Combat Superiority and Damage/HP bloat

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think the analogy works the way you intended.

A lot of classes get spells, Wizards, Sorcerors, Warlocks (as rituals), Clerics, likely soon Druids.

The wizard has the benefit of having the strongest spells (through his DC bonus), and his spell list is different from a cleric, but at the core they are both slinging spells.

If that model works, why couldn't it work for martial classes using CS die?

But, they have different spell lists and different casting mechanics. Sorcerer, Wizards and even Clerics don't all manage their spells in the same way.

That's readily justifiable via the arbitrary nature of magic. Wizards prepare from their known spells because that's how their magic works. Sorcerers don't, because that's how /their/ magic works. Clerics prepare from their full list, because that's how the gods do things.

 

[Stalker0]

But, they have different spell lists and different casting mechanics. Sorcerer, Wizards and even Clerics don't all manage their spells in the same way.

At the core they do. There spells get filled up at the beginning of the day and are expended as spells are cast. They all utilize attack rolls or spell DCs, they all use the same basic tenents of areas, target, etc.

Same could be said with CS dice. At the core, the martial classes could all use them, but trappings could be used to provide a difference between classes.

 

[slobo777]

At the core they do. There spells get filled up at the beginning of the day and are expended as spells are cast. They all utilize attack rolls or spell DCs, they all use the same basic tenents of areas, target, etc.

Same could be said with CS dice. At the core, the martial classes could all use them, but trappings could be used to provide a difference between classes.

That's where I'd like to see CS dice go - as a binding "martial power" mechanic, with the same central role for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians* etc in the game as spell slots/caster level and the page or so of general notes on spell casting mechanics are for the magic-using classes.

Fighters would still get their unique special things to do in such a scheme, and would have their own take on CS dice. Just as Wizards, Clerics and Sorcerers use the spell slot system in very different ways, and have other class features that combine with them.

* I'd prefer a martial/mundane barbarian to 4E's super-primal one, although both are fine as fantasy characters. That's more a battle of which gets the name "barbarian" . . .

 

[Sadrik]

That's where I'd like to see CS dice go - as a binding "martial power" mechanic,

I would approve of this. Give them all different triggers to activate. Rogue CS dice are clearly sneak attack dice, and the other melee and ranged based classes could be based on other things.

 

[Li Shenron]

But in 5e they are just trying to "unbind" the mechanics of spell across different classes by making each of them at least somewhat different, how can they possibly now "bind" the other classes special abilities?

There already is enough bind with the attack rules being the same for everyone, now please give the Fighter his own stick it's been waiting for almost 40 years, and if the other character wants it they get with multiclassing.

 

[B.T.]

Wonder how they'll handle multiple attacks with CS dice.

 

[slobo777]

Wonder how they'll handle multiple attacks with CS dice.

In a lot of ways, CS dice have killed the need for explicit multi-attacks for fighter damage to scale (which IIRC was part of the drive for fighters to have multi-attacks in the first place).

I think instead CS dice will be spent to provide multi-attacks. With Cleave, they already are in a constrained way.

 

[B.T.]

I also wonder how damage will scale for melee/ranged for other classes. The rogue getting only sneak attack damage worries me; it was frustrating in 3e at how dependent the rogue was on getting sneak attack damage.

 

[mlund]

I also wonder how damage will scale for melee/ranged for other classes.

Divine and Arcane classes will scale just fine. The Paladin will get more Smite-y and the casters get higher level spells.

Rogue's already scale Sneak Attack dice.

Barbarians are Slayers with a Specialty and Background.
Unarmed fighting looks like good ground for a fighter variant.

Rangers will probably get some combination of Evasion and either an expanding multi-attack progression (Rapid Shot / Flurry) or a progressive Hunters Quarry mechanic (dice escalating each turn would be kind of awesome - T1 +1d4 vs. Quarry, T2 +2d4, T3 +3d4 until you pick a new quary - die size increases as you level).

The rogue getting only sneak attack damage worries me; it was frustrating in 3e at how dependent the rogue was on getting sneak attack damage.

It's all part of the charm / challenge of the Rogue. He's the exploration / interaction master so he's not going to be a Grade A combatant. The only problem with 3E Sneak Attack was that they specifically wrote in Sneak Attack hosers into monsters and classes (Uncanny Dodge, Anatomically Immunity to Sneak Attack).

- Marty Lund

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I personally think that the CS mechanic would work very well as a general weapon combat mechanic. And I would be all about giving the fighter some unique maneuvers only he could use, or perhaps his CS dice grew faster than other classes, etc. It would still highlight his specialness, but it would also give us another great mechanic that all of us could enjoy.

OK, a lot of people are saying this, so let's ask: which of the current fighter maneuvers should be "fighter-only"?

Obviously not trip, push, etc., because those are the ones constantly mentioned as good options for rogues. Probably not shift or tumble either. All the Slayer ones look good for a barbarian, and hey, wouldn't a ranger benefit from those archer maneuvers? I'm sure a paladin should be able to parry enemy blows and protect nearby allies.

In other words, none of these abilities scream "uniquely Fighter" because the fighter class has been defined so loosely that it has no meaning. That's how we got the 3e fighter whose only unique feats were flavorless bonuses to damage.

If I get your gist, you think fighters should be the only one to be able to do these things. Fighters are the only one who should cleave, push, parry or shift. In, no case would a rogue or ranger or monk would want to do this. Or better there is no case a highly trained moster would want to this...

Grr, how have we gotten five pages into this thread and there are still people who think that fighter maneuvers are the only way to push/trip/disarm/etc. people?

Under the current playtest rules, if you want to trip someone, you take an action to use ability contests (probably with disadvantage). Roll your Strength vs. their Dexterity and if you succeed they're tripped. Not as good as the maneuver, but it gets the job done.

If you want to jab or cleave... well, that's just multiple attacks, so you'll have to split them across a couple rounds. If you want to deflect the enemy's attacks, take a Dodge action to raise your AC.

Basically, there is nothing the fighter character can do (in RP terms) that another character can't attempt, even though that other character will usually be less effective or take more time in doing so.

As for rogues, monks, and other martial characters who should be trained in some of these techniques... so far we've seen three melee-focused classes/builds other than fighter: rogue, war cleric, and draconic sorcerer. I don't think anyone who has played a war cleric or sorcerer would disagree that those classes manage to do just fine in melee without CS dice, because they have their own mechanics, better suited to what they do overall. The rogue is pretty sweet in its current incarnation as well, although I bet they're going to keep revising it to add more combat tricks. (Maybe Playtest 3 will have rogue disarms/trips/saps/etc.)