D&D 5E Expertise Dice - some problems and some solutions

[Sadrik]

I know there are a ton of ED threads and I have not read them. So hopefully I am treading new water here.

First of all ED appear to just replicate combat feats and put them into a system of minor actions that are usable only by martial based characters. They are sort of the complication that martial classes are given in response to the complication that spell based classes have.

I did not like the second playtest for a number of reasons but the key one for me was that ED was given only to the fighter and it really took all of the combat feats of prior editions and essentially made them fighter only abilities. The other thing I did not like is the damage bloat. Fighters added +1d6 damage to every attack. This change caused the rogue to now add +2d6 damage on their sneak attack. It was out of hand.

I suggested back then that it should be a system wide ability that monsters and other characters such as the rogue should benefit from. Others did too and we now see the implementation of that. I am still not sold on it though.

Ok so here are some of the issues I see:
I would like to see a simple fighter, one that does not have to manage points round to round.
Damage bloat is keyed down a bit, but I still see it there.
What about other non-martial classes are they barred from using combat feats now? Yes.
Rolling all the bonus dice to resolve the actions is a little bit of a time sink.

So to solve my issues with ED
I suggest removing the die type from the equation just make them points, Fighters might get 1 point every odd level, why fiddle with dice when you do not have to. This helps with damage bloat, so if you are 5th level you only add +3 damage, not +2d6 damage. You can spend the points to do maneuvers as you normally would too. Perhaps, there could even be a maneuver that adds +1d6 damage that could cost 2 or 3 points. Encourage the use of tokens to keep track of them from turn to turn. It offers a little more variety too. Cleave for 1 point, parry for +X points = to points spent etc.

I would suggest that all characters and monsters get them but at different rates. In this way, all players can make use of combat feats, as they should. This could be the 3e BAB of 5e. Fighters get 1/2 level in points, rogues and clerics 1/3 level in points and wizards 1/4 level in points. Monsters and other classes would fall in line with those.

So the last thing is these combat abilities should be a module. Say what? yeah, optional. Still get the points, but the additional maneuvers should be tacked on. Perhaps points are just added to hit and damage as bonuses in a game where maneuvers are not used. Anyway point is this is something that is bought into by the group playing not an automatic complication.

 

[Li Shenron]

I strongly disagree for a variety of reasons.

1) I do not understand why would you like a simpler fighter, and then suggest that every class (including the fighter) is complicated with your point-based system.

There are classes in the game (basically all spellcasters) that by nature are complex enough to play even if you don't give them anything more than their basic vancian (or similar) spellcasting. Personally I don't want them to be by default more complicated than that (but I'm totally ok if a player has options for more complexity) so that even my casual players can play a Wizard just because they think the idea is cool.

Fighter has always been the simplest class, exactly because of lack of a unique mechanic. But ED allowed the non-casual players to play a single-class Fighter in a more complex way; the beauty of ED was that the casual player who really wants to keep it as simple as possible, could just default to Deadly Strike every round (no slow down, they just know they roll 2 damage dice instead of one) and losing only in terms of tactical flexibility but not in terms of effectiveness.

These (and making the Fighter more unique) are the reasons why I like ED as a Fighter-unique mechanic, but I don't want it to be given to other classes.

2) The argument about feats must be put in the right perspective. What is really important is that narratively there is nothing that a character couldn't do because there's a Fighter-only option for it. I mean, just because there's an ED ability called "parry" doesn't mean that the other characters cannot parry, it only means that they cannot use that specific mechanic called "parry".

If they really want the specific mechanic, there is always multiclassing.

EDIT: Where I totally agree with you is that if you make such system available across all classes, then it actually becomes a nice optional layer of complexity. That would be totally fine, and I think your point-based system itself is interesting (thus I disagree with your premises, but I think your proposal itself will probably work nicely).

 

[Sadrik]

I strongly disagree for a variety of reasons.

1) why would you like a simpler fighter

To allow young players or players who do not want to bother with complex record keeping or constant book look ups of powers to have something.

1b) every class (including the fighter) is complicated with your point-based system.

Yes but again as I stated above it would be similar to the BAB of 3e. In fact the current "weapon attack" "magic attack" system could be incorporated theoretically into this concept. I am just throwing out ideas. The point is, the problems that I addressed above are not being handled with the current ED system.

