D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[billd91]

- Wrestling
- Boxing
- Judo
- Brazillian Jiu jitsu
- Dirty Boxing
- Muay Thai

These disciplines have little to no overlap between them with regards to technique and economy of action. Their overall design aim/application within a fight (where the scope of applicable techniques narrow significantly) is extremely narrow and focused. Most MMA fighters will have a primary discipline (Class) through which their ring efforts/techniques are almost exclusively expressed. Many will have a secondary discipline (Multi-class?) that is used exceedingly sparingly when required.

That just suggests that the powers/martial maneuvers would be well organized into trees not that access to them should be limited by class. I don't see why a ranger shouldn't have access to the same fundamental fighting styles as a fighter.

 

[Obryn]

You know, if I close my eyes and squint, I can almost pretend like it's 2008 again.

-O

 

[TwinBahamut]

That just suggests that the powers/martial maneuvers would be well organized into trees not that access to them should be limited by class. I don't see why a ranger shouldn't have access to the same fundamental fighting styles as a fighter.

Alternatively, you could do what the Book of Nine Swords did. It had nine different styles that were central to the system, but no single class in that book had access to the entire list, and instead could access only three to five styles. Some styles were unique to classes, and others were useably by every class. I think this approach worked very well.

Honestly, I don't like the line of thinking that all martial abilities need to be learnable by everyone. The game limits learnable skills to particular classes all of the time. The limited class skill list is normal enough in the game, as is the class equipment proficiency list or a class spell list. If skills, equipment proficiency, class features, magical powers, and non-magical powers are all simply different forms of learnable skills available in the game world, then why is just one category, non-magical powers, treated differently and put in the realm of "anyone should be able to do it"?

A ranger and a fighter should have different fighting styles because the differences inherent to their classes demands it. Letting them share the same fighting abilities is nothing less than a merging of their class concepts into the same class. I don't want a game where there is only a single martial class, and I like the class system, so I couldn't possibly agree with what you propose.

 

[Shadeydm]

The game limits learnable skills to particular classes all of the time. The limited class skill list is normal enough in the game, as is the class equipment proficiency list or a class spell list. If skills, equipment proficiency, class features, magical powers, and non-magical powers are all simply different forms of learnable skills available in the game world, then why is just one category, non-magical powers, treated differently and put in the realm of "anyone should be able to do it"?

I never liked how fighters have been treated in the social pillar of the game. What is the reason a Fighter can't have Diplomacy or History or Bluff on his class skill list it makes no sense. Its like some game designer got stuffed into his locker during gym class too many times and decided big strong fighting guys have to be dumb and socially inept. So I say yes open up the skill lists let me have my intelligent/charismatic fighter without penalty in the form of a skill feat or multiclass feat tax.

 

[Manbearcat]

That just suggests that the powers/martial maneuvers would be well organized into trees not that access to them should be limited by class. I don't see why a ranger shouldn't have access to the same fundamental fighting styles as a fighter.

I'm not sure how it suggest that at all so you would have to break that down for me further. You seem to be saying a better map for Powers would be to the Feat System rather than the, historically, siloed Class Feature System. 4e certainly isn't predicated upon that idea. The Powers are effectively Features that express the focus of the class both mechanically and in the corresponding fiction. Further, it seems that you're suggesting that the class structure in 4e should be diluted by way of free access to all powers within the power source (or at least specifically the Martial power source). It was my understanding that lack of differentiation/homogenization of the classes was one of the primary sources of angst amongst the edition's detractors. My analog map would be as follows:

- In DnD we have Adventurer as the generic career header for PCs.

- The MMA analog would be Fighter.

- In DnD we have our Class structure that expresses PCs' ability/practical application of field of study within the fiction through siloed features, spells, powers.

- The MMA analog would be the Primary Fighting Discipline that expresses Fighters' ability/practical application of field of study within the ring through mastery, nearly to the exclusion of other disciplines, of their primary Martial Art.


