D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[Halivar]

Burying game design in character-specific class abilities is quite antithetical to the "omni-D&D" we're supposed to be getting.

Every edition of D&D has been about character-specific class abilities. Why would "omni-D&D" deviate? Then it wouldn't even be D&D.

 

[fjw70]

Virtually nothing.

As is the case with most versions of the fighter across editions and with many of the other classes (particularly spellcasters) as well. There should be a complete and working game independent of the classes, and the classes are just a handy means of disseminating who gets how much of what. Burying game design in character-specific class abilities is quite antithetical to the "omni-D&D" we're supposed to be getting.

So I take it you didn't like it that earlier editions had rules for thief backstab in the thief write-up?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Every edition of D&D has been about character-specific class abilities. Why would "omni-D&D" deviate? Then it wouldn't even be D&D.

Not really. Spells aren't that, and fighters (outside of 4e) haven't had much of that. Most classes throughout the editions were packages of stuff that everyone gets, combined with frequently duplicated abilities that everyone who's interested in gets. The truly class-exclusive abilities are exceptions and anachronisms, not what the game is "about".

And you can't built a new inclusive D&D by adding back in restrictions; that's for a DM to do.

So I take it you didn't like it that earlier editions had rules for thief backstab in the thief write-up?

They did, but they shouldn't have.

Again, that's the exception that makes people scratch their heads, not the principle on which the game was built. Early versions of the thief (and every other class) had all kinds of exclusive abilities and restrictions that have since been stripped away, most notably by folding thief skills into the skills that everyone gets starting with 3e.

 

[Sadrik]

I honestly think Mike Mearls relies too much on mechanics to identify a class. Not sure about you, but the fighter from Pathfinder can vary from being a master of archery, to a light armored quick step fighter, to an unarmed brawler, to a heavy armor wearing tank, to a tactitian, or even a simple two handed fighter. Most of these just involved investing in certain feats and choosing certain types of equipment along with a description from the player. BAM!! There is your flavor.

This is my primary distaste in class design too. Preselected class features at every level is a problem for me. I would have rather had some iconic class features at levels 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 (or something) then use feats in the other areas where player can select the direction they want to go with their character. These feats could also encompass many of the mini class features that are apparent are little fiddly bits. I would want players to opt into little fiddly bits like maneuvers or the myriad of other fiddly class features that have no huge game impact. The primary class features and subclass features would still be present (spell casting for instance).

Feats or talent trees or some other name could then be used for fiddly bits, players could opt for a +1 stat boost or a feat. A feat could be a maneuver, heck a spell, armor proficiency, etc. etc. The triple sized feat balanced with a +2 stat would go away.

It is a different design, and is not part of 5e. Though it still is a primary area where I am not satisfied.

 

[fjw70]

Not really. Spells aren't that, and fighters (outside of 4e) haven't had much of that. Most classes throughout the editions were packages of stuff that everyone gets, combined with frequently duplicated abilities that everyone who's interested in gets. The truly class-exclusive abilities are exceptions and anachronisms, not what the game is "about".

And you can't built a new inclusive D&D by adding back in restrictions; that's for a DM to do.

They did, but they shouldn't have.

Again, that's the exception that makes people scratch their heads, not the principle on which the game was built. Early versions of the thief (and every other class) had all kinds of exclusive abilities and restrictions that have since been stripped away, most notably by folding thief skills into the skills that everyone gets starting with 3e.

So is your objection that no class should have unique mechanics or that no mechanics (unique or not) should be in the class write-up?

Also I would disagree with classes having their own abilities was the exception. Look at the 1e PH. Druids shape-changed, assassins had assassination, paladins had lay-on hands (and more), etc. it was pretty much the norm back then.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So is your objection that no class should have unique mechanics or that no mechanics (unique or not) should be in the class write-up?

Both.

Also I would disagree with classes having their own abilities was the exception. Look at the 1e PH. Druids shape-changed, assassins had assassination, paladins had lay-on hands (and more), etc. it was pretty much the norm back then.

I suspect the further back you go, the more exclusions and limitations there are. Which, again, are things that can be added in, just like if you want to add back in race/class restrictions or any number of other things. But for a modular system that can do it all, classes can't be tied to specific mechanics.

 

[fjw70]

Both.

I suspect the further back you go, the more exclusions and limitations there are. Which, again, are things that can be added in, just like if you want to add back in race/class restrictions or any number of other things. But for a modular system that can do it all, classes can't be tied to specific mechanics.

I guess we will agree to disagree. D&D Next is trying to be a modular D&D game and not a modular generic fantasy RPG and unique class abilities is a D&D thing.

 

[Obryn]

Not really. Spells aren't that, and fighters (outside of 4e) haven't had much of that. Most classes throughout the editions were packages of stuff that everyone gets, combined with frequently duplicated abilities that everyone who's interested in gets. The truly class-exclusive abilities are exceptions and anachronisms, not what the game is "about".

Since when?

1e, clerics had turn undead and cleric spells. Druids get a potpourri of everything and their own spell lists. Fighters can sweep low level enemies and get extra attacks sooner. Rangers get weird stuff including spells, tracking, etc. Paladins get auras, immunities, etc. Wizards are the only ones who get wizard spells. Illusionists hey illusionist spells. Monks get a huge list of abilities. Thieves get thief skills, backstabbing, and scroll stuff. Assassins also add an exclusive assassination table. And so on. There are idiosyncrasies in every class.

Historically, D&D has packed almost everything into the class progression.

 

[Mistwell]

56 votes in the poll so far, and the OP only got one person to vote with him in the poll. I am trying to recall a poll backfiring worse, and having trouble thinking of one.

[Edit - 65 votes now, still just the one guy who joins the OP's vote in saying "no" ]

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D Next is trying to be a modular D&D game and not a modular generic fantasy RPG

Well, we certainly wouldn't want a D&D that works as a generic fantasy rpg now would we? Because...

If it's really the unification D&D that was promised, it'll be able to do more than just knockoff 4e.