A Critique of the 5e Battle Master

In my current 5e campaign, Daemonium, one of my players made their character Gene Erikson a Battle Master Fighter. Despite some initial excitement we found that, in play, the class was a slog to use and didn't really add very much to the gameplay of the character. The issues I have with the Battle Master encapsulate some of the problems I have with 5e as a whole.

-

Fighters are my favourite RPG class and, for an RPG with a class based character creation system, they are the basis by which I judge the class system. 5e uses a subclass system, in which classes can pick a sort of specialization once they reach level 3 (Level 1 for some classes). The Fighter in 5e has three subclasses in the Player's Handbook (And a million more in the many supplements). You can pick Champion, Eldritch Knight, and Battle Master. Each of these add traits to the basic Fighter package.

The basic 5e Fighter is defined by gaining extra attacks as they level. While other fighting man classes in 5e have a total of two attacks, the Fighter has three attacks by level 11 and four at level 20. Once per short rest, a Fighter can use an "action surge" to gain a whole additional turn and a "second wind" to heal. It is often easy enough to take a Short Rest between every fight, depending on the context, so a Fighter is usually best served using these abilities as frequently as possible. In my campaign, Daemonium, Fighters can sometimes find themselves Short Resting without having unloaded their abilities. 

Up until 3rd Edition D&D, Fighters simply had higher HP, access to all weapons/armor, and an improved ability to hit their foes compared to the other classes. The multi-attack ability of the Fighter existed in a few different ways: in OD&D Fighters could attack multiple low level figures, a few versions have a 'Cleave' attack where Fighters can launch extra attacks if they kill a foe, and AD&D had Fighters increase their number of attacks as they level up (Rules Cyclopedia had some bizarre, and frankly broken, weapon mastery rules and there were a few other attempts to distinguish the Fighter). Across all of these editions, the Fighters main unique ability was better access to Magical Weapons and equipment than other classes. A Fighter advanced by gaining new magic items and attracting a following. In other words, advancement was not as focused on player facing rules or level gated powers, but was instead contingent on the player's ability to seize their own power. While I am not fond of 5e's focus on explicit player facing advancement, I like that the emphasis on launching multiple attacks makes the Fighter better positioned to take advantage of Magic Weapons than any other class. Using action surge and the extra attacks of the Fighter, you could apply something like the bonus damage from a Dragon Slayer Sword (3d6) up to six times in a row in one turn!

Champion, Eldritch Knight, and Battle Master all provide power to the Fighter in different ways. The Champion primarily increases critical hit rate and adds some other niche utility (Like jump distance!). The Eldritch Knight adds access to offensive and defensive spells. The Battle Master grants access to a variety of "Maneuvers" which recharge on a Short Rest that add damage and utility to the Fighter. These Maneuvers function in a variety of ways. Many of them add extra damage and a utility function (Such as Menacing Attack, which adds damage and a fear effect), while others open up entirely new options (Like Rally, which grants an ally temporary HP). These Maneuvers recharge on an hour long Short Rest.

The first major issue with Battle Master is its relationship to the Champion subclass. While Eldritch Knight's access to spells grant it powerful defensive options such as the Shield and Absorb Element spells, the Battle Master vastly outshines Champion in damage per round. Despite sounding appealing, the extra crit range adds about .2 damage per round. Contrarily, at level 3 the Battle Master adds about 4.5 damage with one of their damage boosting effects. A Battle Master starts with the ability to use their maneuvers four times, gains more uses as they level up, and increases their potency. Sticking to level 3, a Battle Master adds, on average, 18 damage with their maneuvers. It would take the Champion 90 turns to bridge this gap with their additional .2 damage per turn. Given that Short Rests are relatively easy to access in most 5e campaigns, this will obviously never happen. Basically, the Eldritch Knight has a defensive niche that the Battle Master cannot match, but the Battle Master is simply better than the Champion at the subclass's main job of dealing damage.

(These calculations are assuming the attack always hits. The difference in damage can actually get worse against opponent's with high AC due to the Battle Master's Precision Attack or Feinting Attack. Options open to both subclasses such as Great Weapon Master are also better leveraged by the Battle Master than the Champion.) 

