Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[cmbarona]

First, please explain what you mean by parry being "the single ability currently usable with expertise dice."

Second, I agree with your analysis of 3.X fighters and multiclassing. However, I either don't quite understand your argument about ED needing to be fighter-exclusive, or I don't agree with your conclusions. You seem to be assuming that I'm arguing that, even if Maneuvers such as Parry are available to other classes, that accessing that ability necessarily follow the rules of the Fighter's CS. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm suggesting is that other classes access ED, but how they access those dice, and which Maneuvers they can access, differs greatly from a Fighter. Perhaps a Paladin could use Parry, but not as often as the Fighter, or his means of accessing ED were much more limited (maybe an Encounter resource, I don't know). If it seems that everyone will want a couple of Fighter levels, or whatever, in multiclassing, then I think we've already got ahead of ourselves. Multiclassing is its own can of worms. It's important to set design goals of multiclassing at this point, but to look at that end as a way of addressing discrete class design and interaction now would be, I believe, an inversion of the ideal design process.

Going back to shared vs. unique mechanics here... Again, with the proposal currently on the table (ED not Fighter-exclusive), I think a spell caster analogy is helpful. To quote you, I hope not out of context,

"But if both of these are allowed to another class, and then presumably on the same ground also many others will be, then we have a first problem related to the fact that other classes can get more or less anything that the Fighter can, while the opposite is not true. This is just plain unfair."

Similar notions are found in the interaction between Wizard and Sorceror. There is some spell list overlap (in this thread, we are proposing Maneuver overlap), but also some spell list distinction (also being proposed in Maneuvers). There are, further, class ability distinctions; the Wizard has fewer distinct features (for now), but the Sorceror is clearly different, and the Wizard cannot access those features. I would argue that they are both viable classes, maybe needing some balance adjustments. Do you disagree? And what's further being proposed in this thread is that Fighters and, say, Rangers or Rogues, can stand some ED/Maneuver overlap while all remain distinct and viable. Do you disagree with that?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

An obvious option is to grant fewer maneuvers and smaller dice pools to the Rgr/Pal/Barb and have their progression lag behind the fighter. This would establish the fighter as the preeminent combatant.

You could have variations based on class, for example the barbarian raging would lose all maneuvers except for extra dmg, and either bump the dice up or otherwise bump dmg.

As for multiclassing, well the designers would need to be judicious about stacking rules for the progression. I suspect overlap rather than stacking would need to be implemented - a Rgr going 1 level of Ftr should not gain 3 new maneuvers and extra dice on top of what they have. I would need to see the progression table to work on this.

 

[The Shadow]

As for multiclassing, well the designers would need to be judicious about stacking rules for the progression. I suspect overlap rather than stacking would need to be implemented - a Rgr going 1 level of Ftr should not gain 3 new maneuvers and extra dice on top of what they have. I would need to see the progression table to work on this.

I think overlap is the only way to go. I'm seeing a unified progression that all the martial classes share - though some might lag a level or two behind. ie, "Class X gets Combat Superiority as a fighter of level - 1."

You find your total level of martial classes, and find your dice. Then, every odd level of martial classes, you get a new maneuver. Depending on the generosity of the rules and/or DM, that maneuver might come from your present class, or from any martial class you have levels of.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Fair enough, although the "Is mechanic X evocative of ability Y?" question is a huge rabbit hole (cf. every magic system ever) and not one I'm particularly inclined to go 10 rounds on. I personally don't think sneak attack serves the rogue's image very well, not because sneak attacks aren't well modeled by extra damage or because the idea of the sneak attack is at odds with the idea of a rogue, but because the conceit that what a rogue principally does is sneak attack strikes me as unhelpfully narrow.

I think the question of evocativeness is absolutely one that has to be confronted - classes shouldn't have mechanics that don't suit their image and story, and their mechanics should enhance their image and story rather than being neutral.

I think Sneak Attacks successfully evoke an important aspect of being a Rogue - they shouldn't be the beginning and the end of it, but for a long time, they've done a good job at what they do.

I think the main thing would be drawing connections between classes and the broader world of martial options, of all these characters interacting in the fictional space in a coherent (but not identical) fashion. For any "maneuver" you might like to see I'm sure we could come up with an extension of existing rogue mechanics to achieve that effect. What would be missing isn't the effect, it is the coherent connection to other game elements.

