Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Vikingkingq]

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

So, the devs have given the Fighter a good mechanic to make them unique. Because the mechanic is good, it should go to everyone, but we'll give the Fighter another mechanic to make them unique.

What happens if that mechanic is good? Won't we see more arguments that it shouldn't be pigeonholed into one class?

Why create extra work for the devs? They've created a good, flexible, and unique mechanic for the Fighter. It needs a bit of polish, but once that's done the class is pretty much good to go. Why not have them move on and create good, flexible, and unique mechanics for the ranger, barbarian, warlord, paladin, bard, monk, druid, and assassin, instead of retreading the same class?

 

[cmbarona]

Huh... I just realized what we're discussing here is a variation of dice pools, like Shadowrun's Combat Pool.

Anyway, I don't quite buy the argument that allowing other classes Maneuvers and Expertise Dice makes the Fighter no longer unique. Look at Wizards. Right now, all they can do is cast spells. Other classes can cast spells. Are Wizards then not unique enough? Granted, I could stand to see them develop a list of subclasses and a few other class features, but my point is that it's not the fact that a class can cast spells that makes them unique. What makes them unique is which spells they cast, how they cast them, and what else they can do alongside casting spells.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Huh... I just realized what we're discussing here is a variation of dice pools, like Shadowrun's Combat Pool.

Anyway, I don't quite buy the argument that allowing other classes Maneuvers and Expertise Dice makes the Fighter no longer unique. Look at Wizards. Right now, all they can do is cast spells. Other classes can cast spells. Are Wizards then not unique enough? Granted, I could stand to see them develop a list of subclasses and a few other class features, but my point is that it's not the fact that a class can cast spells that makes them unique. What makes them unique is which spells they cast, how they cast them, and what else they can do alongside casting spells.

I would argue that the Wizard's uniqueness was diminished by the advent of other Arcane casters, certainly. Yet even so, the Wizard has Spellbooks, Vancian mechanics, and access to the broadest form of arcane magic (as well as implements in 4e) and they will get Traditions on top of that.

Right now, the Fighter, who lacked a distinctive class mechanic for most of D&Ds history only has ED dice and Maneuvers. Making those more generally available reduces their uniqueness and requires the developers to go back and create not just unique maneuvers (the equivalent of the wizards spell list), and unique ways of using ED (the equivalent of Vancian casting), but also their unique equivalent of Traditions/Spellbooks. Not only that, it requires the developers not only to give each other class with ED their own unique maneuver list and means of using ED but also their own equivalent of Traditions and Spellbooks.

 

[Stalker0]

Why create extra work for the devs?

Two reasons:

1) Its alpha, so they should be working extra hard
2) We aren't just focused on classes right now, but on the core game mechanics themselves. A mechanic that might have use as a general gameplay mechanic deserves some exploration.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think I'd be OK with the expansion of some of the mechanics to other classes, but I'd like to keep it limited. If ED are primarily a fighter schtick, keep it within the fighter sub-classes, for example.

I want to avoid one of the things I saw as a problem in 4E: every class essentially used the same mechanics, and though the effects were different, the classes did not ultimately feel sufficiently differentiated. I'd be OK with four mechanics pools that are shared among the variants of each of the four primary class groups (FTR, WIZ, CLR, ROG). Those unique mechanics could be ED, spell scaling, channel divinity ... and something unique for rogues.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Two reasons:

1) Its alpha, so they should be working extra hard
2) We aren't just focused on classes right now, but on the core game mechanics themselves. A mechanic that might have use as a general gameplay mechanic deserves some exploration.

1. Yes, they should be working extra hard - on new things. Work needs to be directed at making progress through all of the classes, and all the rules for combat, exploration, and interaction, etc. If instead you redesign the same class over and over again, you slow down the entire project.
2. I don't think it is suited to a general gameplay mechanic - this kind of tactical gameplay isn't suited for spellcasters, Rogues, Barbarians, Rangers, etc. who haven't undergone formal martial training. Given that we already have a number of general combat maneuvers, and will have a narrative and tactical module to boot, it's a mechanic too far.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, the devs have given the Fighter a good mechanic to make them unique. Because the mechanic is good, it should go to everyone, but we'll give the Fighter another mechanic to make them unique.

What happens if that mechanic is good? Won't we see more arguments that it shouldn't be pigeonholed into one class?

Yes. I think for a sizeable chunk of us, the fighter is seen as a sort of base-line class: Anything it can do, everyone should be able to do to some extent.

 

[JasonZZ]

Yes. I think for a sizeable chunk of us, the fighter is seen as a sort of base-line class: Anything it can do, everyone should be able to do to some extent.

I think that's the problem here. The fighter shouldn't be just some shmuck with a sword, but as much of a hero (anti-hero, villain, whatever) as any other class.

The fighter shouldn't just be defined by a better attack bonus and damage rating, but by options, techniques, and fighting style that nobody else can compare to. As such, I think CS should remain fighter-only.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fighter shouldn't just be defined by a better attack bonus and damage rating, but by options, techniques, and fighting style that nobody else can compare to. As such, I think CS should remain fighter-only.

And, there's a sizeable chunk of us who feel as you do, too, of course. It's not that they're exactly irreconcilable, but the pattern does generally go: fighter doesn't have anything good, noise gets made, the fighter gets something good, more noise gets made, other warrior-type classes get it, more noise gets made, everyone else gets it in one form or another, new round of noise gets made about the fighter not having anything...

The concept of the fighter is just so mundane that anything cool you give it either (a) breaks that concept in someone's mind ('fighters casting spells!' 'dissociative mechanics!') or (b) seems like something everyone else should be able to do, too. Same goes to a lesser extent for any other martial classes.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I don't know, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. I think one useful thing the playtest has shown us is that 80% of the playtesters, across edition preferences, hate the Playtest 1 version of the Fighter and want something more involving.

We don't have the numbers in yet on CS, but given the response online, I'd expect the breakdown to be broadly positive as well, especially given the way that CS accommodates the 20% who prefer the simple fighter.

So when the October playtest arrives, I think one of the key things is to have some non-CS martial classes in there and see how people respond to them.