Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Tony Vargas]

Tony Vargas -

What I was trying to say with "Mechanics are absolutely not arbitrary" is that mechanics shape how we understand the game and its world. If the magic system, for example, is similar to Call of Cthulhu or like the Conan RPG, where spells are hard to get, difficult/risky/painful to use, and ritualistic, then players have very different understandings of what place magic users have in the world than a system more like D&D, where there's a magical economy, spells are just as easy to cast as swinging a sword and have no drawbacks, and instantly and immediately useful.

Similarly, if the way that the melee class works is that you can do one thing - swing a sword - that resolves the same way every time, players respond by getting the idea that warriors are ordinary, unintelligent, and mundane. However, if melee combat works more like 7th Sea, then players respond by getting the idea that swordsmen are dynamic, crafty, flexible, and Dramatic with a capital D.

Nod. A game's rules are the game-worlds de-facto 'laws of physics.' The less emphasis the game puts on realism - or the more it puts on narrativism - the more the world could turn out like Discworld, if the DM decided to roll with it, that is. But, rules don't always set out to model the /world/, sometimes the world is just the backdrop for what the game is modeling - like a genre.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Nod. A game's rules are the game-worlds de-facto 'laws of physics.' The less emphasis the game puts on realism - or the more it puts on narrativism - the more the world could turn out like Discworld, if the DM decided to roll with it, that is. But, rules don't always set out to model the /world/, sometimes the world is just the backdrop for what the game is modeling - like a genre.

I think we agree on this point. So, if we grant that mechanics shape our understanding of the world and the people in it, then it's good practice to choose mechanics that are suited to the world we're trying to roleplay in.

If we're building a grim and gritty fantasy universe, you don't want Changeling: the Dreaming 1st edition's godawful magic system, because it's not suited to that world. Likewise, if we're trying to build a rogue class that evokes Reynard the Fox, Ali Baba, Bilbo Baggins, the Grey Mouser, etc., it's sub-optimal to build on a mechanic originally intended to evoke Fighteryness.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, if we grant that mechanics shape our understanding of the world and the people in it, then it's good practice to choose mechanics that are suited to the world we're trying to roleplay in.

To a degree, but they can also model other things, like genre conventions, that could be inconsistent with the world if generally applied (most NPCs not getting to choose classes, for instance, while all PCs and certain 'important' NPCs have PC classes).

If we're building a grim and gritty fantasy universe, you don't want Changeling: the Dreaming 1st edition's godawful magic system

Heh. Fred & Ginger.

Likewise, if we're trying to build a rogue class that evokes Reynard the Fox, Ali Baba, Bilbo Baggins, the Grey Mouser, etc., it's sub-optimal to build on a mechanic originally intended to evoke Fighteryness.

Not so much. Mechanics can be very abstract. Just because a mechanic models one thing (damage from an arrow, unconsciousness caused by a spell, disarming a foe by trapping his weapon with your Ransuer) doesn't mean it can't model something else that has a similar result (damage from a sword, unconsciousness caused by a drug, disarming a foe with a deft twist of your rapier).

 

[Ainamacar]

I said "Why should there be connections, if they don't exist in the class concepts?" So the question is, to what extent are there connections. Adventuringness isn't it, because Wizards are adventurers too, and they are quite distinct from Fighters.

I agree, the extent of the connections is key. So how can you possibly acknowledge that something as simple as "adventuringness" is a component of both classes, but then conclude it has nothing to do with "the extent of connections"? It is, on its very face, a connection. The only way I find I can parse your logic without contradiction is to define "class concepts" such that commonalities are already excluded. If so, we have not agreed in substance, because my whole argument is that we must consider both commonalities and distinctions. The totality of them, so much as that is possible.

I would also add that "principally focused" isn't specific enough to be a good connection - a War Priest is pretty damn focused on physical weapons, but interacts with them through spells that allow them to attack and do spell effects at the same time.

"Principally focused" isn't specific enough to make a good distinction given two classes with the same principal focus, but it is a fine statement of connection. For example, spellcasters are "principally focused" on casting spells, yet interact with them in different ways. (And something similar applies to the even more general category of "magic user"). Casting spells is a good conceptual connection between classes, and one with essentially universal recognition. This does not determine the degree to which magical mechanics are different or shared, but I hope you agree it informs them. The same idea applies, in my opinion, to the fighter and war priest.