Why should there be connections, if they don't exist in the class concepts? Rogues aren't trained warriors; they spend their time trying to avoid fair fights whenever possible. Their mechanics should reflect that. Rangers are wilderness experts and hunters; which means their training is in stalking, ambushing, and laying traps - not shoulder-to-shoulder infantry combat. Barbarians are untrained natural fighters who are uncontrolled berserkers, and their mechanics should reflect that wildness; Expertise Dice reflect disciplined and intelligent combatants who can react to changing conditions on the battlefields by selecting maneuvers they've trained for years to perfect. The two systems don't match.

Paladins are warriors, but they're warriors who have profoundly been touched by higher powers, and their mechanics should reflect that. And unless we're going to make Paladins simply better than Fighters, there's a tradeoff that comes with the ability to lay on hands, smite your enemies, and otherwise channel the divine.

The rogue doesn't need to do any of those things, but I bet most rogues would find a few things on there they might find appealing. Could you do any of those things with other mechanics besides ED? Of course, mechanics are arbitrary. I think there is something to be said for having a single system to handle effects like these that all the martial classes could tap into, rather than writing a new mechanic for each subset of them that would reasonably be used by a given class. Having different mechanical subsystems to do similar tasks certainly does emphasize distinctions, but it also tends to hide similarities and obscure interactions. I'd like to have it both ways, if possible.

Mechanics are absolutely not arbitrary. Mechanics define gameplay and should be as evocative of the character as possible. Having classes share mechanics for simplicity's sake alone decreases the distinctiveness of the classes, because their mechanics aren't as identifiable of their class any more. While I think a lot of the criticism about 4e was overblown, the shift from spellcasters using Vancian magic to being on the same AEDU schedule as other classes did make their mechanics less distinctively spellcastery.

Thus, if you can accomplish the same design goal for the Rogue (or any other "martial" class) without copying a mechanic, you should absolutely do so.

Ahh, different book, no worries! Yes, you are correct about the difference between how a fighter might spend ED and the way a 3.5 rogue might use the ambush feats. But there is no reason to assume rogues have to spend ED in the same manner as the playtest fighter (though they might) any more than there is reason to suppose they would gain it in the same manner. For example, I could define that rogues (or just a specific scheme) gain and usually spend ED parallel to these feats:

Tricky Combatant: The rogue gains nd6 ED the first time each round it hits an opponent against which it has advantage. A rogue starts with one known maneuver, and learns an additional one every 3 levels. When the rogue has advantage against a target it may spend ED to activate certain combat maneuvers after the attack is known to be successful, even if the maneuver normally requires a character to spend ED before making the attack. Only maneuvers learned by rogue levels may gain this benefit. [A list or method to make it clear to exactly what maneuvers this could apply.]

That's just a sketch of how it might look, but you can see that it could almost exactly replicate the existing feel of sneak attack and the ambush feats (although this rogue could also choose not to spend the ED immediately), while hooking into a system other martial combatants use. Just because the fighter and the rogue could both speak the language of ED doesn't mean they have the same things to say!

Ok, but what I'm not seeing here is the value added from "hooking into" ED. How does it make the Rogue's playstyle feel more rogueish, as opposed to slotting in Ambush Feats into existing Schemes?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the question of evocativeness is absolutely one that has to be confronted - classes shouldn't have mechanics that don't suit their image and story, and their mechanics should enhance their image and story rather than being neutral.

I tend to disagree. Mechanics can only go so far in evoking anything. As long as a mechanic is a decent resolution model, it doesn't matter if it gets used multiple times. It doesn't hurt if a bow and a sword both do 1d8 damage, for instance.

Mechanics are absolutely not arbitrary.

I'm guessing you're trying to get a point across, but it can't be, literally, that mechanics aren't arbitrary. I don't see how they could fail to be. Not saying your point's wrong, just that that sentence failed to convey it to me in a big way.

Mechanics define gameplay and should be as evocative of the character as possible. Having classes share mechanics for simplicity's sake alone decreases the distinctiveness of the classes, because their mechanics aren't as identifiable of their class any more.

Only in the most simplistic terms is that true. If a resolution mechanic is a decent model for the action or ability being resolved, it doesn't matter if its the same mechanic as is used elsewhere for something conceptually different. Consistency and simplicity, OTOH, are highly desirable traits for game mechanics.

