D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

[Mallus]

Reinforces my idea that game design is 80% psychology.

I tried to give XP for this, but, alas, could not.

You're absolutely right.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Finally, after weeks of questionable content, I get something positive. Hopefully, next week's article won't cause my mood to darken.

What's stopping you from having both, do you not have enough space for bookmarks?
QC: New Comics Every Monday Through Friday
S*P and Other Comics

 

[Ajar]

I'm cautiously optimistic. Looking forward to seeing the playtest iteration of the mechanic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't want anything to be an exclusive mechanic to anything.

Well, I suspect you are in a very small minority in this case.

The people who wanted every character to possibly be able to access anything usually moved on from D&D to other game systems that were built for this... GURPS, Hero/Champions, and the like. The one attempt to do it in D&D (2E's Player's Option: Skills & Powers) died on the vine.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think this is kind of hilarious.

Functionally, the change seems to be this:

1. Take your fighter's bonus to damage.
2. Convert it into dice that you roll.
3. Give fighters some options to trade damage for other things.

Yep. At the end of the day, isn't this just another bonus? I mean, you are adding a number to another number--your sword gets a bonus to attack or damage, for example--so does it really make much difference if that number is +1d4, or +2?

I guess it boils down to how much you like rolling dice.

"Woot, I get to roll more dice!" says the player.
"Crap, I have to roll how many dice now?" says the DM.

 

[Salamandyr]

I've got one request. Please quit calling it "master of weapon combat" and make the fighter "master of COMBAT". Conan didn't become a 98 pound weakling when you took his sword away. He was death on two legs with or without weapons. The D&D fighter should be too.

The combat art is a holistic enterprise. One doesn't learn one weapon without learning something about all the others, and hand to hand includes the use of, you know, hands.

 

[Viking Bastard]

That said, I would not rely on the dice staying dice. I hope they don't. Action points as dice work because they are rarely used, so the extra time-cost is minimal. Extra damage dice really slow things down (you have to find them, you have to NOT roll off the edge of the table or bounce your dice awkwardly, and then you have to add up the results while not forgetting the static bonuses). If you start having multiple dice which get split up and spent at different times in a round, it'll slow things down a lot more than you expect.

I think this depends way more on the individual than you seem to think. We switched from using static damage modifiers to bonus dice a while ago. I wanted to see if it sped up combat and it did. For us, of course; I know this is counter-intuitive to a lot of people.

I can see how choosing where to spend the dice each round is going to bog down play (although not more than choosing what power to use), but for me (and my players, bar one), throwing a d6 at the problem is probably always going be quicker than having to think about the probabilities of modifiers.

(With a shout out to [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s point about psychology above.)

 

[IronWolf]

Sounds fairly similar to DCC

Yep. This was my first thought as well when I read L&L today. Sounds very similar DCC RPG's Mighty Deed of Arms.

 

[VinylTap]

Yep. At the end of the day, isn't this just another bonus? I mean, you are adding a number to another number--your sword gets a bonus to attack or damage, for example--so does it really make much difference if that number is +1d4, or +2?

I guess it boils down to how much you like rolling dice.

"Woot, I get to roll more dice!" says the player.
"Crap, I have to roll how many dice now?" says the DM.

The gap is bigger than you're making it to be. Adding a random element to the system has a bigger effect than a simple modifier, both in the math and psychologically. Not to mention this system allows dice to be be used not only as dice, but also spent as tokens or counters and its still a fairly simple mechanic and easily explained/understood by new players.

 

[Jack99]

Either your jokemeter has failed, or mine has (because you're being more straightfaced than I'm allowing for).

Anyway, TwoSix knows 4e pretty well, I think, and is (to at least some extent) a fan of it.

Yeah, that was a fail on my part. I have been away from the boards for a while and forgot he was a fan

I don't want anything to be an exclusive mechanic to anything.

The looser the class structure the better; I'd even prefer it if D&D was the sort of game where all characters could learn a spell or two if they trained at it. Likewise, anyone should gain advantages for stabbing people in the back when they can't see you. Until 4e, D&D was gradually but slowly moving in this direction, as many mechanics were allowed to multiple character types, but some were still restricted. A class should be a convenient way of packaging abilities, not a straitjacket.

In this particular case, as they've said the dice are really just a more flexible and fun substitute for static bonuses and maneuvers. Would it fly if they said that only fighters could gain static bonuses to attack and or/damage and/or maneuvers? No. This isn't any different.

Aha. I see. So you want something like 3.x multiclassing without it being multiclass?

I had a witty reply, but I got distracted by your avatar.

You ain't the first, nor the last I suspect.

Or 2e. Or post-UA 1e to be fair.

I disagree. Fighters didn't rock until 4e. Oldschool dnd they were okay, but a tad boring. In 3.x they got eclipsed by the casters and were mostly a starting point for other classes.