To make matters worse, the additional damage of the Battle Master is paired with utility effects. Trip Attack knocks foes down (Apparently grounding even flying enemies, according to some online), Menacing Attack scares them, etc. This makes the discrepancy even worse.

This provides a good example of a broader 5e problem. The large quantity of character options are virtually impossible to balance against one another and too often provide what is basically a false choice. The subclass idea is interesting in theory, but probably better left to video games. Fighters can distinguish themselves from each other through words and deeds, rather than mechanics.

-

What is a Menacing Attack? What is actually happening when a Battle Master launches a Menacing Attack against a Dragon? Why is this Dragon scared? And why only for 6 seconds? If you go by a strict interpretation of the Rules As Written (RAW), then the Battle Master can apply this to any attack. He could toss a rock at a Dragon and frighten it with his Menacing Attack. Menacing Attack, Trip Attack, and Goading Attack are among the strangest, but others such as Bait & Switch and Evasive Footwork also create some dissonance. Isn't your character always using their most Evasive Footwork? How the hell does Bait & Switch work? How are the character's switching places, and why does it increase defence? Some level of abstraction is needed for an RPG, and I generally prefer systems to be lightweight/fast and loose. The abilities of the Battle Master, like so much of 5e, is "Gameist" in a way which I dislike. 

I may be articulating this issue poorly, but it seriously bothers me. Mindless Skeletons should not be able to be frightened by a Menacing Attack, and a 2000lb Golem should never suffer a Trip Attack. This is a basic issue I have with 5e as a whole, both in terms of RAW and play culture.

The Battle Master in my campaign, Gene Erikson, found himself using Menacing Attack more than any of the other Maneuvers simply for the extra damage. While the fear effect was certainly welcome, it wasn't the main reason the player opted to use it. Adding d8 (average 4.5) extra damage is the main thing. Because Short Rests are not overly hard to come by in most scenarios, Gene found it best to unload these Menacing Attacks as frequently as possible. 

When an option is simply superior like this, and it is not tied to a meaningful resource, it may as well be folded into the basic attack. Gene's player got so tired of using Menacing Attacks that they wanted to switch from Battle Master to Champion. The non-choice provided by the Maneuvers simply became a chore to use, an extra set of dice rolls added to the normal combat routine for little additional tactical interest.

The chore of the Battle Master's Maneuvers are another issue. Upon using Menacing Attack, the player must roll an extra dice of damage and the Ref must roll a save for the monster against the fear effect. Saves in 5e are rather annoying to roll, as instead of the target roll being a fixed value attached to the monster's level as in earlier editions, you must instead roll over a target number which changes contextually and apply a specific attribute bonus which varies by monster. Thus, applying Menacing Attack (And likely doing so on most turns in a given battle) requires two extra die rolls and the reference to a monster's stat block to verify the bonus it has on the required saving throw. The player also has to remember the Target Number of the save. Menacing Attack, Grappling Strike, Trip Attack, Pushing Attack and Disarming Attack all have the same procedure. On top of resolution, tracking these one round effects can become annoying.

Others, such as Evasive Footwork, Parry, Bait And Switch, and Precision Attack all also add an extra die roll. This is less of a big deal, as there is no saving through needed, and I would have preferred if Battle Master as a class focused more on utility than damage. 

Because the Battle Master does not have to be conservative with the use of their abilities in the same way that Wizards, Paladins, or other classes that rely on Long Rests do, they are encouraged to use these abilities constantly. Given that, I would have designed them with quicker resolution in mind. 

-

How would I fix the Battle Master? Well, I'd just remover it and provide the Champion with a damage bonus that scales with their level (You could just use half the Proficiency bonus) or something that is similarly straightforward.

My issues with Battle Master relate to more far reaching problems I have with 5e. Once I have run some more of the game (I want to do some serious dungeon crawling in 5e first), I will write a review of 5e as a whole. I am considering switching my group over to OSE, with key character abilities (e.g, Paladin's smite) translated over, but I'll have to talk with the group as a whole and make a decision with them. I also, as said, want to do a real dungeon first. Despite the issues I have with the system, this is probably the most I've ever enjoyed running a campaign thanks to having some really excellent players. Long Live the 64 Braves.