Like I said, the way they interact with weapons is profoundly different. A Fighter has undergone formal, martial training; a Rogue or Ranger or Barbarian hasn't. They have done other things with their lives and don't have "the common language of martial interactions." Warlords are close enough that I'd say some form of dice make sense - they've gone through similar training to the Fighter, with the difference that their training has revolved around how to manage and direct Fighters on the battlefield rather than their individual fighting style.

If it is a physical weapon attack I consider its interaction with the game to be "martial." No more or less. (I regret not saying so in my first post, because I think it has hindered our mutual understanding of each other's positions). So for me the issues of training, "power source", background, etc. are immaterial to my usage of that term. Don't misunderstand me: I think those aspects are important, and worthy of mechanical distinction, but I don't think they automatically rule out mechanical similarities any more than they require complete mechanical dissimilarity. With that in mind, the fact that every creature in D&D can interact martially with the environment, and many do so chiefly, suggests to me it is worth exploring some commonalities beyond rolling a d20 plus weapon damage.

Now, to me, I see this quote as emphasizing that Paladins are going to have similar proficiencies and attack bonuses to Fighters, but they are going to play differently to Fighters, perhaps through some mechanic that lets them take on the damage that their allies receive.

Overall, I just think ED would overly clutter the Paladin class. Keep in mind, this is a class that already has sense evil, smite evil, lay on hands, turn undead, cast a limited number of divine spells, and call a mount.

Yes, but even if ED were the "common language" of martial interactions it does not mean that any class must interact with them as class features, it just means that all should be able to use them. (That the fighter actually does so as a class feature, of course, would be uncontroversial.) I wouldn't want to shoehorn ED into the paladin or rogue any more than I would into the wizard. I think all should be able to work with that system, however.

For example, if a wizard somehow gains ED (e.g. from a warlord) then the wizard can use them in a few default ways because ED might be part of the entire weapon-fighting system, just like attack and damage rolls. A Paladin, although a frequent user of martial effects, might not depend on ED at a fundamental level.

For example, suppose the Paladin were based around a "virtue" mechanic, maybe a series of "virtue skills" with a skill bonus that depends on the devotion demonstrated by the paladin. The paladin must roll one of its relevant virtue skills whenever it wants to gain an effect, and the power of the effect is determined by the roll. Maybe a Paladin with the virtue of "Courage" wants to power an aura of fearlessness, and the roll determines the save bonus vs. fear effects. Maybe "lay on hands" using the Courage virtue would be an effect that heals and grants a target a new saving throw against a fear effect currently affecting it. And finally, maybe the Courage virtue could be used to power the smite ability, where paladin rolls a Courage check and gains ED based on that check to use on an attack against a creature that has used a fear-based effect or the intimidate skill in the fight.

In the past this smite would simply be bonus damage, but in this version of the Paladin it might be a means for extra damage, for powering a maneuver gained from multiclassing into a class that focuses on ED, for powering a special divine-only maneuver, or for interacting with some other effect. (Perhaps a cleric spell that lets every ally transfer their own ED to creatures who follow the same deity, in which case the paladin could effectively "pass" the smite to an appropriate ally.)

I think such a Paladin could potentially meet the thematic and design goals you listed, really embracing a unique class mechanic distinct from ED, despite interacting with the ED system through the smite ability. I'm interested in ED for its mechanical flexibility, not so I can put it at the very center of every class that uses weapon attacks.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I agree, the extent of the connections is key. So how can you possibly acknowledge that something as simple as "adventuringness" is a component of both classes, but then conclude it has nothing to do with "the extent of connections"?

Because it's not a commonality shared by martial classes. It's a commonality shared by all PC classes.

"Principally focused" isn't specific enough to make a good distinction given two classes with the same principal focus, but it is a fine statement of connection. For example, spellcasters are "principally focused" on casting spells, yet interact with them in different ways. (And something similar applies to the even more general category of "magic user"). Casting spells is a good conceptual connection between classes, and one with essentially universal recognition. This does not determine the degree to which magical mechanics are different or shared, but I hope you agree it informs them. The same idea applies, in my opinion, to the fighter and war priest.

I disagree. The War Priest is a spellcasting class, as is the Dragon Sorcerer. Both of them have melee-oriented abilities, but they aren't martial classes because those abilities are either divine or arcane in nature.

If it is a physical weapon attack I consider its interaction with the game to be "martial." No more or less.

By that logic, every class is a martial class, since all classes have a weapon attack score and weapon proficiencies. In which case the term becomes meaningless and the commonality becomes a tautology.

Yes, but even if ED were the "common language" of martial interactions it does not mean that any class must interact with them as class features, it just means that all should be able to use them. (That the fighter actually does so as a class feature, of course, would be uncontroversial.) I wouldn't want to shoehorn ED into the paladin or rogue any more than I would into the wizard. I think all should be able to work with that system, however.

