Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[IronWolf]

It's a fighter thing. Fighters deserve their own thing.

I agree.

This is a very similar discussion to some things that happened on DCC RPG boards as to whether Might Deeds of Arms should be a warrior only mechanic or able to be used by other classes. There were some great posts on that and in the end, I think it should be class specific. It is a perk of the class. It waters it down to start handing it out to other classes in my opinion.

 

[CM]

It's a fighter thing. Fighters deserve their own thing.

I don't see why the warlord (or other martial classes like barbarian and ranger) couldn't have access to a unique collection of CS "powers" (gasp) that include auras, buffs, interrupts, and other abilities typical of their schtick. There is a lot of room to vary the quantity, die size, and rate of acquisition of CS dice.

If you make the warlord just a fighter with a certain selection of CS maneuvers, you have to balance those abilities against the fighter's superior hit die, attack bonus, and other such class features. If you make the warlord a slightly inferior fighter (lower hit die, lower attack bonus, slower CS die advancement) you have room to perhaps give the warlord command-type CS abilities that would be overpowered on a normal fighter. In order to do that and keep the warlord a part of the fighter class, you would have to make all kinds of changes to base class features. It's just easier in the end to make a new class.

The same goes for wizards, clerics and other spellcasters. In the end, they all have spells. Each class just has a different selection, means of acquiring, preparing, and expending them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because 3E made the mistake of giving the fighter's abilities to EVERYONE and left nothing for the fighter.

I would argue that the sheer number of feats the Fighter received did in fact give him something no other class could do. No other class could Spring Attack or Whirlwind like the Fighter could, because the number of feats it took to do it made it prohibitively expensive for any class other than the Fighter for example.

So on a similar note... I personally think there is something to be said to having a mechanic for all weapon users just like there is a mechanic for all spell users. Then it comes down to HOW that mechanic gets applied (and the story connected to it) to each of the classes that makes them unique.

Magic will be used by a large number of classes-- the Wizard, the Cleric, the Druid, the Warlock, the Sorcerer, possibly the Bard. But what kinds of magic, the number of spells, how they are acquired/used, and the story behind their use are all different. By the same token, Combat Superiority could easily be used by a large number of non-spell classes-- the Fighter, the Paladin, the Warlord, the Rogue, the Ranger, the Barbarian. And what kinds of Fighting Styles they have access to, the number of Expertise Dice they get, and the story behind their use... could all be different for each of these classes.

Does the Warlock casting spells make the Wizard inferior? I would opine not. The Wizard is still awesome based upon the TYPES of spells he can cast, how he casts them, and the story behind how he does it... and it makes the class unique. The same way I would not think that a Ranger who used Expertise Dice for Slayer or Sharpshooter would make the Fighter inferior, especially if the Fighter used the Dice in a way that was uniquely his. Whether that be that he got bigger dice than other classes, or he had more styles at his disposal to choose from, or some other thing.

Truth be told though... the real issue for me is not whether Combat Superiority should remain Fighter-only because of giving the Fighter something uniquely his... but whether it should remain Fighter-only because the Fighting Styles OVERLAP with Specialties enough that other classes don't NEED to have both. If the Ranger can already take the Archer Specialty and get those feats... does he also then need the Sharpshooter Fighting Style on top of that? That... I'm not so sure. And I'd be inclined to playtest that kind of thing out. Is having a Specialty and a Fighting Style in the same thing too much of a good thing and overpowered in comparison to another combination?

 

[Ahnehnois]

There should be a reason to take the fighter class to do something that no other class can do (as well). Otherwise, why even have the class?

Well, what D&D has been evolving towards, and what 3e really wanted to be, is a system where this is not the case, where nothing is exclusive. 3e has so many feats, skills, and alt class features that what your class choice is doesn't limit you much. But it's still there, and the classes as they're constructed make building your chosen character a lot harder than it needs to be.

What if I don't want to play with feats?

To address both points, I think the next logical evolution of D&D would have been to make it not quite a classless system but a "class enabled" system. Break the system down so every character ability gained through levels can be seen as a skill (a dimensional commodity) or a feat (anything without a numbered bonus). Base attack, saves, and the like become skills. Spells and class abilities become feats.

