The case against Combat Superiority

[Vikingkingq]

Nope I'm not describing a classless system. Rogues would still have many other features that a fighter who took sneak attack as their specialty would not have.

If any class can take the main class mechanics of any other class without reference to Specialties, its a classless system, because there are no boundaries between classes.

If what you're talking about is Specialties, I'm fine with that, because they're grounded in past training. An Acolyte Fighter has studied "the rites, rituals, and doctrines of their order....under experienced priests," Magic Users likewise might be "clerics devoted to the god of magic or wizards who apprenticed under a master for many long years," or a magical college dropout.

What I don't like is the idea that any player can use class mechanics of another class without representing some form of training to explain how they gained this specialized ability.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=66208]Vikingkingq[/MENTION]

I understand that Fighters are specially trained compared with Barbarians, but in the grand scope of all classes that engage in non-magical combat, there is some significant overlap in the sorts of maneuvers that can be performed. For instance, the current iteration of the Fighter can 'Tumble', which to me is a canonical Rogue ability/skill. If both classes should have access to such an ability, then I would prefer they use similar mechanics to do so - I don't want Fighters tumbling with CS dice and Rogues tumbling on a skill check, for instance.

This doesn't mean that there won't be unique things for individual classes. I think Fighters, of all physical combat classes, have always been able to attack more frequently, and so abilities that grant additional attacks (or off-action attacks as exist currently) should remain Fighter-unique. I would have only Rogues performing sneak-attack like maneuvers. I would have only Barbarians perform improbably likely to hit, high damage maneuvers, as fits their archetype.

 

[pemerton]

But outside of specialties and multiclassing, having a Barbarian use Fighter Maneuvers or a Paladin using Sneak Attack goes absolutely against good design for a class-based game, and it's absolutely the opposite of what the devs are going for. Listen to the panels - their whole drive is to ensure that a Ranger feels and plays very distinctively differently from an Archer Fighter with a woodsy Background and a decent Wis score; which means you don't let class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it.

This makes sense to me.

What I don't like is the idea that any player can use class mechanics of another class without representing some form of training to explain how they gained this specialized ability.

But this doesn't. The issue is about play experience, not the integrity of the shared fiction. You don't preserve the desired play experience of a strong class system by requiring ingame stories about training; you do it, as per your earlier post, by "not letting class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it". Get this right, and the fiction will mostly take care of itself, I think. (Eg someone will write up a Veteran background or a Martial Training specialty along the lines you described.)

HehNow, by level 5 the fighter has five CS maneuvers, which he can use in various combinations - up to 25 possibilities.

POSSIBLE POWER COMBINATIONS AT LEVEL 5
Fighter: any 2 out of 5 (all non-daily)

In purely mathematical terms, when you choose two options out of 5, and the choice AB is the same as the choice BA, the number of unique pairs is 10, not 25. Once you're allowed to double up on the same option, the number is 15 (ie 10 plus the 5 possible doubles).

So maybe I've missed something, but I'm not sure how you get to 25 (if you've just done 5x5 = 25, then that's an error, because you've counted AB as a different choice from BA - which in this context it is not).

 

[Emerikol]

I suggested elsewhere these two rules changes.

1. Fighter announces his use of a die as a reaction to the announcement of an attack (the enemies in parry,protect and his own in deadly strike).

2. All dice refresh at the end of the turn.


I felt that what was gained from #2 was well worth the minor downsides of #1 . I felt like the current rules are plot couponish and this change would eliminate that as an issue for a lot of people. I got over a 1000 posts of pure flaming. So to each his own. If I use 5e, this will be my houserule from day 1.

 

[Sadrik]

"not letting class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it".

Class stuff bleeds across and there is no way to prevent it. Spells are all over the place some are unique to a class and others are universal. Feats are things that anyone can take. If a wizard for instance wants to take a bunch of martial maneuver feats I have no issue with them doing that.

I want the game to have lots of options and not be too restrictive. The more options the better. The more you can replace this ability, feature, specialty, background, spell, or whatever with another the better the game is overall in my opinion. That is not a classless system concept, that is a malleable game that anyone can enjoy due to the many choice they can make in character design.

So for 5e you pick:
Race
Class or classes (multiclassing)
Class features (heritage, scheme etc.)
Background
Specialty
Equipment
Done

Each one of those things should have choices and as I see it the more choice the better. Also one other thing, requirements for choices should be lowered as much as possible to allow for many options too. I don't like the concept of class or race specific feats for instance. If you are going to publish something why tailor it to gnomes or whatever. Broaden it for all and let the players decide if they want to use it.

 

[Bluenose]

Class stuff bleeds across and there is no way to prevent it. Spells are all over the place some are unique to a class and others are universal. Feats are things that anyone can take. If a wizard for instance wants to take a bunch of martial maneuver feats I have no issue with them doing that.

And presumably any fighter who wants to will be able to get the Wizard's top level abilities just by picking up a bunch of magical maneuver feats. As will any Wizard who wants to, making them even more wizard-y, which may have some effect on expected power levels.

 

[Vikingkingq]

[MENTION=66208]Vikingkingq[/MENTION]
I understand that Fighters are specially trained compared with Barbarians, but in the grand scope of all classes that engage in non-magical combat, there is some significant overlap in the sorts of maneuvers that can be performed. For instance, the current iteration of the Fighter can 'Tumble', which to me is a canonical Rogue ability/skill. If both classes should have access to such an ability, then I would prefer they use similar mechanics to do so - I don't want Fighters tumbling with CS dice and Rogues tumbling on a skill check, for instance.

If Tumble is an iconic Rogue ability (although, wasn't it a Skill in 3.x?), then Duelist Fighters shouldn't be Tumbling. They should be given an ability to Feint instead.

The level of overlap between martial classes should be the general actions you can take in the core combat rules plus the actions in the narrative/tactical combat modules.

 

[Vikingkingq]

This makes sense to me.

But this doesn't. The issue is about play experience, not the integrity of the shared fiction. You don't preserve the desired play experience of a strong class system by requiring ingame stories about training; you do it, as per your earlier post, by "not letting class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it". Get this right, and the fiction will mostly take care of itself, I think. (Eg someone will write up a Veteran background or a Martial Training specialty along the lines you described.)

I think it's both. The play experience is supposed to be evocative of the concept of a class, and the class concept is the "integrity of the shared fiction." You can get the class mechanics right, but if they're evoking a class concept that isn't any good, it's still not going to work.