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

Wizards of the Coast · Jul 30, 2012

Today's Legends and Lore column by Mike Mearls deals with "Fighters and Combat Superiority". One clear message from the D&D Next playtest feedback was that the fighter was too dull. In response to this, the dev team have ome up with a new mechanic called combat superiority which emphasizes the fighter’s combat talents without using static bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls.

Combat superiority represents a fighter’s combat skill. On a fighter’s turn, the player receives a number of dice to represent that fighter’s skill at arms. For example, a 1st-level fighter might allow a player to use 1d4 and a 5th-level one could provide 2d6. A player can choose to spend these dice in a number of ways, depending on his or her character’s fighting style. The default combat superiority option that all fighters can use allows the player to spend the dice as bonus damage on a successful weapon attack.

Find the article here.

Obryn · Jul 30, 2012

And Lo, the Fighter did get a shtick of his own... (7/30 L&L)

Looks like an interesting start.

My main concerns about the Fighter were...

(1) Lack of tactical options
(2) Lack of class features that belong to them as uniquely as other classes' features
(3) Ability to passably defend a party, say through Opportunity Attacks or something of that nature.

Today's article gets the first two started, at least. It looks pretty promising, and it's good to see they're re-thinking stuff based on feedback.

-O

GX.Sigma · Jul 30, 2012

I like it. I thought I had missed the part where it said "per day" or "per encounter," so I checked again and it's per round. Sick.

My only Fighter-related concern now is that this adds complexity to the class that's supposed to be the simplest one. I guess it's still fine (you can just use your CS dice for damage every round), but it does add more fiddly round-to-round decision making, which is starting to sound like the minor action thing all over again.

All in all, looks good, will have to test to see.

But I'm sad that they're not doing the two themes thing. I wanted a dual-wielding magic-user fighter.

BobTheNob · Jul 30, 2012

Sounds fairly similar to DCC

Serendipity · Jul 30, 2012

BobTheNob said:
Sounds fairly similar to DCC

More than a little, yes.
Though given that I'm fond of that particular mechanic in DCC, this (so far at least) I'm placing in the Good column. It could IMO stand to be a little MORE like Mighty Deeds of Arms for my taste actually.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 30, 2012

A little bit of choice can go a long way, as long as it is a legitimate choice. Sounds like the basic idea is sound enough.

mach1.9pants · Jul 30, 2012

I like it, as I like MDoA. Sounds like MDoA but a little more codified. I would hope you can easily go for more DCC style, so all good IMO. Crazy Jerome makes a very good point, the other options have to be worth the damage reduction, it would be all to easy to make taking damage bonus every round the sensible choice.

BobTheNob · Jul 30, 2012

mach1.9pants said:
I like it, as I like MDoA. Sounds like MDoA but a little more codified. I would hope you can easily go for more DCC style, so all good IMO. Crazy Jerome makes a very good point, the other options have to be worth the damage reduction, it would be all to easy to make taking damage bonus every round the sensible choice.

I am far happier with loss of damage than an earlier suggestion at loss of to-hit.

If its any comparison my 4e group had a ton of powers which didnt hit that hard but had great additional effects. They tended to be willing to give up damage more readily than to-hit

Stalker0 · Jul 30, 2012

I like it.

Its a simple mechanic that can evolve into something more complicated for those who want it.

Iosue · Jul 30, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
My only Fighter-related concern now is that this adds complexity to the class that's supposed to be the simplest one. I guess it's still fine (you can just use your CS dice for damage every round), but it does add more fiddly round-to-round decision making, which is starting to sound like the minor action thing all over again.

What I like about it is the inherent customizability of it. Say you just want to run a bog-simple, Old School style game, or, on the player-side, a bog-simple, Old School style fighter. You just put that CS die in damage and you're good to go. But maybe you're more into tactical grid play. Then you can use in many more variable ways -- perhaps for forced movement, perhaps to soak up damage meant for an ally, and so on. It gives you both the simple, uncomplex, "give-it-to-the-newby-and-let-him-go-to-town" fighter, as well as the complex, "I-want-lots-of-options-and-not-just-damage" fighter.

And most happy, looks like it will add options without burdening the chargen process. I don't have to keep track of more fiddly bonuses -- I just take out an extra die or dice when the pooh hits the fan.