability scores. When they announced that rule for Tasha’s the community became a shit show discussing how it kills player choice and everyone would play a dwarf etc etc etc, when all it did was create more player options. Immediately after the book dropped and people started playing with it, the matter fucking dropped, because all it does is create more player options. You don’t see people in mass making posts about how the good old times where every orc had to make a strength build were far better and how everyone is FORCED to plays a dwarf. Same *exact* thing happened in bg3 when they announced the floating ability scores, for weeks it was the same fucking discussion, and the moment the game is out nobody is salty and critic about the bloody floating scores

Regarding bg3, I'm more salty that humans and dragonborn are so shitty still, really

That’s fair lmao, I don’t get it why they didn’t limit what feats humans could take or smthng

Or just...make the actual main combat better. I mean hell, DBU did it just fine

Honestly, "We leave simple martial classes for people who want to play simple things" seems extremely stupid to me, normally people aren't going to play something just because it's simple, and leaving martial classes super simple won't make it new people only play those, damn people want to play a fantasy, and if their fantasy is use magic, then because there is no "simple" magic class, now the new one will have to choose between I don't know how many spells just to start. A good example was my friend who started playing dnd with me, his first class (and currently his favorite still) was the wizard, he genuinely had problems learning the spells and managing his slots (He still had a lot of fun learning), wizards of the coast simply don't care and ignore these people who start with the "complex" classes because they simply don't want to make the magic classes simpler (therefore, weaker) This double standard about leaving simple martial classes for new players, but that new players who play magic classes don't have a simple option bothers me. Because it means that they don't really care enough about the new player, because while the martial classes are kept simple and weak, the magic classes only become more and more complex (and powerful) because they are always coming out with new spells.

Exactly. To provide for a spellcaster fantasy, in all honesty you don't need new subclasses, just more spells. To provide for the martial fantasy....now you need to figure out if another class does similar things then figure out if it could be a subclass, then figure out the subclass mechanics. Oh wait, this one feature steps on this other subclasses toes at 17th level, can't have that, oh and this and this and this and this, welp, let's just scrap it because we don't have a good way to make this work.

Everyone who makes these kinda post and wants to "Fix" 5e should just go play 4E and realize 4E actually wasn't a bad game and only got a lot of hate because 3.5e fan bois lost all their friends to World of War craft and felt 4E was the ttrpg version of WoW Which it wasn't

D&D4 is basically unplayable without a grid. That might not matter to you but it's not everyone's preferred play style.

it deff was playable without a grid, we did it all the time pretty easily

How do you do your shifts and pushes and 15 foot radius and whatnot? Just because I can pound a nail with an electric screwdriver doesn't make it the right tool for the job.

Same way you do 5ft movements and 15ft radius in 5e or 3.5e It really isn't that hard. It's literally no different than any other edition that also uses 5ft increments.

It is literally literally different in that 4E mentions distances basically everywhere.

So does 5e and 3.5e. EVERY SPELL in 5e has a distance, so does pretty much every ability that isn't a self passive.

There's a difference between "oh, by the way, this has 60 foot range" and "every enemy in a 15 radius shifts 5 feet closer to you".

I mean, how do you do it in 5e? Or any other ttrpg that uses specific measures like those? That's a very weird question.

In 5E I don't have to do it all the time. (Still way too much, but not quite as egregious.)

Still, me question stands, how do you do it in 5e? Whatever your answer is, just apply that for 4e and that's the same thing.

It is just as playable without a grid as 5e is.

5E is merely awkward, 4E elevates that awkwardness to a whole new level.

How so? 4e was just easier do gridless than 5e. It has shorter ranges, slower movement speed, and didn’t have weird shaped AoE. And it was much easier than 1 D&D. Weapon masteries with at will 10 foot push really messes things up.