So there's good reasons for taking whatever mechanics are used for weapon combat, and using them for everyone who uses weapons (and, historically, that's all D&D classes). And, there's just as good reasons for putting all PCs on a common experience chart (like 3e) or advancement structure (like 4e).

There is a trade-off, though. It's harder to write for a system like that. It's easier to /play/ but harder to make. IMHO, that's why it's worth buying a game rather than making one up yourself. Because creating a good game that's easy to play and run is /hard/.

While I think a lot of the criticism about 4e was overblown, the shift from spellcasters using Vancian magic to being on the same AEDU schedule as other classes did make their mechanics less distinctively spellcastery.

Yeah? How many non-caster powers used implements? None. That, alone, made casters mechanically distinct. AEDU was OK, but the fact that it was used by all classes was the a strength of the system, it made it balancing classes much more practical.

 

[Li Shenron]

First, please explain what you mean by parry being "the single ability currently usable with expertise dice."

I just meant the specific Parry ability in the playtest rules, which is usable only via ED.

(as opposed to generically say "I want my paladin to be able to parry in combat", which doesn't necessarily require that specific Parry ability above)

What I'm suggesting is that other classes access ED, but how they access those dice, and which Maneuvers they can access, differs greatly from a Fighter. Perhaps a Paladin could use Parry, but not as often as the Fighter, or his means of accessing ED were much more limited (maybe an Encounter resource, I don't know).

I don't know...

If you keep ED completely exclusive to the Fighter, you achieve a certain level of "protection", meaning that CS/ED can be one reason for wanting to play a Fighter, if both the mechanic and the effects (e.g. Parry, Deadly Strike) are not normally available to other classes.

If other classes share the ED mechanics with the Fighter but the effects are different (at least in the sense that a good number of options can be chosen only by the Fighter) you may still have a good enough level of protection.

The danger I see, is that the argument "why shouldn't my Paladin be also able to learn Parry" (the specific Parry) can be applied to everything. At some point, we need to stop and accept that some artificial restrictions are imposed, otherwise once again the Fighter class doesn't have enough uniqueness.

What I don't know is where to stop... I don't know if your suggestion still achieves a reasonable attractiveness for the Fighter class or is already too much so that the Fighter would be again only for level-dipping like in 3ed.

I think a spell caster analogy is helpful. To quote you, I hope not out of context,

"But if both of these are allowed to another class, and then presumably on the same ground also many others will be, then we have a first problem related to the fact that other classes can get more or less anything that the Fighter can, while the opposite is not true. This is just plain unfair."

Similar notions are found in the interaction between Wizard and Sorceror. There is some spell list overlap (in this thread, we are proposing Maneuver overlap), but also some spell list distinction (also being proposed in Maneuvers). There are, further, class ability distinctions; the Wizard has fewer distinct features (for now), but the Sorceror is clearly different, and the Wizard cannot access those features. I would argue that they are both viable classes, maybe needing some balance adjustments. Do you disagree? And what's further being proposed in this thread is that Fighters and, say, Rangers or Rogues, can stand some ED/Maneuver overlap while all remain distinct and viable. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, Wizard and Sorcerers are different enough!

My concern is that I don't believe that the same will easily happen for martial classes.

Wiz and Sor use totally different spellcasting methods that at the moment (like in 3ed) won't presumably stack or merge well. Maybe they'll change this when they define the multiclassing rules. But nevertheless the two classes are very different.

It's possible that also martial classes will have each its own ED system, significantly different to make sense to choose Fighter over another class, but my feeling is that there will still be issues on why the Fighter once again doesn't have his own schtik... It has now, it's CS/ED, if we spread this to other classes, do we have to find another own schtik?

Eventually the biggest problem is still multiclassing however. If you just ban multiclassing, you have no problems as long as the relative power of Fighter is the same as Paladin at every level.

Another possible development is that they let Wiz and Sor spellcasting (and other spellcasting classes as well) to merge when multiclassing. Remains to be seen then, what reason will be left from staying single class in every class, not just Fighter.

 

[Ainamacar]

I think the question of evocativeness is absolutely one that has to be confronted - classes shouldn't have mechanics that don't suit their image and story, and their mechanics should enhance their image and story rather than being neutral.