Why? Unless they've undergone martial training - i.e, they've multiclassed or picked up the martial equivalent of the Acolyte or Magic User specialty - the character doesn't know how to do these things.

Keep in mind, ED does not represent baseline fighting ability - that's already factored into the more abstract categories of AC, Weapon Attack bonus, and the common actions in combat (either in core or a module - but rather Expertise in combat.

For example, if a wizard somehow gains ED (e.g. from a warlord) then the wizard can use them in a few default ways because ED might be part of the entire weapon-fighting system, just like attack and damage rolls.

I don't think the Warlord, even if the Warlord does get ED, should give them to players outright. I think they should instead spend them to give players Advantage, or extra actions, or extra movement, or temporary HP. It makes sense that the Warlord, as a gifted officer, knows how to order and inspire their comrades to make more efficient use of the abilities they have, but it doesn't make sense within the established universe that the Warlord can Matrix-style temporarily download kung fu into their brains.

For example, suppose the Paladin were based around a "virtue" mechanic, maybe a series of "virtue skills" with a skill bonus that depends on the devotion demonstrated by the paladin. The paladin must roll one of its relevant virtue skills whenever it wants to gain an effect, and the power of the effect is determined by the roll. Maybe a Paladin with the virtue of "Courage" wants to power an aura of fearlessness, and the roll determines the save bonus vs. fear effects. Maybe "lay on hands" using the Courage virtue would be an effect that heals and grants a target a new saving throw against a fear effect currently affecting it. And finally, maybe the Courage virtue could be used to power the smite ability, where paladin rolls a Courage check and gains ED based on that check to use on an attack against a creature that has used a fear-based effect or the intimidate skill in the fight.

In the past this smite would simply be bonus damage, but in this version of the Paladin it might be a means for extra damage, for powering a maneuver gained from multiclassing into a class that focuses on ED, for powering a special divine-only maneuver, or for interacting with some other effect. (Perhaps a cleric spell that lets every ally transfer their own ED to creatures who follow the same deity, in which case the paladin could effectively "pass" the smite to an appropriate ally.)

I think such a Paladin could potentially meet the thematic and design goals you listed, really embracing a unique class mechanic distinct from ED, despite interacting with the ED system through the smite ability. I'm interested in ED for its mechanical flexibility, not so I can put it at the very center of every class that uses weapon attacks.

I don't think the Paladin is going to be built that way. The Paladin already has mechanics aplenty - they cast divine spells, they lay on hands, they smite and detect, they have supernatural protections.

What you are describing is an unnecessary complication of that, requiring skills checks to power effects (why? The Paladin is a champion of their god/philosophy/virtue; so is the Cleric, but the god/philosophy/virtue doesn't make the Cleric roll skill checks to get their blessings from the divine, why is the Cleric different) and then routing those effects through ED. The ED don't add anything except additional rolling.

 

[Ainamacar]

Because it's not a commonality shared by martial classes. It's a commonality shared by all PC classes.

You're dodging the issue. Should we consider commonalities between class concepts as well as distinctions when making mechanics? Would that mean that sometimes, at least, some shared mechanics might be appropriate? My answer is yes, to both questions.

I disagree. The War Priest is a spellcasting class, as is the Dragon Sorcerer. Both of them have melee-oriented abilities, but they aren't martial classes because those abilities are either divine or arcane in nature.

By that logic, every class is a martial class, since all classes have a weapon attack score and weapon proficiencies. In which case the term becomes meaningless and the commonality becomes a tautology.

Every class has martial abilities, but not every class is centered around those abilities. That doesn't make it meaningless, it makes it shared. Just like attack score, weapon proficiencies, ability scores, hit points, movement speed, 4e action points, healing surges etc. These concepts aren't meaningless, they set up a coherent framework within which the game functions! Why couldn't ED be likewise shared? Just as classes utilize all those other commonalities, and many to different degrees and in different ways, we could do the same for ED.

Why? Unless they've undergone martial training - i.e, they've multiclassed or picked up the martial equivalent of the Acolyte or Magic User specialty - the character doesn't know how to do these things.

Keep in mind, ED does not represent baseline fighting ability - that's already factored into the more abstract categories of AC, Weapon Attack bonus, and the common actions in combat (either in core or a module - but rather Expertise in combat.

They do have some martial training, just as they have proficiencies and an attack bonus. ED are unique in that they are a dynamic resource, which make them particularly suited for creating distinctions while maintaining interoperability.