2) What is really important is that narratively there is nothing that a character couldn't do because there's a Fighter-only option for it.

I agree and do not have a problem with this concept. Because something is named parry does not mean that you can only parry with this ability. Non-issue.

2b) If they really want the specific mechanic, there is always multiclassing.

I look forward to a very robust multiclassing system. I agree that a holistic approach to game design is key. If you focus on making one class to specific or if broad concepts are stuck only in one place then you have a problem. I think the latter is the issue with ED.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just as a note... 'damage bloat' is one of the key foundations of Bounded Accuracy in the system. There's supposed to be extremely high damage totals.

Attack bonuses and Armor Class are held low. This way... all levels of monsters and PCs have a fair possibility of still hitting each other, despite what might be fairly substantial difference in level. Thus, lower level creatures can remain possible threats for longer while the PC gains levels.

The way to then distinguish higher level monsters and PCs being more powerful is that they have higher HP totals and do higher damage. Thus... while the Level 1 kobold might still be able to hit the Level 7 PC somewhat often... they will do substantially less damage each time, and the PC's hit points pretty much assure him of not going down. And the Level 7 PC can then probably one-shot the kobold due to high damage / low AC.

Reducing damage totals is the antithesis to this design. The key of course is just balancing HP and damage at each level versus attack bonus and AC... so that one doesn't outclass the other too much.

 

[Sadrik]

Just as a note... 'damage bloat' is one of the key foundations of Bounded Accuracy in the system. There's supposed to be extremely high damage totals.

Attack bonuses and Armor Class are held low. This way... all levels of monsters and PCs have a fair possibility of still hitting each other, despite what might be fairly substantial difference in level. Thus, lower level creatures can remain possible threats for longer while the PC gains levels.

The way to then distinguish higher level monsters and PCs being more powerful is that they have higher HP totals and do higher damage. Thus... while the Level 1 kobold might still be able to hit the Level 7 PC somewhat often... they will do substantially less damage each time, and the PC's hit points pretty much assure him of not going down. And the Level 7 PC can then probably one-shot the kobold due to high damage / low AC.

Reducing damage totals is the antithesis to this design. The key of course is just balancing HP and damage at each level versus attack bonus and AC... so that one doesn't outclass the other too much.

I agree, the only decision point in this is how much and in relation to what. Currently all characters deal more damage as they level up. At the most basic level warrior types get bonus attacks, and casters get more powerful damage spells and effect spells.

By having AC level independent it gives credence to creatures or characters that are hard to hit at any level. By having HP escalate with level you also have to have damage escalate with level. This is obvious, the question is the actual numbers. There are a lot of factors. Multiple attacks, bonuses to hit, targets AC, magic item damage bonus, ED, Feats, Maneuvers, HP scaling, ratio, between damage output and monster HP... mix all that up and you arrive at a place that can feel right to some players and way off for others. This is the essence of the game right here though. This will affect how the game feels during play. Getting that ratio right is extremely important.

So when I call out damage bloat as an issue, I am saying that level appropriate damage is not accurate. When a first level fighter is hitting for 1d12+1d4+4 (13) against a 2hp kobold or an 11hp hobgoblin... something is not right. The reaction might be to say oh see look the kobold needs more hp. I say no, damage needs to drop. The ratio is off. Another example a 5th level fighter is hitting for 1d12+2d6+4 against a 42 hp owlbear (a level 5 critter) with the other 4 player characters in the party hitting it too this creature is toast in 1 round. Is that right? How does that feel to you? This is spamable damage not a once per day ability. Meanwhile a fireball deals 5d6... The exact same damage average but a limited resource...

 

[ren1999]

I agree with your comments about XD, but I don't agree with your point buy system, that makes it as difficult to track as damage conditions in 4th edition. I have a simple solution. Give every class extra actions and reactions in order to emulate maneuvers and keep the damage constant. 3d10 at 10th level as added damage is ridiculous. I need to modify the hit points of all the monsters in the play-test to make them challenging to a 10th level character.