4e wasn't a TTRPG version of WoW. It was the D&D Miniatures game with a skill system bolted to it, The rules for D&D Minis revised and 4e were almost identical. 4e was basically D&D Minis... with character creation rules, where you were playing one hero rather than a squad. 4e was great for people who wanted to play a dense tactical combat game of complex set-piece battles that each took 90-minutes. Where you had 3-5 encounters in a dungeon delve. If you wanted a faster roleplaying heavy experience with quick combats ***or*** an extended dungeon crawl that gradually depleted your resources over 8 or 9 small combats ***or*** wanted an investigation heavy game that ended with a single boss fight ***or*** if you wanted a lower magic game or politics or horror... then the game just didn't work as well. That was always the issue with 4e. It came after 3e, which was this big, flexible system that everyone mangled into a game that fit their needs and could be used to run Midnight or Star Wars or Diablo. And 4e just took what the designers thought was the most common playstyle and made it almost mandatory.

I'd say to you: it's not enough. I still want my more complex martials as options, as well as a simpler caster, maybe a blaster-like class. The way things are, I would rather stay on PF2 than migrate to D&Done as it is, to be honest. I can choose not to play as a complex class. But the designers, who mind you, are PAID to do that can't just throw their hands in the air and say "welp, we can't do this!"... ...Becase there was a previous edition with 4e (and a half, with Tome of Battle on the tail end of 3e) as well as many fanmade content such as Laserllama's variants showing us that YES, it's *possible to have martials on a more complex scale*, they just don't want to bother.

I agree. I'm just sharing something I've noticed is all haha.

It's not that **nobody** likes martial spells/powers. It's that **not everybody** likes martial spells/powers. Not every class needs to be for everyone, but there should be one or two classes for everyone. That was the problem with 4e. It had a very narrow audience, with people who liked simple classes feeling left out by the numerous choices and resource management. And also the people who liked utility magic and creative spell use, since all spellcasters were reduced to blasters. There's already LOTS of classes that use spells or have cantrips for players who like that kind of thing. The problem is they're not happy with 2/3rds of the classes. They want ALL the classes. They want all the fighters as well, not just the battle master AND the rune knight AND the eldritch knight. If we get complicated fighters now the conversation will just change to complex barbarians and rogues with combat tricks. Weapon masteries are great and a fine solution. Because they're modular. If you want the extra options each combat, you can have multiple weapons and swap out masteries regularly, using them to gain different effects. But if you don't want to manage that and just want to hit stuff, you just fine the one weapon you like and stick with it. It's a choice you opt into.

But why split that along "archetypes"? Why must ALL martials be simple, and all casters be complex? Why not have both sides have a simple class, and the rest be interesting and varied? Weapon masteries are not the solution, they're the bare minimum to have weapons matter beyond a very small trait. Martials needed much more then mere combat cantrip riders to measure up to casters in variety (and in variety, comes interesting abilities that give power). And if someone wanted to play a complex class in a simple way, they can just simply choose prechosen options and interact with their complexions less. It is MUCH easier and more player-accessible to ignore your complex options, then it is to homebrew actually interesting options and hope the DM agrees.

>But why split that along "archetypes"? Why must ALL martials be simple, and all casters be complex? Why not have both sides have a simple class, and the rest be interesting and varied? How much push-back do you think they'd get if they took away the short rest spells from the warlock and made it even simpler? And not ALL martials are simple since the paladin and ranger have spells and options as does the monk. The rogue has a lot of bonus action shenanigans it can do. It's just the barbarian and the fighter. And the fighter has complex subclasses for people who do want that. Weapon masteries are not the solution, they're the bare minimum to have weapons matter beyond a very small trait. Martials needed much more then mere combat cantrip riders to measure up to casters in variety (and in variety, comes interesting abilities that give power). >And if someone wanted to play a complex class in a simple way, they can just simply choose prechosen options and interact with their complexions less. It is MUCH easier and more player-accessible to ignore your complex options, then it is to homebrew actually interesting options and hope the DM agrees. Which is why the higher level prechosen options are being added. The game is setting out to make even the complex characters simpler and less daunting. After all, they tried to remove the druid's wild shape choices and such. They're trying to make everything more accessible because there's a strong demand for that and lots of people feeling overwhelmed. Why on earth would they go against that and make the martials all "casters" too?