I agree with you that ED do not represent baseline fighting ability. The natural state of pretty much any character would be to have 0 ED. On the other hand, creatures are constantly exceeding their baseline fighting ability, and for some classes that is a primary focus. Classes that do not concentrate on fighting ability would not have class features designed to give them ED, but even they can have their moments. In fact, that is the role of almost any buff. ED are already (i.e. in the playtest) an abstract extension to the static abilities granted by attack bonuses and proficiencies.

I don't think the Warlord, even if the Warlord does get ED, should give them to players outright. I think they should instead spend them to give players Advantage, or extra actions, or extra movement, or temporary HP. It makes sense that the Warlord, as a gifted officer, knows how to order and inspire their comrades to make more efficient use of the abilities they have, but it doesn't make sense within the established universe that the Warlord can Matrix-style temporarily download kung fu into their brains.

If all characters can use ED your comparison fails because they would be using abilities they already have. Arguing on the basis of this comparison that one should not have the Warlord grant ED directly assumes your conclusion, and is therefore invalid. (Moreover, if ED was a common feature of all martial interactions then granting ED directly would be less Matrix-like than any of your examples, because it would only grant the character the ability to do what a character already knows. On the other hand, although taking actions is something all characters can do, taking extra actions is not and relies entirely on the Warlord giving them that capability.)

I don't think the Paladin is going to be built that way. The Paladin already has mechanics aplenty - they cast divine spells, they lay on hands, they smite and detect, they have supernatural protections.

All with 5e mechanics that are, so far as I know, presently non-existent except perhaps internally at WotC. I don't think the Paladin will end up how I suggested either, but that is not relevant to whether or not a reasonable Paladin could be implemented in such a fashion, nor relevant to an accounting of its qualities.

What you are describing is an unnecessary complication of that, requiring skills checks to power effects (why? The Paladin is a champion of their god/philosophy/virtue; so is the Cleric, but the god/philosophy/virtue doesn't make the Cleric roll skill checks to get their blessings from the divine, why is the Cleric different) and then routing those effects through ED. The ED don't add anything except additional rolling.

An unnecessary complication to mechanics that don't yet exist, or only in prior editions? Sorry, all the paladin concepts you listed are going to get mechanics with a new coat of paint at the very least, and I sure hope they're thinking beyond that. Moreover, your objection to a skill check-based Paladin, namely that this mechanical distinction from the cleric is unnecessary due to the conceptual similarities of the classes, is ironic given your position on ED, where mechanical similarities devalue the conceptual distinctions between the classes. Both positions have merit, but you are applying them quite selectively.

So call my example "Paladin" something different if that helps. Maybe a more martial re-envisioning of the 3e Truenamer, which had (terrible) skill-based casting. Something like using truenames to discern and affect the properties of targets, including learning special points of weakness which one can exploit with an attuned weapon. In any case, I was trying to show how ED could tie into a class that is largely weapon-based without making the whole class itself focused around ED. Did I succeed, even partially, at that or not?

Finally, in the example the ED do potentially add something besides additional rolling. Heck, they don't even have to be rolled. They potentially add flexibility within the class itself, interoperability with other classes (in play and through multiclassing), and from both a rich soil for emergent effects.

My earlier example of a cleric spell that lets players of the same faith pass around ED seems to me to be something that would simply not be written without that kind of resource. One might imagine a Paladin ability that lets them share their smite if desired, but no one would write a cleric spell that lets a paladin share their smite. One might imagine such a spell as a paladin spell, but in that case the cleric probably won't be the one casting it. Furthermore, such an ED-sharing spell has uses far beyond interacting with a single paladin class feature. It enables an entirely new form of party cooperation. Considered in isolation, vanilla smite using ED really doesn't offer any benefits, but it is also insufficient scope for judging.

 

[Vikingkingq]

You're dodging the issue. Should we consider commonalities between class concepts as well as distinctions when making mechanics? Would that mean that sometimes, at least, some shared mechanics might be appropriate? My answer is yes, to both questions.

I'm not dodging the issue. What I'm saying is that, if a quality is shared by all classes, it doesn't make sense as a basis for a class mechanism shared by only "martial classes."

Every class has martial abilities, but not every class is centered around those abilities. That doesn't make it meaningless, it makes it shared. Just like attack score, weapon proficiencies, ability scores, hit points, movement speed, 4e action points, healing surges etc. These concepts aren't meaningless, they set up a coherent framework within which the game functions! Why couldn't ED be likewise shared? Just as classes utilize all those other commonalities, and many to different degrees and in different ways, we could do the same for ED.