Then craft classes/themes/specialties/etc. out of them. Thus, if you don't want to comb through twenty books picking feats, just play a standard build with all the choices made for you. A fighter simply has some maxed weapon skills, fort/con saves, etc., while a wizard gets the fireball and haste chains of feats and a nice bonus on Knowledge Arcana. That way beginners don't have to learn complex character customization, and people who don't like 3e style character building don't have to spend time on it.

The is sort of like what the early 5e buzz made it sound like the game would be, but it doesn't live up to that, and every new thing we see seems to be stepping farther and farther away from this approach. Making CS dice more generic would be an incrementally positive step, albeit not nearly enough of one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think any time you're making a class and you're tempted to steal the mechanic from another class...

...you need to really examine why what you're making actually needs to be a class and not something else.

Why make a Warlord class with "ally helpful CS dice" and why NOT make a fighting style called "Commander" (or whatever) that gives you the same thing? Why shouldn't it be a Speciality?

If you are determined to that class you're making be its own class, you need to discover its unique mechanic. For a warlord, that might be auras or interrupts or empowering allies or whatnot, but it SHOULDN'T be CS dice.

It's a fighter thing. Fighters deserve their own thing.

I more or less agree with the analysis, but not the premise. Or rather, I disagree that the premise as implied fully accounts for all the choices.

If CS is going to remain a niche thing, without much more scope than it has now, then I agree it should remain for the fighter, for the reasons that you give. That's one option.

Another is that CS manages to grow into something quite robust, as a "marital/weapon" parallel to "spells". In that case, it will be large enough to encompass classes with strong weapon use, in the same way that spells are large enough to cover several character concepts. Being "large enough" here implies "large enough" that a fighter can clearly stand out in CS use.

Alternately, "Combat Superiority" itself might remain the fighter-exclusive bit out of some larger system that grows out of it, used for martial characters. That's a semantic distinction, though. Either way, to expand beyond fighter implies something more than what we have for CS right now.

Finally, in an ideal world, if CS stays relatively small and nothing grows out of it, then there wouldn't be an alternate mechanic because there wouldn't be alternate classes. Fighter will kill warlord and take his stuff. So "warlords" will use CS, because they are built with the fighter class. (This is actually my preferred "clean" solution in several cases, but unlikely to be pursued for several reasons.)

That is, I think a clear-headed analysis of clean systems would lead to the correct answer being in a lot of cases, "We don't have enough difference here to make a new class. So rather than make up some separate widget for this new class, just to be different for the sake of being different, we won't do the new class." Since we are, however, going to get new classes that are different just for the sake of being different, that complicates the analysis of where to reuse or not reuse good bits. Given that limit, I prefer to reuse good bits as much as possible and not use the bad bits.

 

[jrowland]

I think there are two *problems* (if I may call them that):

1) Fighters do not have a niche mechanic
2) Fighting (ie melee) is too abstract compared to spellcasting

A Fireball is a unique visceral effect with a clear effect. An attack with a greatsword is an abstraction with assumed bits like parrying, dodging, glancing blows, etc.

Like CrazyJerome mentions, expertise dice are nice new mechanic that lends to fighting in general, bringing out of abstractness and into greater clarity (its still fuzzy, but its clearer). In that sense, applying expertise dice to power/trigger mundane combat maneuvers is a good thing. It helps bring clarity to the otherwise abstract combats that plague melee combatants.

*ASIDE* Notice how we don't feel the same way about ranged attacks...they seem more visceral. Shoot an arrow, hit/miss a target while simple, is clear. Theres no dodging/parrying/tripping, etc to fold into an abstraction.

For fighters themselves, unique schtick could be how they use expertise dice, which dice they get, etc. Clerics and Wizards have different lists, do fighters/rogues/warlords get different maneuver lists? Or perhaps should fighters, in keeping with "simplicity" get the whole list for full flexibility, and rogues and warlords dabble with maneuvers and rely more heavily on class features? Do fighters need a unique class feature if maneuvers are robust?

What if, for example, fighters get MORE expertise dice but they are used up daily like vancian spells vis a vis the wizard, and rogues, for example, get fewer but recharge by encounter like warlock or sorcerer? Or mix those up?

