Combat Superiority and Damage/HP bloat

[Steely_Dan]

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.

CS refreshes every round.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Just to make a basic point: I think from WOTC's point of view, mechanical separation of classes isn't just "so every class has its own schtick." I think the idea is to keep each class as straightforward and elegant as possible.

For example, the cleric already has a list of spells and divine channels to keep track of. More to the point, he's responsible for keeping track of all his comrades' health and whether they're in immediate danger, so he knows when and how to use his precious healing resources.

The wizard has his own list of memorized spells, and he has to balance resource management with optimal attack possibilities. Does he run in to try to catch three skeletons with Burning Hands, or should he Magic Missile from safety? Is it worth burning a Fireball to take out those half-dozen orcs, or will the party be facing more pressing dangers later on?

The melee rogue is more focused on single-target damage, but he's enough of a glass cannon in melee that he has to constantly be balancing his opportunities to do massive Sneak Attack damage against the risk incurred if he doesn't drop his opponent and gets stuck in a crowded melee without the fighter's HP, AC, and Parry to protect him.

Each of these classes have resources and tactical considerations in combat, and each of their resources or opportunities are tailored to its role in combat. Does it really make the cleric better at clericking if he has expertise dice he can use in case he wants to trip someone? Honestly, he's got enough crap going on. If he wants to do better in melee, he'll cast a spell for it. Does it make the rogue better at backstabbing and vanishing into the night if he has to keep track of CS dice to do so? I'd say no - just give him some combat tricks and/or alternatives to Sneak Attack damage so he can sap and disarm and tumble around the battlefield, but he should be focused on positioning and advantage more than tracking a pool of dice.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION], that's a great argument for why rogue should not be considered "martial" and then why only martial classes should be considered for combat superiority. It's not so hot for why CS should be fighter exclusive.

I think to make the fighter exclusive argument, you then need to show what druid, paladin, ranger, barbarian, bard, etc. get. If they all get their own unique thing to manage, then yep, CS is the fighter's thing. OTOH, if they get some blend of spells and/or tricky/skilled stuff that works like rogue, cleric, and wizard things, then the truly martial classes should also get some CS (or something very much like it).

I don't think it is something that can be argued well either way in a vacuum. The stronger arguments all make assumptions about what the other classes will or should get.

 

[Stalker0]

CS refreshes every round.

Um....that is true, I don't understand what your argument is though?

 

[Zustiur]

Coming at this from a different angle; what if, like in 3e, each of the maneuvers provoked an OA... Unless the person doing it was a fighter. Would that be sufficiently unique to satisfy people?
(I'm not suggesting that this would be balanced with spells etc, just asking a question)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

[MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION], that's a great argument for why rogue should not be considered "martial" and then why only martial classes should be considered for combat superiority. It's not so hot for why CS should be fighter exclusive.

I think to make the fighter exclusive argument, you then need to show what druid, paladin, ranger, barbarian, bard, etc. get. If they all get their own unique thing to manage, then yep, CS is the fighter's thing. OTOH, if they get some blend of spells and/or tricky/skilled stuff that works like rogue, cleric, and wizard things, then the truly martial classes should also get some CS (or something very much like it).

I don't think it is something that can be argued well either way in a vacuum. The stronger arguments all make assumptions about what the other classes will or should get.

I agree completely. If they can't come up with a suitable unique mechanical solution for each class, then mixing together various elements is probably the best they can do (a la 3e rangers and paladins using Vancian spells).

I can't imagine that druids wouldn't be reliant on some kind of spells and/or shapeshifting, and bards on songs and/or spells, for their own powers. But paladins, rangers, barbarians, and monks are indeed yet to be seen.

I can give you my guesses (I already made a thread about rangers), but I'm not Mike Mearls, so my guesses don't mean much. The proof will be in the pudding. I remain hopeful because so far, all the new mechanics they've shown us (CS fighters, sorcerers and warlocks) seem to be hitting all the right notes to me (while they may all still have rough edges and balance issues that can be hashed out in playtesting).

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

...

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.

I'm not sure if the first part was ironic, given the second part of your post.

Anyway, I think none of the fighter maneuvers should be available to others, exactly because you can parry, shift, trip, push (not purely in RP terms, but also mechanically) without using the manoeuvers.

Not all these actions are there yet, but e.g. the narrative combat module will introduce ways to do these on a bonus/malus basis (for example give up some damage in exchange for tripping) and these will be available to all characters without even needing to "spend" something.

Then there are feats, most of which are combat related so far, which give you "special abilities" with a net benefit, but cost something (a feat, that is) so you invest in them. Still, they are available to every class. You can have a feat that lets you trip for a net benefit instead of for a trade-off like the maneuver from the narrative combat module.

Finally there is a tripping ability from the Fighter's fighting styles. That ability is supposed to be superior to even the feat, in fact these maneuver tend to be totally additional effects, you don't even need to give up anything in a trade off, not even your own action. You add tripping to your attack, while everybody else replaces a normal attack with a trip action.

This is the perfect ground for designing a Fighter that finally is attractive as a single class because she gets something unique, without preventing anybody else to attempt a similar effect, just not in addition.

If the Ranger or Barbarian isn't happy enough to be able to trip in exchange to some cost (either the occasional cost of a penalty or giving up an action [narrative combat module) or the permanent cost of spending a feat), but pretends access to a Fighter's own schtik... then multiclass into Fighter! There will be at least 3 ways to trip, what else do they want?

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

I think it might not be an issue at all. CS is used on a round basis, i.e. you use all your expertise dice in the course of one round, turn-to-turn (you can save them up for reactions before your next turn).

Thus presumably if you have 2 attacks at a higher level, you still have the same expertise dice, and you split them up as you wish. Maybe sometimes you want to spend all exp.dice on the first attack, and other times you spread them over multiple attacks.

Note that currently the CS mechanic is quite generous, in the sense that you can choose to apply an exp.dice after knowing the result of the attack [this might change later, but IMHO it's how it currently reads]