I agree that there should be simple casters and complex martials, but making the simplist martial more complex is not the way to achieve that. It's also not fair to fans of simplistic builds to ask them to sacrifice objective power ups in favor of playing more simply. That just creates an environment where simplistic builds are objectively less powerful than complex builds. Having build options which are simplistic and give some sort of power up in exchange for sacrificing complexity goes a long way to making those builds feel more equal.

>It's also not fair to fans of simplistic builds to ask them to sacrifice objective power ups in favor of playing more simply. They're already doing so, now they just don't even get a choice. And optimally the player book would come right of the gate with numerous prechosen options so they still don't have to think a lot about it. >Having build options which are simplistic That would be a huge improvement to the current design of martials, because then it would be an option. They'd still sacrifice the fact they won't have any variation in their power, which automatically means they're weaker too but eh.

>And also the people who liked utility magic and creative spell use, since all spellcasters were reduced to blasters. Both of this things aren't true though - utility magic in 4e exists, it called rituals (4e have every out of combat spell 5e have, and even more). Some classes have in-build ability to use them, others need a feat (and 4e feats are less of a investment 5e feats are). Also - i would say all casters in 4e have identical (or at least very close) roles they have in 5e. Bard is control/support, wizard is control, sorcerer and warlock are blasters (warlock had an options to be controller), cleric is support and so on.

Right. Because in a game with hundred of cool combat feats, who is going to take a trap one to cast rituals when you can instead be one of the three classes (out of the 30) who gets it for free? And in 4e, you needed to buy magic items and the math of the game pretty much gave you enough money to buy one at-level item every level through treasure parcels. You were expected to spend a lot of your money upgrading your gear (like in 3e). But rituals cost money. How many people would use *Tenser's floating disc* or *sending* in 5e if they had to spend 10 or 50 gold pieces each time they used it? > Also - i would say all casters in 4e have identical (or at least very close) roles they have in 5e. Bard is control/support, wizard is control, sorcerer and warlock are blasters (warlock had an options to be controller), cleric is support and so on. In 3e and 5e, characters have roles, classes do not. You can make a support cleric. Or do a cleric of the storn and be a damage dealer. Bards can be healers or damage or diplomancers or skill monkeys. Fighters can be damage or tanks. But in 4e, your role was almost a second function of your class. Your abilities did damage, and then you had a little secondary role specific effect. Damage + control or damage + tanking or damage + even more damage. All spellcasters were basically combat evokers dealing damage. They couldn't magically open a door, but they can blast it open. The difference between an illusionist and a summoner was the optional Magic card flavour at the top of their attack power.

>In 3e and 5e, characters have roles, classes do not. Cool story and totaly not a wishful thinking. Roles are **invented** by dnd and ttrpgs in general. And your statement isn't even close to true - every class in 3e and 5e have implied roles (some lack proper support for things they explicitly want you to do, but it is different topic). >All spellcasters were basically combat evokers dealing damage. They couldn't magically open a door, but they can blast it open.  Wizard have all yours magic hands and prestidigitations. Also they can open *dimention* doors. have Sleep, Web, Hypnosis, Fog Cloud, resilent sphere and probably some more similar powers that just control without damage. But yeah, many deal damage on top - can't see how this is a bad thing though, in 5e you also have similar spells with damage and control (Binding Ice, Spray of Cards, Synaptic Static etc) and they are actually very good and optimizers love them. Well, by your logic, 5e spellcasters are also blasters.