Perhaps fighters are at-will dice users, always have 1 dice every round to use e.g. with greater and more powerful maneuvers as their "schtick". Rogues get encounter dice to use, with a limited subset of the maneuver list and a special "backstab" maneuver. And some other melee type (like warlord) gets Daily dice akin to a vancian caster, to use and forget with a limited subset of the maneuver list and a special "shout/buff" maneuvers.

I think expertise dice are a leap forward in melee combat for D&D and should be fleshed accordingly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see why the warlord (or other martial classes like barbarian and ranger) couldn't have access to a unique collection of CS "powers" (gasp) that include auras, buffs, interrupts, and other abilities typical of their schtick.

The first question I would ask is: why do these things need to be CS abilities?

And the second question would be, if they do need to be CS abilities, why can't they be a combat style option for the fighter? And if they don't need to be CS abilities, what unique abilities might work better for the Warlord or Barbarian or Ranger class's schtick?

If you make the warlord just a fighter with a certain selection of CS maneuvers, you have to balance those abilities against the fighter's superior hit die, attack bonus, and other such class features.

Why can't the Warlord have those features? Fighters get all those + CS maneuvers.

f you make the warlord a slightly inferior fighter (lower hit die, lower attack bonus, slower CS die advancement) you have room to perhaps give the warlord command-type CS abilities that would be overpowered on a normal fighter.

Why do you have to do that in order to hit the archetype of a combat commander? Can't you just have fighter who employs helpful CS maneuvers balanced with other CS maneuvers?

The same goes for wizards, clerics and other spellcasters. In the end, they all have spells. Each class just has a different selection, means of acquiring, preparing, and expending them.

Another is that CS manages to grow into something quite robust, as a "marital/weapon" parallel to "spells".

I think other classes should get other spellcasting methods, too. Sorcerers and Warlocks are beginning that process already, and I'd encourage them to go father. I've pointed out that I don't think either one should need "spells," either, and I'd be entirely happy with a Channel Divinity-based cleric, leaving Vancian magic to be a Wizard-based thing.

Finally, in an ideal world, if CS stays relatively small and nothing grows out of it, then there wouldn't be an alternate mechanic because there wouldn't be alternate classes. Fighter will kill warlord and take his stuff.

I'd question why, if making Warlord as a distinct class is a goal, you can't have some OTHER mechanic for them. There's no clear need for them to have CS. For instance, they could have an array of shouts that function as reactions and interrupts, allowing them to issue commands to their allies on the spur of the moment, correcting errors and setting up tactical maneuvers on the fly. For instance, if an ally is hit, there might be a warlord ability called Look Out! that imposes retroactive disadvantage on that attack, forcing the enemy to roll it again.

Or whatever.

I don't see a compelling case for suddenly extrapolating CS to everything that swings a hunk of metal around. I also don't see a compelling case for making everything that blasts sparkles to be Vancian. I do see a compelling case for ensuring each class has its own unique mechanics.

 

[1of3]

Just heard in the latest Penny Arcade podcast (at about the 8:28 mark) that the Fighter's expertise dice mechanic might apply to other classes later on. This was in reference to Jerry asking if there was a "grant a +2 to your friend's attack" use for expertise dice... and Mearls responded that it depended on what they do with the Warlord, "as this mechanic might show up in another class too".

I guess that "this mechanic" refers to the effect (granting bonuses to allies), not the CS dice.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't see a compelling case for suddenly extrapolating CS to everything that swings a hunk of metal around. I also don't see a compelling case for making everything that blasts sparkles to be Vancian. I do see a compelling case for ensuring each class has its own unique mechanics.

I'm fine with that as a design rule provided that the obvious corollary is also honored: If we don't have a good unique mechanic for some particular class, then we don't get that class. If they'd stick to that, great. I don't think they will stick to it, and I don't think they can come up with a compelling unique mechanic for every class they will do, so ...

 

[EvilDwarf]

Just a thought. CS = Expertise Dice (but don't like the abbreviation lol).

All classes get them to augment CLASS abilities, as suggested above for Rogue sneak attack and also other things Rogue.

Applied to casters, you suddenly have an elegant way to handle arguably inelegant meta-magic feats!