Here is another issue concerning damage bonuses. Will your weapon bonus and strength bonus be added to a strength based melee attack and damage? If so, we are going way over the +10 bounded accuracy goal. Add XD to that and now we've got a broken system.

 

[pemerton]

ED was given only to the fighter and it really took all of the combat feats of prior editions and essentially made them fighter only abilities.

<snip>

I would suggest that all characters and monsters get them but at different rates. In this way, all players can make use of combat feats, as they should.

I'm not sure about your "as they should". Fighters and rogues don't get spells. Why should casters be able to do fighter and rogue tricks? Isn't that what multi-class rules are for?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree, the only decision point in this is how much and in relation to what. Currently all characters deal more damage as they level up. At the most basic level warrior types get bonus attacks, and casters get more powerful damage spells and effect spells.

By having AC level independent it gives credence to creatures or characters that are hard to hit at any level. By having HP escalate with level you also have to have damage escalate with level. This is obvious, the question is the actual numbers. There are a lot of factors. Multiple attacks, bonuses to hit, targets AC, magic item damage bonus, ED, Feats, Maneuvers, HP scaling, ratio, between damage output and monster HP... mix all that up and you arrive at a place that can feel right to some players and way off for others. This is the essence of the game right here though. This will affect how the game feels during play. Getting that ratio right is extremely important.

So when I call out damage bloat as an issue, I am saying that level appropriate damage is not accurate. When a first level fighter is hitting for 1d12+1d4+4 (13) against a 2hp kobold or an 11hp hobgoblin... something is not right. The reaction might be to say oh see look the kobold needs more hp. I say no, damage needs to drop. The ratio is off. Another example a 5th level fighter is hitting for 1d12+2d6+4 against a 42 hp owlbear (a level 5 critter) with the other 4 player characters in the party hitting it too this creature is toast in 1 round. Is that right? How does that feel to you? This is spamable damage not a once per day ability. Meanwhile a fireball deals 5d6... The exact same damage average but a limited resource...

I´d like to have static damage bonuses from stats removed from weapon damage. They are the source of all problems. They are increasing min damage, which is the main source of hp bloat.
Just add the ability modifer as a to-hit bonus and suddenly stats are not too important anymore. A low level fighter with his ed will still do enough damage.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Another example a 5th level fighter is hitting for 1d12+2d6+4 against a 42 hp owlbear (a level 5 critter) with the other 4 player characters in the party hitting it too this creature is toast in 1 round. Is that right? How does that feel to you? This is spamable damage not a once per day ability. Meanwhile a fireball deals 5d6... The exact same damage average but a limited resource...

I do think they are aiming for quicker combat - lasting fewer rounds, but yeah some tweaking is probably needed.

Comparing the fighter's 1d12+2d6+4 = 17.5 damage to the Wizards 5d6 = 17.5 damage fireball and just looking at the damage numbers is missing part of the point.

Let's say the fighter has a 65% chance to hit, while the fireball has a 50% chance of getting saved. Average damage for the fighter is 11.4 while the wizard is doing 13.1 damage. Let's say the fireball hits 5 targets - it's a daily resource so you probably spend it when it hits a lot of targets, it now does 65.5 damage vs 11.4 for the fighter.

Personally, I think fireball looks like a spell that can completely dominate the outcome of one encounter per day. Just like Wizards did in earlier editions. (I played in a campaign with a wizard that did pretty good blast damage, but against low ac opponents, the fighter with 15-20x2 crit and two-handed power attack and cleave was right up there and could dish out the damage every round. He did get much bigger benefits from buffing with haste/prayer/bless really upping his damage output).

 

[Sadrik]

I´d like to have static damage bonuses from stats removed from weapon damage. They are the source of all problems. They are increasing min damage, which is the main source of hp bloat.
Just add the ability modifer as a to-hit bonus and suddenly stats are not too important anymore. A low level fighter with his ed will still do enough damage.

I actually do not agree with this assessment. If you ever played a high level fighter in 3e you got multiple bonuses to hit with each attack (recalculating for conditional modifiers) and then for damage you generally rolled multiple die types flaming frost etc. It was nuts, they are bringing that in at a lower level with ED. I would rather see damage expressed as weapon roll + static numbers. Clearly I am not writing this RPG, I would do it this way though if I were.