If every class has ED, then the Fighter goes back to having nothing unique about them except more of what everyone else gets. We tried that before in the playtest and 80% of participants hated it. We tried that in editions before 3.X, and it led to Fighters becoming Tier 5 and a paradigm of caster dominance that led to the Tier 3 Warblade being banned from many tables, while CoDzillas and BatmanWizards reigned supreme.

They do have some martial training, just as they have proficiencies and an attack bonus. ED are unique in that they are a dynamic resource, which make them particularly suited for creating distinctions while maintaining interoperability.

I agree with you that ED do not represent baseline fighting ability. The natural state of pretty much any character would be to have 0 ED. On the other hand, creatures are constantly exceeding their baseline fighting ability, and for some classes that is a primary focus. Classes that do not concentrate on fighting ability would not have class features designed to give them ED, but even they can have their moments. In fact, that is the role of almost any buff. ED are already (i.e. in the playtest) an abstract extension to the static abilities granted by attack bonuses and proficiencies.

They have martial training in the same way that a weekend firing range enthusiast has training with guns. The Fighter has martial training in the way that a Navy SEAL does. That's why the Fighter can do things in combat that no other class can do, and that's the way it should be.

There's plenty of other ways to buff players without handing around class features like candy.

If all characters can use ED your comparison fails because they would be using abilities they already have. Arguing on the basis of this comparison that one should not have the Warlord grant ED directly assumes your conclusion, and is therefore invalid. (Moreover, if ED was a common feature of all martial interactions then granting ED directly would be less Matrix-like than any of your examples, because it would only grant the character the ability to do what a character already knows. On the other hand, although taking actions is something all characters can do, taking extra actions is not and relies entirely on the Warlord giving them that capability.)

As I've said, if all characters can use ED, the Fighter goes back to what it was in Playtest 1, 3.X, etc. Hence, all characters shouldn't use ED, which is my point.

I think the Warlord granting extra actions, movement, temporary HPs, and Advantage is plenty to give the class a unique purpose and function. Giving EDs is gilding the lily.

All with 5e mechanics that are, so far as I know, presently non-existent except perhaps internally at WotC. I don't think the Paladin will end up how I suggested either, but that is not relevant to whether or not a reasonable Paladin could be implemented in such a fashion, nor relevant to an accounting of its qualities.

An unnecessary complication to mechanics that don't yet exist, or only in prior editions? Sorry, all the paladin concepts you listed are going to get mechanics with a new coat of paint at the very least, and I sure hope they're thinking beyond that. Moreover, your objection to a skill check-based Paladin, namely that this mechanical distinction from the cleric is unnecessary due to the conceptual similarities of the classes, is ironic given your position on ED, where mechanical similarities devalue the conceptual distinctions between the classes. Both positions have merit, but you are applying them quite selectively.

So call my example "Paladin" something different if that helps. Maybe a more martial re-envisioning of the 3e Truenamer, which had (terrible) skill-based casting. Something like using truenames to discern and affect the properties of targets, including learning special points of weakness which one can exploit with an attuned weapon. In any case, I was trying to show how ED could tie into a class that is largely weapon-based without making the whole class itself focused around ED. Did I succeed, even partially, at that or not?

They're clearly not non-existent if they're written into the design goals. The designers have said what they want the Paladin to be, and that's a class that casts divine spells, lays on hands, smites and detects, and has supernatural protection against effects.

So the question is, what mechanics are suited to that vision? I would argue that making people roll skill checks to acquire dice to fire off effects is bad design; it adds additional layers of complexity to the player's turn and additional points of failure given the inherent 5% chance of a natural one on any check. A champion of the divine who has performance issues isn't as fun to play as a paladin who can Smite Evil or Lay on Hands with confidence because they have the holy fire within them. It doesn't evoke the class concept the designers are going for - Paladins are meant to be fearless, selfless, and self-sacrificing, not flexible tacticians.

 

[Ainamacar]

I'm not dodging the issue. What I'm saying is that, if a quality is shared by all classes, it doesn't make sense as a basis for a class mechanism shared by only "martial classes."

Nonsense. In any RPG one builds structure on top of universally shared mechanics (except perhaps in the Calvinball RPG ), and some classes (and/or sets of classes) utilize them to a greater or lesser degree. For heaven sakes, we already have a class of mechanics everyone can use (weapon attacks) and we build classes (martial classes) which focus on them using the universal mechanics of weapon attacks. If your argument were correct we couldn't even be having this conversation because the very notion of "martial classes" would itself not make sense!

