D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

fjw70 · Jul 30, 2012

I like the idea of the mechanic but I would prefer the extra dice be based on the weapon being used like 4e's [W] mechanic.

IronWolf · Jul 30, 2012

fjw70 said:
I like the idea of the mechanic but I would prefer the extra dice be based on the weapon being used like 4e's [W] mechanic.

The problem with basing it on weapon is that it leads to weapons having an even more advantage mechanically. That seems to end up with everyone using a certain weapon so as not to be at a larger mechanical disadvantage. By leaving it tied to the fighter class, they can choose a weapon that fits their character at less chance of that choice being a significant disadvantage.

Viking Bastard · Jul 30, 2012

fjw70 said:
I like the idea of the mechanic but I would prefer the extra dice be based on the weapon being used like 4e's [W] mechanic.

While I'm a big fan of 4e's [W] mechanic, wouldn't that make high damage weapons way too powerful? Making the greatsword super accurate and pretty much work as shield?

Mengu · Jul 30, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Reinforces my idea that game design is 80% psychology.

Couldn't agree more. To add to it, internet group think is a mysterious psychology of its own.

Here is another outlook on this whole mechanic, what if the article was written as:

"While we were trying to come up with a dodge mechanic for the rogue and fighting style for fighters, we stumbled upon what we wish to use for psionic characters. Instead of what previous versions did, where psionic power points had to be tracked over the course of a day or an encounter, we have simplified it so at the start of your turn, you gain one power point (2 power points at level 5 and so on). For instance a psychic warrior (or Jedi) would be able to use these power points to enhance his attacks or his defenses. During his turn, he could expend a power point to empower his attack and deal extra damage. Or he could save his power point to use during an enemy's turn, to reduce the damage he takes with a psychic shield, or attack him with a retaliatory backlash."

I could rewrite the above, and replace power points with arcane focus, and psychic warrior with swordmage.

So... What really is the difference between a Fighter, a Swordmage, and a Jedi? Fighter uses his martial training, swordmage uses arcane power, Jedi uses the Force? Sure, okay. But are these mechanics more appropriate for one over another? I'm sure it depends on who you ask. The dice pool is simply an arbitrary game mechanic that could be flavored as force points, arcane focus, primal fury, martial cunning, or whatever else you want to flavor it as.

It's a good mechanic, I like it, I hope they use it, but it doesn't scream "Fighter" to me. I just see it as a generic mechanic that could enhance game play for any character.

I'm A Banana · Jul 30, 2012

Not tying it to the weapon also opens up versatility: if you find a magic dagger, you might use it, even if it's not a big-damage weapon, because as a fighter, you cause big damage with anything.

It also helps drive home the idea that a fighter is a master of ALL combat, not just one specific combat form. A trained fighter can pick up a rusty knife and slay dragons with it. A barbarian with an axe might be able to cleave an impressive swath, but the fighter and his prison chiv might be able to match that.

Mengu said:
The dice pool is simply an arbitrary game mechanic that could be flavored as force points, arcane focus, primal fury, martial cunning, or whatever else you want to flavor it as.

It's a good mechanic, I like it, I hope they use it, but it doesn't scream "Fighter" to me. I just see it as a generic mechanic that could enhance game play for any character.

That's fair, but I think a generic mechanic of "You get additional damage. Take a penalty to damage and do a stunt." is perfect for the generic D&D fighter (a very broad archetype). I don't imagine the thing that screams "Fighter" to one table is going to scream "Fighter" at another table. More specific and evocative mechanics should probably rest with more specific and flavorful areas of the rules (like a paladin mechanic that rewards reckless heroism, or a barbarian mechanic that rewards getting beat up).

fjw70 · Jul 30, 2012

IronWolf said:
The problem with basing it on weapon is that it leads to weapons having an even more advantage mechanically. That seems to end up with everyone using a certain weapon so as not to be at a larger mechanical disadvantage. By leaving it tied to the fighter class, they can choose a weapon that fits their character at less chance of that choice being a significant disadvantage.

I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.

fjw70 · Jul 30, 2012

IronWolf said:
The problem with basing it on weapon is that it leads to weapons having an even more advantage mechanically. That seems to end up with everyone using a certain weapon so as not to be at a larger mechanical disadvantage. By leaving it tied to the fighter class, they can choose a weapon that fits their character at less chance of that choice being a significant disadvantage.

Viking Bastard said:
While I'm a big fan of 4e's [W] mechanic, wouldn't that make high damage weapons way too powerful? Making the greatsword super accurate and pretty much work as shield?

What in my post implies great swords would be super accurate and work as shields?

Viking Bastard · Jul 30, 2012

fjw70 said:
I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.

Yes, but the die pool that's being discussed isn't just extra damage; it's bonus dice that you can choose to add to a variety of things, like To Hit, AC, or damage.

fjw70 said:
What in my post implies great swords would be super accurate and work as shields?

Context of the thread's discussion and the mechanic being put forth in the article. If the die size was based on weapon damage, that meant you could add a d10 to your AC if you so choose.

If 4e's [W] mechanic (or a variation thereof) pops up in 5e, the previously discussed (but still unseen) combat maneuver system would probably be a better fit.

nightwalker450 · Jul 30, 2012

It's not the dice over static that makes this a wonderful concept. It's the dice as a token that makes it wonderful. Every round the fighter will be able to pull off various different abilities, using those tokens.

+2 Damage is not in any way similar to this, damage is just the simplest of those forms.
You could also:

Gain a small amount of temporary hit points
Reduce damage to an ally
Boost defense on yourself against a single attack
Boost defense on an ally against a single attack
Increase the benefit with your with signature weapon

And then if you can trade them for non-numbers...
Make an extra attack with your offhand weapon
Fire multiple arrows with a single shot
Get an additional reaction
Reaction of allowing you to move 1d6 squares
etc.. etc..

Fighter would only have so many of these available at first, and gain more as they gain levels. I look forward to testing this.

IronWolf · Jul 30, 2012

fjw70 said:
I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.

Definitely. That is done by using 1d4's for the dagger and 1d12's for Great Axes and 2d6's for Great Swords. Plus potentially an additional strength modifier when wielding two-handed weapons.