Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Neonchameleon]

Failed? There may very well be more people out there playing 3e fighters today than any other version, several years after the 4e version officially "replaced" them.

Possibly. If you count people with two level dips in the fighter class, normally in order to qualify for the prestige class they are actually interested in as fighters.

You might not like it, and I have no doubt that you are not the only one, but on what basis would you say this class is a failure?

On the basis it's a tier 5 class that can't even outfight a cleric. It's supposedly aimed at beginners but in fact is the hardest class to build well because there are so many parts you need to pick for which the consequences are non-obvious. People like it because they want to play a fighter. But mechanically with very rare exceptions (charge cheese and spiky chain master) it doesn't cut it.

I would say that late 2e with all the various mods is getting towards the point buy approach.

I'd say that S&P showed why it shouldn't be done. Munchkin's paradise.

I would also say that PF's archetypes and alt race features push the game more in that direction. Many of the other OGL games have also pushed that envelope.

Of course many of the OGL games pushed the envelope. Point buy is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of class based.

D&D has been evolving away from a class-based system (to what I'm calling class-enabled) for decades and continues to do so; 4e is the aberration in that respect in that it has even less multiclassing flexibility than 2e does.

[Citation needed] - are you thinking of human dual classing? Or are you thinking of elven fighter/magic user/thieves? (In 4e that would probably be called a bard or a bladesinger trained in thievery). 4e you can old school multiclass with hybrids, or you can take a splash of another class with feats, or you can take a lot of a class other than the one you started with by paragon multiclassing. AD&D if you weren't a human you were whatever class combination you started with. So tell me about flexibility - all the demihuman multiclassing does is creates some weird additional multiclasses like the elven fighter/mage.

And 4e's inflexible character creation, class "roles" and limited multiclassing are key reasons why we're posting in a 5e forum.

I was good enough to build a small but decent rep on the char-op boards back in the day as a strong second tier opper. And the range of characters I can produce in 4e is greater than in 3.X and, more to the point, all of them are viable. Character flexibility is IMO greater in 4e than 3.X and you don't have the metagame worries "Do I have a 20 level build?", "Am I going to be crap at level 7 in exchange for supreme power later (Mystic Theurge, I'm looking at you!)" or am I just going to be crap throughout (Monk, I'm looking at you!). I've seen very few character concepts that don't fit in 4e other than the Supreme Powah Mage - but one of the best ways of producing a fighter/wizard 3.5 ever produced was the bard.

We're posting in a 5e forum because even as a keen 4e fan, all the support I think 4e wants beyond this point is Spelljammer, Birthright, Mass Combat, Quick Combat, and Domain Management rules. Oh, and some good adventures. It's finished and doesn't need to go into the 3.X model with books like Races of Eberron or Serpent Kingdoms (a book chiefly known for adding the Sarrukh and Venomfire to the game - and published less than a year after the 3.5 PHB).

The abberation is 3.X. And you can figure out most of Pathfinder's design decisions by looking at 4e and drifting the 3.5 ruleset in that direction. At will spells? Taken straight from 4e. New classes that really don't play well with others? 4e and class based, leaving 3.X as the outlier. Alternate features allowing for greater customisation of a class within the bounds of thaat class, making the temptation to multiclass less. Yup, all 4e classes do this.

One, on a system level there is not enough design space; not enough things for fighters to be good at. Six saving throws might help a bit; I think an active defense mechanic and a robust combat maneuver/stunt/stance system helps more. The other problem is the class just doesn't get enough stuff. The feats, even after PHBII and the like, are not good enough, and the dead levels really hurt. If these things were fixed (CS seems to fill the design space niche alright) I would think that many of the complaints would be addressed, but who knows how many would remain.

You miss the third point. The fighter could literally kill anyone in swords range at level 13 with no attack roll needed or saving throw allowed and he'd still be less useful to the party than a primary spellcaster. Or to quote or at least paraphrase Frank Trollman in his area of expertise, "If a wizard were offered to become a full gestalt fighter at the cost of one caster level he'd be justified in thinking it over".

You can't do very much to help fighters without feeding 3.X style vancian wizards, clerics, and druids through a woodchipper. The casters are just too powerful if played well.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Failed? There may very well be more people out there playing 3e fighters today than any other version, several years after the 4e version officially "replaced" them. If not, it's close, and the PF version might be the most popular. Certainly the 3e and PF characters combined vastly outnumber any other version. And the PF fighter is just a 3e fighter with a better combat maneuver system and some static bonuses to cover up those dead levels. An acknowledgement that the fighter needed some improvement, but not a page 1 rewrite.