When I'm talking about ED as a "martial language" I am divorcing it from all trappings except these: it is a spendable resource represented by sets of dice which all players can use to increase damage you cause or reduce damage you take with respect to weapon attacks. Those are the only qualities I think would be shared, and one could even get rid of one of the default uses and have it remain its universal character. Everything else, including the manner of gaining, spending, and the effects of gaining and spending ED is up for grabs, mechanically. Classes that focus on non-martial abilities would probably not have any additional connection.

If every class has ED, then the Fighter goes back to having nothing unique about them except more of what everyone else gets. We tried that before in the playtest and 80% of participants hated it. We tried that in editions before 3.X, and it led to Fighters becoming Tier 5 and a paradigm of caster dominance that led to the Tier 3 Warblade being banned from many tables, while CoDzillas and BatmanWizards reigned supreme.

Unless the fighter has unique interactions with ED, just as it might have unique interactions with any other underlying mechanic. In my initial and subsequent posts I have given numerous examples. Even if these examples themselves are terrible mechanics, one thing they are not is the same. People will still disagree about whether the degree of uniqueness is sufficient to make them compelling, or about the qualities of the mechanics themselves, and that's fine. But your contention that letting every class use ED leaves fighters with nothing unique simply does not follow. I could imagine a version with nothing unique, to be sure, by giving every class exactly the same mechanics, and then you'd be right. I haven't, and you're not.

They have martial training in the same way that a weekend firing range enthusiast has training with guns. The Fighter has martial training in the way that a Navy SEAL does. That's why the Fighter can do things in combat that no other class can do, and that's the way it should be.

As I've said, if all characters can use ED, the Fighter goes back to what it was in Playtest 1, 3.X, etc. Hence, all characters shouldn't use ED, which is my point.

Which contradicts anything I've proposed how? An extreme example with minimal details: Suppose ED are gained and spent by all classes like the playtest fighter, except every other class gets 1 ED and the fighter gets 10. Further suppose that there exists at least 1 maneuver that requires spending 2 ED. In that case ED is a shared mechanic as per my definition, and yet the fighter can do something no one else can do. That is sufficient to show you are mistaken. Moreover, I can add new fighter-only capabilities by making new high-ED maneuvers, which is sufficient to give the fighter an arbitrary number of unique capabilities. So not only are you mistaken in the simplest case, you are mistaken for any finite degree of uniqueness you might demand for the fighter to be "truly" unique.

(You have a tendency of criticizing my examples without engaging what they are supposed to be examples of, so I want to be clear: that would be a terrible shared implementation of ED and I hate it. Its only purpose is to explicitly demonstrate that shared ED mechanics can still lead to the fighter doing things no one else can do.)

I think the Warlord granting extra actions, movement, temporary HPs, and Advantage is plenty to give the class a unique purpose and function. Giving EDs is gilding the lily.

Unless EDs enable things the others, by themselves, cannot. Which, if it is a shared mechanic, it does, just as in the cleric spell example from the last post. Moreover, remember in your first post, where you wanted to do know what ED could add that sneak attack/ambush feats can't already do? Now that I might be honing in on some of these things in other contexts (thanks largely to you making me think really hard), these extra capabilities are "gilding the lily"? I'm all for making sure classes have an intelligible and well-defined scope, but I find this unsettling: if ED being less flexible/efficacious than these other mechanics would be bad (which I think we can both agree on), while exactly as flexible is extra work for no gain (as per our early posts), and more flexible/efficacious is "gilding the lily" there is literally no condition where you will admit that there might be some hope for this idea. You only asserted the latter in the context of a Warlord, not as an absolute, so hopefully we can continue productively.

They're clearly not non-existent if they're written into the design goals. The designers have said what they want the Paladin to be, and that's a class that casts divine spells, lays on hands, smites and detects, and has supernatural protection against effects.

I wrote "All with 5e mechanics that are, so far as I know, presently non-existent." The mechanics do not determine the concepts, nor do the concepts determine the mechanics. You cannot compare my example mechanics to mechanics that don't exist, you can only try to examine the correspondence with the concepts.

So the question is, what mechanics are suited to that vision? I would argue that making people roll skill checks to acquire dice to fire off effects is bad design; it adds additional layers of complexity to the player's turn and additional points of failure given the inherent 5% chance of a natural one on any check. A champion of the divine who has performance issues isn't as fun to play as a paladin who can Smite Evil or Lay on Hands with confidence because they have the holy fire within them. It doesn't evoke the class concept the designers are going for - Paladins are meant to be fearless, selfless, and self-sacrificing, not flexible tacticians.