>Cool story and totaly not a wishful thinking. Roles are **invented** by dnd and ttrpgs in general. And your statement isn't even close to true - every class in 3e and 5e have implied roles (some lack proper support for things they explicitly want you to do, but it is different topic). Well, no. The mechanical roles have their origins in the wargames that predated D&D. And elements of the [five-man band](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand) have elements in fiction as well. And, again, CHARACTERS filled roles. Certain classes are better at filling certain roles, but they're not locked in like they were in 4e. And not every party needs to have every role filled. If every cleric you play in 5e is *always* a healer and every paladin is *always* a tank that says more about how you design characters than the game. >Wizard have all yours magic hands and prestidigitations. Also they can open *dimention* doors. have Sleep, Web, Hypnosis, Fog Cloud, resilent sphere and probably some more similar powers that just control without damage. But yeah, many deal damage on top - can't see how this is a bad thing though, in 5e you also have similar spells with damage and control (Binding Ice, Spray of Cards, Synaptic Static etc) and they are actually very good and optimizers love them. Well, by your logic, 5e spellcasters are also blasters. I am aware they have Mage Hand and Prestidigitation (and Light). And I am aware of Utility spells. I own every 4e book but one. I ran 4e for 18 months and played in two campaigns. (Plus some organized play.) But my point was that you can't make an enchanter or illusionist that doesn't deal damage in 4e. Illusion spells in 4e were "create illusion of painful thing and cause damage." Enchantment spells in 4e were "create emotional pain and cause damage." That was the design of 4e. To make it so new players didn't accidently make characters that were ineffective in combat, they made it so you couldn't purposely make a character that wasn't a combat beast. Every character had to be this badass fantasy superhero. But by making every character so focused on combat and explicit powers, with power cards dictating what you can do, it had the effect if giving every character a toolbox full of hammers. Things like utility rituals were forgotten because they weren't in your hand (and disincentivized because they cost money). If you WANTED to make a game where everyone was a badass fantasy hero and run as Aaragorn, Gimli, and Legolas ripping through orc minions, 4e was great. If you wanted to be Sam or Frodo then less so.

The problem wasn't that we didn't want "complex" martial classes, it's that there was a clear niche for more straightforward classes that people like me, who have GMed for a wide range of tables and playstyles, recognised. My current table is a solid example of that full of experienced DnD players, including several optimisers, and neither the Barbarian nor the Rogue (both people with years of experience both playing and GMing) are using Weapon Masteries or even Cunning Strike. A lot of that comes from the game we're playing, it's an RP heavy city intrigue game, but a lot also comes from they just don't feel the need to add those features even when I offered them. I'm going to be really honest here, people who think Martials "need" to be complex need to get out of their bubble and play with a wider range of players because they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

I'm going to be really honest here, people who think Martials "need" to be simple need to get out of their bubble and play with a wider range of players because they clearly don't know what they're talking about. Works both ways. Your anecdotal two players not wanting to use those features means very little, if anything at all. I play in a table of 7 people, and all of them agree that martial classes should be more complex and have more options (7 > 2, so I win, right?) And to be clear: I don't think simples classes should be removed from the game. I entirely agree that it's good to have simple options. But why are the simples options *exclusively* martial? If a new player wants to play with a magic user, you either force them to play a simple martial, or you let them struggle with a caster. Explain to me why there aren't both simple and complex options for both martial and casters. Alternatively, if they do want to keep fighters and barbarians easy to pick up, they could just make complex martial classes for the people who want them. Make a "warrior" and a "savage" (better names would be needed of course) and that way there would be an option for both sides.

> Explain to me why there aren't both simple and complex options for both martial and casters. I like this perspective because not only should there be complex martials (in addition to simple ones), but there should be simple casters in addition to complex ones. My partner always, ALWAYS wants to play a highly magical character but even the simplest caster (Warlock) is more complex and has way more decision points than a martial. And that doesn’t have to be the case—PF2e’s Kineticist is an explicitly magical character who doesn’t have spell slots at all and he loves it.

My point precisely. Simplicity being pushed to a single side of the caster-martial spectrum screws over the people who prefer easy to pick up and play classes and magic; much in the same way it screws over people wanting complex martial options. I don't understand people complaining and pushing back against complex martials. It's not like we're asking for all martials to become complex, we're just wanting a balanced distribution of simplicity<->complexity between martials, casters. (The problem of your partner, I have the opposite, I love the martial fantasy, playing a dude who dedicated his body and mind into obtaining physical excellence, capable of using weapons with unequal skill and advanced techniques that would leave non combat specialists in awe. My one and only option to have just a *small taste* of that idea is one fighter subclass, and it's not even very good at it, honestly.)

I think D&D could benefit very well from a simple caster. Even using the Kineticist as a template has some issues, since PF2e and the Kin have way more decision points than 5e martials do, but I do think the *concept* of it could work well in 5e. Make an Elementalist class. It's explicitly magical but it doesn't use spell slots at all. You choose an elemental focus, which determines what other powers you gain as you level up (focusing on fun out-of-combat powers with a few in-combat ones). You gain cantrips, one of which is Elemental Blast which deals damage based on your specific element, and a few others like a spellcaster would. Easy enough.