You might not like it, and I have no doubt that you are not the only one, but on what basis would you say this class is a fail

ok let's start out with the FACT that you just made up a theory and said it can't be disproven. I can say more people play 2e then pathfinder, or that to this day more players like to play rifts then 3e D&d ... With 0 sales data and 0 player data... No one can say.

So we can NOT assume that there are more or less people playing any edition fighter. Not even pathfinder.

Now if you want to add some FACTs to your statement, I will appolgize, maybe some big info dump I missed.

Second: I believe it failed Becuse even with phb2 feats and book of nine swords feats I still don't see people praising the design.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Possibly. If you count people with two level dips in the fighter class, normally in order to qualify for the prestige class they are actually interested in as fighters.

I do. Prestige classes and dips are a rather large part of the system (not necessarily for the better). Playing by the book 3.5, dips and prestige classes are pretty normal for everyone; few of the core classes are playable through 20th.

Incidentally, PF put most of the prestige class abilities into base classes and provides a big list of special abilities to choose from (commonly including cross-class ones), which kind of helps with this. The point is that you get more flexibility in character creation and class choice doesn't restrict you as much.

On the basis it's a tier 5 class that can't even outfight a cleric. It's supposedly aimed at beginners but in fact is the hardest class to build well because there are so many parts you need to pick for which the consequences are non-obvious. People like it because they want to play a fighter. But mechanically with very rare exceptions (charge cheese and spiky chain master) it doesn't cut it.

Then why do people play it and enjoy themselves? Or are you saying they don't?

Of course many of the OGL games pushed the envelope. Point buy is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of class based.

Class based is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of point buy.

The abberation is 3.X. And you can figure out most of Pathfinder's design decisions by looking at 4e and drifting the 3.5 ruleset in that direction.

Most of PF's design decisions are to keep the 3e mechanics to maintain compatibility and avoid 4e's mistakes. You are somewhat right in that PF has made some backwards steps, such as 4e-like but class specific metagame mechanics like "rage points". Which is one of the reasons people still play 3e. For an "aberration" I think it's doing pretty well.

Now if you want to add some FACTs to your statement, I will appolgize, maybe some big info dump I missed.

Second: I believe it failed Becuse even with phb2 feats and book of nine swords feats I still don't see people praising the design.

First, I was responding to the assertion that the 3e fighter "failed". My response is not intended to be any more "factual" than the original assertion; it is speculative, but is more specific and substantive refutation. There are plenty of facts easily available on ENW that offer modest support to my point, but no one knows for sure.

Second, notice the part where "you believe" some stuff about the fighter? It may be a fact that you believe it, but I don't see any other factual support for the original (3e fighter failed) statement from any of these posts, which was assertively stated and is a significant point. If you want to add some facts to support it, I won't apologize because I haven't done anything wrong, but I may be more inclined to actually pay attention to whatever point it is you are trying to make.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Examine, yes. But be open to the possibilities.

For example, note that the Fighter has Expertise dice, but that they exist to drive the Combat Superiority feature, and manuvers in Fighting styles. Those features define the use of the dice.

The Expertise mechanic, then, is not the same as the Combat Superiority feature,. You can use the same mechanic to drive *other* features. Combat Superiority can remain Fighter-specific. Maybe the Warlord will have Leadership Superiority, with a whole different use of the dice that the Fighter doesn't have.

To me, that just seems like semantic tap-dancing. A mechanic encourages a certain feel. The fighter's current mechanic cultivates a feel of spontaneous reaction to the ever-changing landscape of battle. If you're going to make a Warlord as an independent class, they SHOULDN'T be stealing that vibe. Fighters can dynamically react and master the flow of a fight. Warlords should have a mechanic (if they are their own class) that reflects their OWN way of being awesome. Perhaps they pre-plan, perhaps they organize, perhaps they empower, perhaps they just shout a bunch. If they HAVE to bite the fighter's style, then they don't need to be their own unique class. "Fighters who can also shout healing" isn't very unique.

"Unique mechanic for everyone" sounds nice, until you realize what a barrier to entry that can pose. If I have to learn about 17 different mechanics before I can really make well-informed choices about what class I want to play, well, that's burdensome.