I'm all for seeing if the mechanics are suited to the vision, but you're fixated on the wrong mechanic. My word, it's a hypothetical, run with it.

So you know what, remove the skill check and make it a flat number, since the skill is clearly a stumbling block for you to talking about ED. A level 5 Paladin with the Courage virtue can smite an enemy that used a fear effect or similar, getting 5d6 ED (or whatever) for that purpose. This base paladin has no other guaranteed uses for ED except extra damage or reducing damage, although some may choose to improve it. For the sake of argument the smite ability will specify that the ED apply only to offensive actions against the target being smote. So: "I was trying to show how ED could tie into a class that is largely weapon-based without making the whole class itself focused around ED. Did I succeed, even partially, at that or not?"

 

[Vikingkingq]

Nonsense. In any RPG one builds structure on top of universally shared mechanics (except perhaps in the Calvinball RPG ), and some classes (and/or sets of classes) utilize them to a greater or lesser degree. For heaven sakes, we already have a class of mechanics everyone can use (weapon attacks) and we build classes (martial classes) which focus on them using the universal mechanics of weapon attacks. If your argument were correct we couldn't even be having this conversation because the very notion of "martial classes" would itself not make sense!

When I'm talking about ED as a "martial language" I am divorcing it from all trappings except these: it is a spendable resource represented by sets of dice which all players can use to increase damage you cause or reduce damage you take with respect to weapon attacks. Those are the only qualities I think would be shared, and one could even get rid of one of the default uses and have it remain its universal character. Everything else, including the manner of gaining, spending, and the effects of gaining and spending ED is up for grabs, mechanically. Classes that focus on non-martial abilities would probably not have any additional connection.

Everyone can use weapon attacks, but not everyone has them as class mechanisms.

Again, I ask, what is the purpose of creating a spendable resource for increasing or reducing damage from weapon attacks? Why should that connection exist, when other universal connections don't (not every class can cast spells)? For most non-martial classes, this just adds a layer of complexity to something they don't want to be doing most of the time, and an additional difficulty of re-balancing classes whose math originally took into account the Fighter being uniquely able to use ED to raise and lower damage.

Unless the fighter has unique interactions with ED, just as it might have unique interactions with any other underlying mechanic. In my initial and subsequent posts I have given numerous examples. Even if these examples themselves are terrible mechanics, one thing they are not is the same. People will still disagree about whether the degree of uniqueness is sufficient to make them compelling, or about the qualities of the mechanics themselves, and that's fine. But your contention that letting every class use ED leaves fighters with nothing unique simply does not follow. I could imagine a version with nothing unique, to be sure, by giving every class exactly the same mechanics, and then you'd be right. I haven't, and you're not.

The Fighter had a unique interaction with the feat system in 3.X - they had more feats than other classes, and a couple fighter-only feats. Didn't make the class feel more unique to play, especially in comparison to classes that could cast spells or change into animals and also had feats.

Here we have a Fighter that uses ED to raise and lower damage and carry out maneuvers as it's claim to uniqueness as a class; you're suggesting here to make half of this ubiquitous and you've suggested elsewhere giving plenty of maneuvers to other classes. Now all classes have ED and use them to raise and lower damage and carry out maneuvers, and we're back to square one.

Which contradicts anything I've proposed how? An extreme example with minimal details: Suppose ED are gained and spent by all classes like the playtest fighter, except every other class gets 1 ED and the fighter gets 10. Further suppose that there exists at least 1 maneuver that requires spending 2 ED. In that case ED is a shared mechanic as per my definition, and yet the fighter can do something no one else can do.

Wrong. The Fighter can now do more of what everyone else can do. We've been here before.

Moreover, remember in your first post, where you wanted to do know what ED could add that sneak attack/ambush feats can't already do? Now that I might be honing in on some of these things in other contexts (thanks largely to you making me think really hard), these extra capabilities are "gilding the lily"?