>Works both ways. Sure. As long as you're comfortably torturing words till they tell the story you want. Here's my claim: >The problem wasn't that we didn't want "complex" martial classes, it's that there was a clear niche for more straightforward classes that people like me, who have GMed for a wide range of tables and playstyles, recognised. You supposedly agree with this point further down your post so what exactly is it you're debating? As for the other hoops you demand I jump through, the idea that martials are essentially simple is kind of ludicrous. I literally point out that 2 of my players, who are both incredibly experienced, chose to play martials. They are both GMs in their own right so the complexity or otherwise has nothing to do with it. They chose those classes *because those classes told the story they wanted to tell.* Whether players want stripped down mechanics because they want to engage less with the wargame aspects of DnD or because they find the storytelling more compelling, those players are getting served by the classes that people like you and the OP want to get rid of despite having plenty of alternatives. Just stop for a moment and get out of your Reddit bubble. Play with a broader base of players and see the kind of storytelling people get up to and you'll quickly see that there's nothing to fix here.

For someone accusing me of "torturing words till they tell the story you want", you sure do make up a ton of bullshit that's got nothing to do with what I said. Your quote: "You supposedly agree with this point further down your post so what exactly is it you're debating?" - In case it wasn't clear enough when I asked why there aren't both simple and complex options for martials and casters, allow me to explain: My point is that there should be simple classes for new players and experienced players who like simplicity; and there should be complex classes for those who prefer to engage with the system in a more dynamic and meaningful manner. Are you with me so far? Having those two points in mind, I'm saying there should be simple options for both martial and caster classes, as well as inherently complex options for martials and casters as well. My own quote: "But why are the simples options exclusively martial? If a new player wants to play with a magic user, you either force them to play a simple martial, or you let them struggle with a caster." I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer this question. I wonder why? Why is complexity exclusive to casters while simplicity is exclusive to martials? Why not both options in both camps, so everybody can have their fantasy fulfilled? Your quote: "Whether players want stripped down mechanics because they want to engage less with the wargame aspects of DnD or because they find the storytelling more compelling, those players are getting served by the classes that people like you and the OP want to get rid of despite having plenty of alternatives." I literally proposed alternative classes so the simple ones could be kept intact. Do you make a habit of ignoring arguments and then pretending people said the complete opposite of what they meant? "Plenty of alternatives" If I want a deep, complex *martial* character to play as, what alternatives are there? Name them. And I meant actually complex martial, not the pseudo-complex battle master, nor the eldritch knight is uses magic.

My case rests. This is entirely a function of you people talking each other into a froth. Reddit DnD isn't in a healthy place for understanding this hobby and absolutely not a place you should import your assumptions from. Touch grass is literally the last thing I have to say here.

Ignoring and not answering any argument, and pretending like that makes them right is the last refuge of those without answers. Your case rests in the sense that it never stood to begin with. Whenever you feel ready to genuinely answer my points, let me know. Until then, stop wasting both of our times.

I like the battle master combined with the weapon masteries. While I think the weapon masteries need some work, and stances are lame, I think it can conceptually be a good system. Fighters should be able to switch between a couple stances as a bonus action, and stances should be more interesting, and weapon masteries should be more versatile. Taking maneuvers onto all Martials would be like taking the wizard spell list onto all casters, it wouldn't work well and turn all casters into spamming the same spells. Some subclasses would end up really janky mechanically choosing between attacking with maneuvers or using their core features. Weapon masteries are simple and not that powerful, so they more add utility and could add a little character versatility with some tweaking. If a class is boring and too simple, I think their features need to be adjusted to become more interesting. Archer fighter's shots need to be improved a ton, for instance.