You don't. You need to pick one archetype that appeals to you, and trust that the designers have done their jobs to make that archetype a fun experience. If you're a big dork like ME, you need to learn about 17 different mechanics, but that's all opt-in.

Plus, "unique mechanic" means "no clear mechanical synergy". If a couple of classes have shared mechanics, then it becomes more clear what you can do when multiclassing among those classes (if they choose to have multiclassing, which I very much expect they will).

Ah, but that's part of the problem -- like 3e's caster levels. In that case, if you don't take an Expertise class, you're suddenly "hurting your Expertise potential," in exchange for a subsystem that doesn't grant you something that empowers your already-existing abilities.

It's better to avoid that sort of obvious mechanical synergy, making multiclassing a choice of personal preference and character ability suites, not one of automatic min/maxing and trap choices.

 

[Stalker0]

You might as well add Cleric and (soon to be) Druid to that list... because ALL spellcasters pretty much work similarly. And that's because Magic is just one mechanic. ...

So it stands to reason that those classes of non-magical bent have a similar core concept mechanic... IE "Weapon Combat".

This makes some sense. If CS dice was simply an avenue of martial classes, but the class determined what you could do with those CS dice, than you get some of the same flexibility as magic but maintain a single core mechanic.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... Because embedding the mechanic in multiple places hinders modularity, due to it being more difficult to disentangle from the game...

This is an argument for not embedding mechanics, not for singular or multiple. The whole idea of a module is that it isn't embedded. If you embed it, it may be a good class feature, but it not a module.

That I picked that particular item out should not be construed as agreement with the rest of the list, either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is an argument for not embedding mechanics, not for singular or multiple. The whole idea of a module is that it isn't embedded. If you embed it, it may be a good class feature, but it not a module.

Sure. It's just that the more places you stick a mechanic, and the more parts of your game you build with that mechanic as a base, the more embedded it becomes, and the harder it is to disentangle it.

It's a lot easier to say: "Fighters get a different suite of class powers. Here's an ADEU system for them!" than it is to say "Half of all classes get subtly different suites of a limited set of particular class powers. Here's 500 ADEU abilities to replace them all."

 

[Umbran]

To me, that just seems like semantic tap-dancing. A mechanic encourages a certain feel.

To this, I'll agree.

The fighter's current mechanic cultivates a feel of spontaneous reaction to the ever-changing landscape of battle.

To this, I disagree. It cultivates the feel that, in melee, the Fighter is extremely capable of hurting you and surviving. He is no more adaptable than anyone else.

There should be no class that, in its way, isn't proficient at spontaneous reaction to the ever-changing landscape of battle. If the character can't adapt in a fight, the character will DIE. The sorcerer does it by being able to choose which spell it casts on the fly, and the wizard does it by having no real limit on the variety of spells known, but both have the same end - some flexibility.

If you're going to make a Warlord as an independent class, they SHOULDN'T be stealing that vibe.

Even if I accept your posit on the feel, I disagree. You realize that Willpower, Favors, and Expertise Dice are really all variations on spell points: you have some resource that you spend a point of it to make something happen. So, we already have three classes using the vibe. The cat is out of the bag. Too late.

Fighters can dynamically react and master the flow of a fight.

No, they can respond to the flow of a fight - they have a big bag of maneuvers. But they don't "master" the flow, they don't control the flow. That would be the Warlord's shtick, I imagine. I don't see a reason why the same mechanic cannot be used, if the results are sufficiently different.

You don't. You need to pick one archetype that appeals to you, and trust that the designers have done their jobs to make that archetype a fun experience. If you're a big dork like ME, you need to learn about 17 different mechanics, but that's all opt-in.

Here's the question this attitude raises: What is the point?

If the point is to have a unique play experience, then I need 17 different mechanics, and I need to know them in order to choose which play experience I want.

If the point is to play the archetype I want, then I don't need 17 different mechanics - having 17 mechanics is a barrier to entry, as every time I want to try a new archetype, I have to relearn my game! In addition, even if a given mechanic fits two different archetypes well, one of them will probably have to settle for a worse implementation, as I'm "not allowed" to reuse mechanics, even if they work!