I was unclear. It is an important question that should be confronted, but at the moment I just don't have the time (or inclination) to confront it in the depth it would require.

Why should there be connections, if they don't exist in the class concepts? Rogues aren't trained warriors; they spend their time trying to avoid fair fights whenever possible. Their mechanics should reflect that. Rangers are wilderness experts and hunters; which means their training is in stalking, ambushing, and laying traps - not shoulder-to-shoulder infantry combat. Barbarians are untrained natural fighters who are uncontrolled berserkers, and their mechanics should reflect that wildness; Expertise Dice reflect disciplined and intelligent combatants who can react to changing conditions on the battlefields by selecting maneuvers they've trained for years to perfect. The two systems don't match.

Paladins are warriors, but they're warriors who have profoundly been touched by higher powers, and their mechanics should reflect that. And unless we're going to make Paladins simply better than Fighters, there's a tradeoff that comes with the ability to lay on hands, smite your enemies, and otherwise channel the divine.

(bold mine)

There are connections in class concepts! They are all adventuring types (or adventure capable anyway), all principally focused on physical weapons and attacks, etc. Do you not consider these part of "class concepts" because they share these things in common? That's a mistake, in my view, because how classes are the same is at least as important as how they are different. Their mechanics should also reflect their similarities. This is both/and, not either/or.

The bolded part is where we especially diverge, because it presumes what ED mean in a conversation in good part about what ED could mean! For the fighter that is exactly what ED might represent. For everyone else, it can represent other contributions, that work in different ways but have a common means of interaction. My preference is that ED represent the common language of martial interactions, just as hit points represent a common language for creature resilience. Within that framework I want a diversity of mechanics.

Your paladin example is particularly specious, as though using ED necessarily means that mechanic has the same power impact for all characters (thus overpowering paladins who can also do other stuff). Not only is that not necessarily true in general, in D&D it has essentially vanishing likelihood: there are just too many parameters to play with. A Paladin might have fewer uses, fewer dice, harder conditions with which to gain ED, etc. Those are possible trade-offs one could make while using an ED system and giving the Paladin separate touched-by-the-divine mechanics as well.

Mechanics are absolutely not arbitrary.

I could define resolution mechanics that use dice, cards, bidding, Jenga, throwing spaghetti at the wall, counting the number of sunspots in a randomly determined year, or whose mother's first name has the least Damerau-Levenshtein distance to a random word in the rule book. That these evoke (or not!) different things is irrelevant to the mechanic itself, because the mechanic doesn't mean anything by itself. Only in connection with game concepts (and through that other mechanics as well) does it acquire evocativeness. And evocativeness itself is probably not free of arbitrariness, since it is a subjective quality. When we agree that a mechanic is evocative, likewise, I doubt we have determined a property of the mechanic, but rather a property we happen to share in our relationship with the mechanic-game relationship. In either case, by that point I think we've ceased to talk about mechanics unto themselves and have started to talk about aesthetics -- a field in which whether objects-unto-themselves have these kinds of properties is a classical concern.

There are also trivial forms of arbitrariness which essentially always apply. In D&D if one doubles the damage (and any similar hp calculations) of every effect and doubles the hit points of every creature/object one will recover a game with different mechanics but identical outcomes. This shows that the game's mechanics always include an arbitrary positive integer scale factor.

Mechanics define gameplay and should be as evocative of the character as possible. Having classes share mechanics for simplicity's sake alone decreases the distinctiveness of the classes, because their mechanics aren't as identifiable of their class any more. While I think a lot of the criticism about 4e was overblown, the shift from spellcasters using Vancian magic to being on the same AEDU schedule as other classes did make their mechanics less distinctively spellcastery.

Thus, if you can accomplish the same design goal for the Rogue (or any other "martial" class) without copying a mechanic, you should absolutely do so.

Ok, but what I'm not seeing here is the value added from "hooking into" ED. How does it make the Rogue's playstyle feel more rogueish, as opposed to slotting in Ambush Feats into existing Schemes?