The key thing is what can ED do for the Rogue that no other system could otherwise do. Let's take your examples:

• "Using ED to escape combat, perform acrobatic stunts, set up elaborate multi-round feints, etc. rather than engage (something sneak attack absolutely requires)." Rogue Schemes already offer this functionality - the Thief Scheme makes it easier for Rogues to hide, and allows Rogues to "hit and run" after their Sneak Attack; the Thug can drop an enemy's speed to zero, making it easier to get away. It's not that hard to figure out how you could make a Dashing Scoundrel Scheme that handles stunts, feints, and the like.
• Adding ED dice to initiative checks and to create lingering effects. The Thug Scheme already allows Rogues to avoid being surprised, and to create effects that last until the end of their next turn. Again, it's not hard to figure out how to make an Assassin Rogue Scheme that focuses on poison effects, or a higher level Rogue Scheme benefit that allows the Rogue to apply Knack or Skill Mastery to Initiative rolls.
• Using ED dice to modify Sneak Attacks. The Thug Scheme allows the Rogue to access Sneak Attacks through flanking, and to add zero-movement effects to Sneak Attacks; the Thief Scheme allows the Rogue to fire off the equivalent of a Fighter's Shift ever time they hit on a Sneak Attack. All without the need for ED.

You only asserted the latter in the context of a Warlord, not as an absolute, so hopefully we can continue productively.

The reason why I think the Warlord is possibly a good place for ED to work is because the Warlord has spent their careers training for war in the same way the Fighter has, on the same parade grounds and muster fields. The difference is that the Warlord has trained to be an officer of Fighters, directing them to use their skills in the most efficient ways against the right target at the right time, and inspiring them to push themselves beyond their limits.

Here, ED actually does what you want it to do - it expresses a commonality between the two classes born on the battlefield. That's a commonality that doesn't exist between the Fighter and the Rogue (the Rogue avoids battlefield combat at all costs because they're not very hardy and armor gets in the way), the Barbarian (the Barbarian hasn't undergone formal military training and relies instead on psychological frenzy and raw natural ability), the Ranger (who hasn't either, and who relies on the environment and guerrilla tactics), and the Paladin (who's spent much of his time learning to channel the divine to do things the Fighter can't and who therefore has less need of a Fighter's potentially dishonorable tricks).

However, it's not the only option - the Warlord could be an aura-based or aura-twisting class, or any number of other mechanics that could potentially better express the class' concept better than ED. And that's the point, the mechanic should exemplify the class' concept without treading on the other classes' concepts as much as possible - that's why the devs are putting work into making the Paladin mechanically and conceptually differently from the War Cleric, and the Ranger likewise from the Archer Fighter.

What you're advocating does the opposite - it makes the classes more mechanically similar and blurs the lines between concepts.

I wrote "All with 5e mechanics that are, so far as I know, presently non-existent." The mechanics do not determine the concepts, nor do the concepts determine the mechanics. You cannot compare my example mechanics to mechanics that don't exist, you can only try to examine the correspondence with the concepts.

I'm all for seeing if the mechanics are suited to the vision, but you're fixated on the wrong mechanic. My word, it's a hypothetical, run with it.

The concepts are supposed to determine the mechanics, because the mechanics are supposed to represent and express the concepts. If they aren't doing that - strip them out. There's a reason why we don't have a 100% Vancian Fighter; it's not a mechanic that represents and expresses the concept of a Fighter as a skilled combatant who is constantly adjusting tactics to new circumstances and opportunities.

So you know what, remove the skill check and make it a flat number, since the skill is clearly a stumbling block for you to talking about ED. A level 5 Paladin with the Courage virtue can smite an enemy that used a fear effect or similar, getting 5d6 ED (or whatever) for that purpose. This base paladin has no other guaranteed uses for ED except extra damage or reducing damage, although some may choose to improve it. For the sake of argument the smite ability will specify that the ED apply only to offensive actions against the target being smote. So: "I was trying to show how ED could tie into a class that is largely weapon-based without making the whole class itself focused around ED. Did I succeed, even partially, at that or not?"

Not really. So now Smite Enemy keys off a dice pool that can be siphoned off for other purposes - except that the extra damage ability is redundant if you can just Smite your enemies and the reducing damage ability runs contrary to the character concept of a self-sacrificing and fearless warrior who takes on pain and suffering gladly. And the payoff is now the Paladin can copy the Fighter in carrying out martial maneuvers by acting less often like a Paladin.

This mechanic is getting in the way of the class expressing its core concept.

Again, the class design goals, and the associated polling they did, point to what the concept should be - Paladins are warriors who smite, lay on hands, cast divine spells, have divine protections from effects, and maybe have mounts.

 

[Stalker0]

If every class has ED, then the Fighter goes back to having nothing unique about them except more of what everyone else gets.

This is not necessarily true.

If all martial classes get ED dice, there may be a different mechanic given to the fighter to represent his uniqueness.

The argument is that the ED mechanic is so good and flexible that it shouldn't be pigeonholed into one class