Historically in DnD (outside of some UA stuff and Skills and Powers), Classes' primary disciplines (features, spells, powers) are exclusive to them and it is borderline heresy to expect otherwise (hence the backlash against Skills and Powers). Giving out Fighter Weapon Specialization, Theif % skills or Backstab/Sneak Attack, Ranger's Favored Enemy, etc to all martial classes would seem to be a revolutionary idea (and again, would not be without controversy...and I'm sure we've all seen people loose it at the mere thought experiment of such an idea). However, there are means to access them and round out your PC; Dual-Class, Multi-Class, Hybridizing (in the analog above, this would be an MMA fighter rounding out his game through the study of the fundamentals of a secondary discipline). This is one way in which the Ranger has access to the Fighter's Fighting Style. The other way is in class choice at character creation (expressed in the fiction as seeking out a master and training, joining a lodge, growing up in the wild, military background, etc, etc).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why can the lower level Fighter not as many attacks as the higher level Fighter?

Training.*

I've seen extremely well trained martial artists who are much faster than novices half their age. One was actually on Sports Science- a master with greyish hair had his punches timed against those of a reasonably fit (non-athlete, non martial artist) man in his mid to late twenties: his strikes were 15mph faster.









* now, this old be one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things- he could just be naturally that much faster. However, his own take on it was that his training made him faster. And the show's take on it is that it was training as well, like how batting practice enables a hitter to react to the differences between a 100mph fastball and a 93mph sinker coming down from an elevation of 18 inches at a distance of 60'6". That training makes actual measurable changes in both the brain and the musculature of the body.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is it nonsensical or is it a product of the siloing away of class abilities inherent in a class-based system and will then have narrowing implications for the PC build framework (which is, by definition, gamist)?

It is nonsensical. Other class-based RPGs- including prior editions of D&D- have managed to not balkanize mundane combat maneuvers into the sole provenance of various classes.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

You know, if I close my eyes and squint, I can almost pretend like it's 2008 again.

-O

Squint? More like watch out for that truckload of 2008 racing toward you.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is nonsensical. Other class-based RPGs- including prior editions of D&D- have managed to not balkanize mundane combat maneuvers into the sole provenance of various classes.

Sole provenance is highly debatable.

A) Page 42 allows for the expression of ad-hoc mundane, or non-mundane, maneuvers (amongst other things).

B) Multi-classing provides access to other classes' Powers.

C) Every class has within their arsenal some mechanical representation (and fictional accompaniment), slightly re-flavored or re-mechanized, of standard mundane powers. This has been one of the pillars of the infamous homogenization argument.

D) Pretty much every Martial class has access to feats through which they can tailor their at-wills or MBAs toward specific ends that simulate virtually all mundane maneuvers (This may have been what billd91 was asking for. Well, guess what? Its there.).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A) Page 42 allows for the expression of ad-hoc mundane, or non-mundane, maneuvers (amongst other things).

Not multiple attacks.

B) Multi-classing provides access to other classes' Powers.

Not for Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues or most other martial classes, which is what we're talking about. Those multiclass feats give you skills & some kind of class ability (or simulation thereof), but not actually powers.

And besides, if something is a fundamental combat manuever, you shouldn't havto multiclass to do it.

C) Every class has within their arsenal some mechanical representation (and fictional accompaniment), slightly re-flavored or re-mechanized, of standard mundane powers. This has been one of the pillars of the infamous homogenization argument.

I'm currently sitting here with only PHB1 & 3 handy right now, so I can't really address this fully. I have noticed some mechanical similarity between certain arcane & divine powers, however, so I can't say you're wrong.

And I find that annoying, too. Distinctions without differences (or with minor changes just to be different) are a needless waste of text & space. They can also, depending on system, lead to unintended consequences (see the 3.5Ed Paladin & Monk powers...)

D) Pretty much every Martial class has access to feats through which they can tailor their at-wills or MBAs toward specific ends that simulate virtually all mundane maneuvers (This may have been what billd91 was asking for. Well, guess what? Its there.).

(same answer as previous)