I value similarity and distinctiveness, because each has beneficial effects. I guess maybe we're just trying to achieve different "design goal"s in general, because in my book if you can have a mechanic that does at least as much as a different mechanic then one should strongly consider exploring it. That's all I want, an honest exploration of the idea. The multiclass implications alone convince me it is worth examining, but let me try and think of ways that a rogue by itself could use ED in a way distinct from sneak attack:

• Any effect the rogue performs not on its turn, since typically all sneak attack resources must be used when making that attack, even if the effects occur later. This is particularly true if the rogue can use ED in initiative checks or contests, which may occur before anyone has acted. And even if an ambush feat let one "keep" damage dice from a sneak attack to spend later, the initial conditions for generating those dice (i.e. requiring a sneak attack) may not be the same as the generating condition for the ED.
• To reiterate, the generating conditions themselves may be very different and support different styles of rogue. The sneak attack rogue gets a bonus when making a sneak attack, an ED rogue might gain ED in order to put itself in a better tactical position in the first place, not as a reward for doing so. Different resource recovery incentivizes different playstyles.
• Using ED to escape combat, perform acrobatic stunts, set up elaborate multi-round feints, etc. rather than engage (something sneak attack absolutely requires).

Maybe none of those things seem like they would address your concerns, but I think that makes you the perfect person to playtest them. I disliked the idea of AEDU, and after giving it a fair shake my dislike stuck with me. The same might happen for you here, but only if you're willing to play it on its own terms first. On the other hand, I can name several cases where my initial distaste for a mechanic turned to appreciation (and vice versa), but only after playing it. I hope a universal ED interface makes it into a future playtest, so the entire community can move from an interesting discussion on game theory to seeing whether it stands or falls in play. I have no doubt that even after such a test, YMMV, but that is more knowledge than we have now.

---

Combination Strike: Whenever a monk rolls a CS dice, and rolls a 6 or better, he gains another CS dice. This dice must be used on a combat maneuver the monk has not yet used this round. If a maneuver does not require a dice roll, the monk should roll anyway to check for combination strike.

I could really dig something along these lines. It might not fit "peace and meditation" monks, but for styles that emphasize fluidity (a la Bruce Lee) or unpredictable attacks (drunken fist!) it could be very interesting. On a critical hit one might even lower the barrier for additional dice (make it a 5 or above) so that on a natural 20 monks are likely to string together something really astonishing.

 

[triqui]

I tend to disagree. Mechanics can only go so far in evoking anything. As long as a mechanic is a decent resolution model, it doesn't matter if it gets used multiple times. It doesn't hurt if a bow and a sword both do 1d8 damage, for instance.

I disagree with you here. While a mechanic does not *need* to be evocative, it *can* be so. for example, Deadlands initative and magic system (which use poker cards) is evocative of the Wild West genre. L5R mechanism to raise your rank (level), where you need to raise your *lower* abilities to get them balanced, is also evocative of the Zen culture and the Samurai's Bushido. And so on.

I think a game with evocative mechanics (that work) is better than a game without evocative mechanics (that also work).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree with you here.

Bows and swords /can't/ use the same damage dice?

While a mechanic does not *need* to be evocative, it *can* be so. ...
I think a game with evocative mechanics (that work) is better than a game without evocative mechanics (that also work).

Sure. But, what's evocative is subjective, while what's a functional mechanic is fairly concrete. Some games have succeeded wildly by being evocative of a genre or mood or whatever - WoD and CoC spring to mind - but they didn't succeed because their /mechanics/ were all that evocative (CoC just used the same Basic Roleplaying system as RuneQuest, with a 'Sanity' mechanic added on, for instance). Evocative, I think, ultimately, comes more from fluff and presentation.

 

[triqui]

Bows and swords /can't/ use the same damage dice?

They can, but it does hurt. 1d8, to be exact.

More seriously now, I meant I disagree with "Mechanics can only go so far in evoking anything."

Sure. But, what's evocative is subjective, while what's a functional mechanic is fairly concrete. Some games have succeeded wildly by being evocative of a genre or mood or whatever - WoD and CoC spring to mind - but they didn't succeed because their /mechanics/ were all that evocative (CoC just used the same Basic Roleplaying system as RuneQuest, with a 'Sanity' mechanic added on, for instance). Evocative, I think, ultimately, comes more from fluff and presentation.

Yes, it's subjetive. A certain mechanic (or fluff, for that matter) might be evocative for me, but not for you. However, that does not change my statment: an evocative rule (that works) is better than a non evocative rule (that also works). If a rule works for both you and me, and it's evocative for me, the rule is better than if it is not evocative for any of us. If the rule happen to be evocative for both of us, then it's even better.