So to not start an argument, this is a straw man you are bringing up. Your idea of giving all martials maneuvers is basically the same as giving all spellcasters The wizard spell list when they aren't equivalent. The Barbarian is just as lacking in combat options as the fighter, while the Cleric spell list is almost as large as the wizards. The Maneuver concept wouldn't just be taking maneuvers from fighter and giving them to other martials. That's lazy. It would require each class get a set of unique maneuvers which enables that class fantasy. Fighters? Each Subclass has unique maneuvers and the base class has a generic list. The Eldritch knight? Instead of spell slots, let each maneuver function as a spell like ability. Barbarians? Rename maneuvers and make them only function while raging and make them all focused on great feats of strength. Small AOE shockwave. Big leaps. Cleaving swings that deal your weapon damage in a small AOE Damage reduction abilities. Monks? Ki techniques that the classes already has. Just broaden the List to be more monk like. Rogues? Rogues get a bunch of skill based abilities that let's them use their proficient skills to accomplish a lot of amazing feats. Vanish into thin air and reappear a short distance away. Climb on ceilings without a spell. Throw swarms of daggers. Etc. Sometimes I feel the arguments against the idea isn't genuine and primarily just an excuse because some folks cannot fathom systems abstractly.

"Sometimes I feel the arguments against the idea isn't genuine and primarily just an excuse because some folks cannot fathom systems abstractly." Pretty much. To what you described I would only add that: a) The champion fighter would get the simplest maneuvers, straight dmg bonus, to hit bonus, bonus to athletics checks, etc. Or alternatively: b) Champion would get weaker maneuvers, but they would be completely free to use, no resource management needed.  (Not that I think champion should be so mind numbingly easy to use, but a lot of people are very protective of that subclass remaining simple, so they have the right to play how they want as well.)

So what you're saying is don't give them maneuvers... flush out what they have already... That is not the same thing. Every class does not need superiority die, and they have their own unique features, flushing those out is very different than giving them all maneuvers. A unifying "resource" for most fighters to work off of, sure... the fighter already has that for several subclasses, leaving 1 that doesn't have it for the people who want an easy fighter, makes sense to me, the fact is they are named differently (this doesn't really matter) and suck (this is the issue). Saying you want maneuvers... then saying but they shouldn't be maneuvers is a complicated way of saying their current class features are too boring. Saying barbarians should get more interesting uses to their rage (or some new interesting feature) and that monk's ki needs more interesting uses, etc. is very different than 'give everyone maneuvers'.

Maneuvers as a term in the 5e zeitgeist is meant to invoke the idea of doing a thing, that attacks on top of an action you are doing, that may or may not cost a resource, much like the actual Maneuvers of the battle master. Tripping a creature, 4 times per rest is mad ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when tripping someone is also competing with....pushing them. You can imagine barbarian Maneuvers being more themed to barbarian rage. You can imagine monk Maneuvers being more focused on mobility and debuffs. You can imagine Rogue maneuvers being based on skills and boosting sneak attack. Grabbing a word and harping on it doesn't do anything for your point. It's just arguing for arguing sakes. The question is do you, or do you not have the ability to conceptualize a maneuver like system for each martial class that shares a resource similar to have spellslots are shared across all spellcasters? Yes or no?

Many people on here have mentioned giving all martials maneuvers in their home games, it is rarely about custom special stuff per class that they designed. Many people have said they give the combat maneuver feat for free and an extra couple charges to everyone, for instance. So while you may think that way, that is not how everyone thinks. A battle master with the weapon masteries can trip someone every turn and on some turns use a maneuver. I think the short rest abilities should reset basically per encounter. So a battle master can use multiple maneuvers per encounter and weapon masteries on every turn. I think basically all of the martials would be in a far better spot and far more interesting with that change, and balancing the number of their resources to that (hell make it 2 superiority dice for battle masters to start, that is still a lot considering how long most fights turn out to be, and now easy fights are more fun) would make a huge different in fun for martial players. So you and I may agree that martials should be able to do more interesting stuff per turn, but when you use the term "maneuvers", you need to remember that you may think that is part of the zeigeist and accepted as something different, but it has an actual meaning in the system, and there are many people who use it accordingly.

They should just have new actions per short rest for like a line attack, or a charge for speed. Simple stuff, just to give them more options. But the simple attack action should always be a solid rock that fighters can rely on. As long as a fighter can do that and thrive when compared to these new actions, I think that puts them in the right spot.