Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[DEFCON 1]

Just heard in the latest Penny Arcade podcast (at about the 8:28 mark) that the Fighter's expertise dice mechanic might apply to other classes later on. This was in reference to Jerry asking if there was a "grant a +2 to your friend's attack" use for expertise dice... and Mearls responded that it depended on what they do with the Warlord, "as this mechanic might show up in another class too".

Thus, there's no guarantee it will remain a Fighter exclusive mechanic, and instead might become more of a martial combatant mechanic (the same way the spell mechanic is not for any one class, but for multiple classes that can cast spells.)

 

[Transformer]

I wouldn't mind expertise dice for the Warlord. Hopefully they'll remain a bit behind the Fighter's, though, and be applicable only to groupy buffy things rather than directly to damage or debuffs.

 

[Stormonu]

Well, the fighter does need something he can call "his", but I'm not against them granting martial characters some use of CS (even the rogue being able to spend his sneak attack dice for effects would be fine for me). I just don't want to see it become something spellcasters get - their customization comes in their spell selection and use.

 

[KidSnide]

It would certainly make sense if multiple martial character received expertise dice, but were able to use them in different ways. For example, it would make sense if a rogue received expertise dice and could do double damage with them when attacking with combat advantage (instead of deadly strike or parry).

In theory, this would open both classes up to a wider ranger of special maneuvers.

-KS

 

[Blackwarder]

I'd rather it remain the purview of the fighter and if not exclusively his than only of the warrior subclasses.

Warder

 

[jrowland]

I think its fine for martial classes. Just like wizards use spells for more *BOOM* tm and clerics for more *Ahhh*, a distinction between rogues/fighter/warlords could be made as well. As long as the maneuvers are unique to each, its fine (with perhaps a little generic overlap like "parry"). Fighter maybe more hindrance-y stuff with a little generic damage and protection, warlord more protection-y stuff with a little generic damage and hindrance, rogue more damage-y stuff with a little generic hindrance and protection stuff.

 

[Ahnehnois]

a martial combatant mechanic (the same way the spell mechanic is not for any one class, but for multiple classes that can cast spells

I think that pretty much covers the way I see CS dice.

Well, the fighter does need s[o]mething he can call "his",

Why?

Fighters as a collection of bonus feats and static bonuses works. It would work even better if there were better feats and more things to apply bonuses to. If there is one class that is not defined by having an exclusive mechanic, I would think fighter is clearly it (and truthfully, no class is defined by an exclusive mechanic, as the spell example above illustrates).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think any time you're making a class and you're tempted to steal the mechanic from another class...

...you need to really examine why what you're making actually needs to be a class and not something else.

Why make a Warlord class with "ally helpful CS dice" and why NOT make a fighting style called "Commander" (or whatever) that gives you the same thing? Why shouldn't it be a Speciality?

If you are determined to that class you're making be its own class, you need to discover its unique mechanic. For a warlord, that might be auras or interrupts or empowering allies or whatnot, but it SHOULDN'T be CS dice.

It's a fighter thing. Fighters deserve their own thing.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think that pretty much covers the way I see CS dice.

Why?

Fighters as a collection of bonus feats and static bonuses works. It would work even better if there were better feats and more things to apply bonuses to. If there is one class that is not defined by having an exclusive mechanic, I would think fighter is clearly it (and truthfully, no class is defined by an exclusive mechanic, as the spell example above illustrates).

What if I don't want to play with feats?

Warder

 

[Stormonu]

Why?

Because 3E made the mistake of giving the fighter's abilities to EVERYONE and left nothing for the fighter.

[sblock]
How much different would 3E be if high BAB didn't grant extra attacks (no +6/+1) except to fighters (and subclasses), Combat feats were restricted to "fighter only" and you couldn't pick up weapon and armor proficiency feats? It wouldn't have stopped spellcaster dominance, but the fighter class would have had more teeth.
[/sblock]

There should be a reason to take the fighter class to do something that no other class can do (as well). Otherwise, why even have the class? I'm not against sublclasses taking a small bite or dip out of the "fighter's abilities" - whatever they turn out to be - but the fighter should bring something to the table no other class or subclass can quite pull off.