These two lines are rather antithetical to each other. And I'm sure there are folks for whom each is primary. My guess, then, is that you won't see a complete solution for either. There will be many unique mechanics, but not *everything* will be unique. Especially because, as I noted, there's design you can do with shared mechanics that doesn't work with unique mechanics.

Ah, but that's part of the problem -- like 3e's caster levels. In that case, if you don't take an Expertise class, you're suddenly "hurting your Expertise potential," in exchange for a subsystem that doesn't grant you something that empowers your already-existing abilities.

I don't see it as a problem - no matter what you do, some combinations *will* be more effective than others, even with unique mechanics. Given that we have to accept some of this, it makes sense to me to at least actively design where some of the optimal lines are, rather than have them be accidental, and build them so they're at least stylistically appropriate and interesting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Sure. It's just that the more places you stick a mechanic, and the more parts of your game you build with that mechanic as a base, the more embedded it becomes, and the harder it is to disentangle it.

It's a lot easier to say: "Fighters get a different suite of class powers. Here's an ADEU system for them!" than it is to say "Half of all classes get subtly different suites of a limited set of particular class powers. Here's 500 ADEU abilities to replace them all."

If you have bad coupling, the above is true. That's what makes a mechanic embedded--having bad coupling in how the mechanic attaches to the thing (class in this case).

If you have good coupling, not only is the above false, but counter-intuitively, using the mechanic in multiple places actually makes it easier to manage. If you attach a mechanic to one class, you don't really know how hard it is to swap out, because you haven't tried. It's the second class that is the hardest task for coupling, and then diminishing from there. The more you work at making it swap well, the cleaner the coupling gets.

You can go too far the other way. Saying that CS should be some universal mechanic that any class can take, willy-nilly, leads you to all the same problems that feats have. That is, you don't want to compromise the good coupling by trying to give the wizard CS quarterstaff tricks. My hunch is that if something was ever a fighter subclass (ranger, barbarian, etc.) then it should be considered for some lesser CS (or at least expertise) love. I'd like to see "Rage" mechanically geared as expertise dice, as the barbarian analog to CS. If a class is clearly not related to the fighter (rogue, cleric, wizard, etc.) then strongly consider excluding them from any expertise dice. Paladin is a strange beast in the middle that could go either way, depending upon what else you gave it.

I don't know what it is with this push in D&D that everything has to be unique or available to everyone, as if there was no middle ground. Classes cover a range of abilities, dividing the roles, niches, and responsibilities of the various D&D genres among them. There is overlap, and there is distinction.

 

[triqui]

My contention is that the problem with the existing 3e-style fighter is twofold. One, on a system level there is not enough design space; not enough things for fighters to be good at. Six saving throws might help a bit; I think an active defense mechanic and a robust combat maneuver/stunt/stance system helps more. The other problem is the class just doesn't get enough stuff. The feats, even after PHBII and the like, are not good enough, and the dead levels really hurt. If these things were fixed (CS seems to fill the design space niche alright) I would think that many of the complaints would be addressed, but who knows how many would remain.

My personal problem with 3.X fighters, is that they are dull. And Fighter is my favourite class, ever (I like Conan over Gandalf), and I'm currently playing a PF fighter, which I love Roleplaying-wise, but I dislike mechanic-wise.

The problem with basic feats and basic static modifiers, is that the character is dull. Yes, it can be balanced. It can be even overpowering (a 2hander specialist in PF is close to OP in the pure damage aspect) But it's dull. And it's so, because the mechanics HAVE to be watered down, because they lack a resource system. Take for example, the Trip mechanic. A fighter with improved trip, can become a trip machine. As he can trip as much as he wants, every single attack from every round in every combat every day, then we have only two options: either "trip" is very weak, or the tripping machine is very powerful. I could say the same about "whirlwind", or "disarm" or whatever other maneuver. If they are, all of them, "at will", and no cost, they have to be watered down, because otherwise, they'll be overpowered.

I understand (and even support), that AEDU might not be the best idea for Fighters. It's ok. Then you need a *different* approach. But you still need to give them some kind of resource management. Combat superioriy is a fair attempt. It gives some kind of resource to those of us who want the fighter having something cool to do besides "power attack". And those who doesn't want to mess their perfectly fine fighters with static bonuses, can just convert those CS dice into pure damage (which is a kind of static bonus).

So we can have the chocolate and the peanut butter. Imho, it's the best thing in this playtest round. YMMV, of course.