Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Really? Where were the survey results published?

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.

IDK, the Knight/Slayer accommodated those who demanded a simpler fighter and how much did that help?

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.

That would be interesting...

 

[Vikingkingq]

Really? Where were the survey results published?

IDK, the Knight/Slayer accommodated those who demanded a simpler fighter and how much did that help?

That would be interesting...

The results weren't published, but that's what Mearls has been saying repeatedly, at GenCon, Pax, etc. He could be completely lying, but it matches pretty well with online reactions to the Playtest 1 Fighter who started with no more class features than +2 to damage.

The current Fighter build is even simpler. Weapon Damage + Strength Bonus + Deadly Strike every turn.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

And that's just a sizeable chunk. A sizeable chunk of us object to the idea that some classes should be classes for dummies.

I don't know, @Tony Vargas . 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.

You miss point 2. Of the 20% of people who liked the incredibly simple fighter (because let's face it, CS is still pretty simple), from my observation a significant proportion did not want to play fighters.

Oh, and Deadly Strike isn't interesting. The ability that IME actually makes the 5e Fighter is Parry. The ability to soak d6 hit points per round (especially with the current anaemic monster attacks) makes the fighter effective on the front line.

Right now, the Fighter, who lacked a distinctive class mechanic for most of D&Ds history

This is revisionism. Right now, the fighter, who for most of D&D's history was the only class (or class group counting Paladins and Rangers) to get multiple attacks at high level...

In oD&D and 1e, the fighter got a number of attacks equal to his level against level 0 foes. Fairly distinctive. And multiple attacks against all enemies at high level.

In 2e, the fighter got Weapon Specialisation - an extra half an attack per round. And a unique mechanic.

Before 3e, fighters were the only class (or classes) to be able to take advantage of really high strength or con.

So no. The fighter has had unique (if simple) mechanics across most of his lifespan with the only exceptions being the period from 2000 to either 2006 (with the Book of 9 Swords) or 2008. The 3.X fighter is the aberration here.

As for my Paladin example, I'm going off of the Paladin design goals, which emphasize very different themes. "1. The paladin is a champion of a divine calling...2. The paladin can see and smite evil...4. A paladin has divine abilities." To the extent that Paladins are described as warriors, they are described thusly:

3. A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
The paladin is a warrior, nearly as skilled as a fighter and typically armed with heavy armor and a sword, and utterly without fear. When a paladin fights, it is not only to impose his or her code on the unworthy and slay threats to his or her divine calling, but also to protect allies. More so than the fighter, a paladin who champions a good deity or moral alignment is willing (and able) to sacrifice his or her own safety to ensure the safety of his or her companions. To this end, a paladin aspires to find a blessed sword of unequaled power: a holy avenger.
​

Translation: A Paladin is a selfess warrior and therefore aspires to find one of the rarest, most powerful, and most expensive magic items in existence. One of these things is not like the other one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's just a sizeable chunk. A sizeable chunk of us object to the idea that some classes should be classes for dummies.

I agree the 'for dummies' thing can be taken too far, resulting in 'hazing classes' that exist only to teach you how not to play the game. A more legitimate concept might be 'for beginners' or 'for casual players,' but, even then, it shouldn't be a specific class, but an approach (like pre-builds) that works with any class (or, at least, character concept).

You miss point 2. Of the 20% of people who liked the incredibly simple fighter (because let's face it, CS is still pretty simple), from my observation a significant proportion did not want to play fighters.

It sure seems that way. Some of the objection to complex/viable/option-rich/whatever fighters is not from who want the opposite as an option, but those who want to deny others the option. There's far too much of that attitude still flying around the community for the 5e ideal of an inclusive D&D to have much of a shot here. Hopefully the broader community is more accepting.

This is revisionism. Right now, the fighter, who for most of D&D's history was the only class (or class group counting Paladins and Rangers) to get multiple attacks at high level...... So no. The fighter has had unique (if simple) mechanics across most of his lifespan with the only exceptions being the period from 2000 to either 2006 (with the Book of 9 Swords) or 2008. The 3.X fighter is the aberration here.

That's an interesting take. The 3.x fighter offered a lot of customizeability relative to earlier fighters, and it still had Weapon Specialization as a fighter-only fighter-bonus feat. It's hard to think of it as the nadir of the fighter class, even if the extreme imbalance of the top optimization tier and spectre of CoDzilla made it so. In a vacuum, it's a nice, elegant, robust design.

Translation: A Paladin is a selfess warrior and therefore aspires to find one of the rarest, most powerful, and most expensive magic items in existence. One of these things is not like the other one.

That's just so D&D, though. PCs are supposed to be modeled on heroes of high fantasy, but they can end up a bit like professional home-invasion robbers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The results weren't published, but that's what Mearls has been saying repeatedly (80% of the playtesters, across edition preferences, hate the Playtest 1 version of the Fighter and want something more involving), at GenCon, Pax, etc. He could be completely lying, but it matches pretty well with online reactions to the Playtest 1 Fighter who started with no more class features than +2 to damage.

OK, so it's not something the playtest has shown us, but something Mr. Mearls took from it and has shared with us. That's funny, because leading up to Essentials, he shared with us that their research and his experiences at conventions told him that people really wanted a much simpler "hit da orc wit ma axe!" sort of fighter that was delivered in Essentials in the form of the Slayer.

Sounds like pendulum-swinging ... no idea who's pendulum, though...

 

[Vikingkingq]

You miss point 2. Of the 20% of people who liked the incredibly simple fighter (because let's face it, CS is still pretty simple), from my observation a significant proportion did not want to play fighters.

Oh, and Deadly Strike isn't interesting. The ability that IME actually makes the 5e Fighter is Parry. The ability to soak d6 hit points per round (especially with the current anaemic monster attacks) makes the fighter effective on the front line.

Yes, I understand that many among the 20% don't want to play fighters - the point is, by allowing CS dice to be dumped into Deadly Strike, they remove the argument that the complex Fighter would deprive those who do like the Simple Fighter of their preferred playstyle.

Which means that there isn't really a credible argument against complex Fighters any more, and a naked dog-in-the-manger attitude isn't going to fly.

This is revisionism. Right now, the fighter, who for most of D&D's history was the only class (or class group counting Paladins and Rangers) to get multiple attacks at high level...

In oD&D and 1e, the fighter got a number of attacks equal to his level against level 0 foes. Fairly distinctive. And multiple attacks against all enemies at high level.

In 2e, the fighter got Weapon Specialisation - an extra half an attack per round. And a unique mechanic.

Before 3e, fighters were the only class (or classes) to be able to take advantage of really high strength or con.

So no. The fighter has had unique (if simple) mechanics across most of his lifespan with the only exceptions being the period from 2000 to either 2006 (with the Book of 9 Swords) or 2008. The 3.X fighter is the aberration here.

Can't speak to anything before AD&D 2nd edition, but come on, Weapon Specialization was +1 to attack and +2 to damage, and I'm pretty sure that all Warriors shared the same attack progression. Passive bonuses are not very distinct mechanics.

And the 1st Playtest Fighter, the one everyone hated? Had a +1 to attack and +2 to damage. Very distinctive, that.

Translation: A Paladin is a selfess warrior and therefore aspires to find one of the rarest, most powerful, and most expensive magic items in existence. One of these things is not like the other one.

The larger point is - the Paladin is much more focused around a connection to the divine than they are to being a warrior, and to the extent that they are warriors, they are working very differently from fighters. The Fighter prevents damage directed at their allies, the Paladin sacrifices themselves by taking on the damage that their allies would otherwise suffer.

CS would detract from this class concept by making a class that's supposed to be about divinely-inspired abilities play the same as a class that's supposed to be about purely mundane tactics.

 

[Vikingkingq]

OK, so it's not something the playtest has shown us, but something Mr. Mearls took from it and has shared with us. That's funny, because leading up to Essentials, he shared with us that their research and his experiences at conventions told him that people really wanted a much simpler "hit da orc wit ma axe!" sort of fighter that was delivered in Essentials in the form of the Slayer.

Sounds like pendulum-swinging ... no idea who's pendulum, though...

Look, obviously the raw data would be best, but given the much larger numbers of people in the 5e open playtest, I'd weight it more heavily than I would any playtesting done for Essentials.

But yes, with any project like this, you're dialing it in. And now we have a Fighter than can be both very complex and very simple. I think progress is being made.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

OK, so it's not something the playtest has shown us, but something Mr. Mearls took from it and has shared with us. That's funny, because leading up to Essentials, he shared with us that their research and his experiences at conventions told him that people really wanted a much simpler "hit da orc wit ma axe!" sort of fighter that was delivered in Essentials in the form of the Slayer.

Sounds like pendulum-swinging ... no idea who's pendulum, though...

It seems pretty clear to me. The pre-essentials 4e fighter was pretty friggin' complicated at first level compared to, say, a 3e fighter or any other edition. Marking alone is confusing as hell.

The first 5e playtest fighter, meanwhile, is much simpler even than the 3e fighter to play, since combat mechanics are so simplified thus far.

The second playtest fighter is probably still simpler to play than the essentials slayer or knight.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Can't speak to anything before AD&D 2nd edition, but come on, Weapon Specialization was +1 to attack and +2 to damage, and I'm pretty sure that all Warriors shared the same attack progression. Passive bonuses are not very distinct mechanics.

Weapon Specialisation was +1 to attack and +2 to damage and extra attacks. Passive bonusses aren't very distinct mechanics. Extra attacks are. The fighter (or the fighter types) were the only class to get extra attacks as a class feature. (Of course, messing things up come the two weapon fighters and the dart throwers).

The larger point is - the Paladin is much more focused around a connection to the divine than they are to being a warrior, and to the extent that they are warriors, they are working very differently from fighters. The Fighter prevents damage directed at their allies, the Paladin sacrifices themselves by taking on the damage that their allies would otherwise suffer.

Interesting - and a near complete reversal of the classic D&D Paladin.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Weapon Specialisation was +1 to attack and +2 to damage and extra attacks. Passive bonusses aren't very distinct mechanics. Extra attacks are. The fighter (or the fighter types) were the only class to get extra attacks as a class feature. (Of course, messing things up come the two weapon fighters and the dart throwers).

As you say, all Warrior classes get extra attacks, and Fighters wind up with extra attacks faster and a total of a half-attack more. Doesn't feel distinct to me - nor did getting more feats than everyone else in 3.X.

Interesting - and a near complete reversal of the classic D&D Paladin.

That's because the classic D&D paladin started out as a sub-class, but even then, what made them distinctive from the Fighter was the Smiting and the Laying on Hands.