Expertise Dice

[Falling Icicle]

I think there is plenty of room for debate here.

With flatter attack/AC math and larger damage/HP spread, a kobold is never a life threat to high-level PCs, but is always a penalty for them (by grinding their HP a little).

Consequences of this are that tossing a kobold into an encounter always makes a difference, small but totally under control, hence you can (if you want) still feature kobolds in your game at all levels. Second consequence, lots of kobolds together can become also a large threat (but here I want to see how they manage to make the encounter easy to run... probably mob or swarm rules at some point).

The opposite approach: large attack/AC spread and small damage/HP spread. This leads to kobold forever being a life threat (they can kill you in one or few blows) but more and more rarely (need a roll of 20 to hit).
Consequence is that probably encounter design is more difficult... if you toss a kobold or two into a high-level fight, it's not so easy to predict their effect.

However D&D was never this second case. There has always at least be a large HP spread (even in old D&D, although HP at some level go up very slowly, but still this is only after level 10) so typically both the attack bonus/AC and the damage/HP spreads have been large. WotC just wants to avoid having this because it makes monsters obsolete early in the game.

The way I see it, having lower level creatures/characters do way less damage and having way less hp than higher level ones makes them just as irrelevant. It's fine for those things to scale, I'm not suggesting that a 20th level character should have the same hp and damage as a 1st level one, I just prefer that difference not be too extreme. What do I consider "too extreme?" Well, high level characters that have so many hps that they can laugh off the maximum damage from falling from any height, or that can survive being dunked in lava, are good examples.

In a combat-centric game yes, especially if combat is usually reduced to attrition, but on a game that features the other pillars on par with combat, or at least a game where combat is more dynamic and damage is just the simplest tactic but often not the best, then even a 4x damage output can be fine.

I wouldn't have a problem with such large numbers for ED, if it was only the Fighter: it's the most combat-focused class so it allows someone to be extremely good at fighting at the cost of lacking in everything else. I am instead not so much in favor of damage boost to spells and abilities of all the other classes.

I think that attempting to balance character classes across pillars is a terrible idea. A fighter shouldn't be 4x better than a wizard in combat becuase the wizard is 4x better in the exploration or social pillar. For one thing, what if I'm an evoker type wizard that focuses on combat spells and has few or no social or exploration magics? Why should that character suck just because he could have chosen the other options? Trying to balance a character's weaknesses and strengths across pillars is a doomed exercise. They're apples and oranges, and one does not in any way equate to the others.

All character classes need to have a certain degree of basic competence in all three pillars, IMO. To me, it's simply unaccaptable to just let wizards suck in combat or just let fighters suck at exploration. Players shouldn't be left twiddling their thumbs during 1/3 or 2/3 of the game because the class they chose sucks at those things and can't meaningfully contribute. Right now, fighters do suck at the other two pillars. But that needs to change! Make fighters better at exploration and interaction. Don't make wizards pay for a fighter's design faults by making them suck at a pillar too.

Besides, wizards have traditionally been the glass cannon class, able to do incredible amounts of damage but paying for it with pitifully low hp, inability to wear armor and other such weaknesses. That, and it just doesn't make sense to me that a wizard throwing around fireballs and bolts of lighting should be inflicting significantly less harm than swords and arrows.

 

[Iosue]

I'm very happy with this article. I was getting a bit leery that all these other classes were getting the one Nice Thing that fighters got in Next, so I'm glad they realize that fighters now need a new Nice Thing. Is fighter-exclusive Parry the answer? Maybe not. But I'm just taking Mearls' suggestion here as spitballing, like when they earlier suggested fighters getting an extra feat.

Plus, Expertise Dice address one of my problems with Classic D&D, in that as monsters grew more powerful, they starting getting craptonnes of hit points, but the fighter's damage output remained relatively low, necessitating high damage magic, or grindy combat.

Further, this maintains the necessary modularity that lets a player play a very simple character alongside others who want bells and whistles.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I liked how in 4e the "striker" classes did more damage, but not so much more than other classes that they felt useless. Rangers and warlocks got +1d6 damage from their striker abilities, IIRC. Rogues got +2d6, but that was to make up for their situational sneak attack and weaker weapon selection. And those bonuses didn't increase until levels 11 and 21, and the increases were quite modest.

Say whatever you will about 4th edition, but at least it was mathematically solid and very well balanced. Even the worst math mistakes of 4th edition (like the expertise tax) are tiny in comparison to the enormous balance problems in Next. The damage potential of various classes isn't even remotely balanced. Spell damage is all over the place. At-Will Spell damage is pitiful, as is the damage of things like alchemist's fire. Monster HP seem to be completely aribitrary and contrived.

They really need to sit down and think this through.

I think it is just the opposite... the damage inflicted by striker classes feels so much, that other classes (before essentials) feel useless... controller damage is pitiful.

Monsters scale so badly that it hurts (again, before essentials)...*

Not only attack bonus increases, but damage too, not only HP, but AC and defenses. In such a world, combat only works great if you fight something near your level. Monsters higher than you not only hit much harder... they also hit a lot more often... they are not only hard to hit, but a hit seems like just a scratch...

At least in 4e next, only damage and hp scale (at least on the monster´s side). On the players side AC and attack bonuses just slightly and not as a strict function of level.

So even though 4e tried hard to make combat work smoothly, they didn´t do everything right. Instead they did something right and something wrong and fixed those wrong things with things like minions, elites, solos and guidelines, which monsters you should put against the PCs.

4e could have been rock solid wit a few tweaks, and essentials did a very good job at tweaking, but those changes were too little, too late... and for the hardcore 4e fans even in the wrong direction.

(note that I really bough in, when essentials hit the floor, and enjoyed the game, but don´t tell me the math is rock solid...)

*actually monsters do work quite ok, even outside the expected range... but it is really no fun... (remember the playtest report of the paladin vs the angel?)

 

[Baumi]

Now I like SOME classes with Arcane or Divine Expertise (balanced with Martial and At-Will instead of Daily, but all with their own flair)

 

[Klaus]

I think the Fighter's schtick should be based on his choice of weapons, aka Weapon Specialization. Make it so a Fighter can eke out the maximum potential of the weapon he focuses on.

 

[CM]

What do I consider "too extreme?" Well, high level characters that have so many hps that they can laugh off the maximum damage from falling from any height, or that can survive being dunked in lava, are good examples.

I think these are problems with the environmental hazard rules rather than the HP scaling.

These sorts of things should bypass HP, but high-level characters should have some advantage.

 

[Zaukrie]

Loved this article. My only concern is grindy battles if the hp gets too high. Love the flat math on to hit.

 

[El Mahdi]

I shuddered when they mentioned giving the Paladin expertise dice. The last time they mentioned him his defining characteristic was Smite. If they give him Expertise dice just put him out to pasture along with his mount. The Paladin is defined by his Divine Power source. Keep him out of the Expertise pool. He's Faith-driven, not powered by Expertise.

Not everyone sees the Paladin in this manner. Many do see the Paladin as Martial-driven, and that the Paladin has simply dedicated that Martial ability to their God. From a Martial aspect, Paladins are powered by Expertise. What sets them apart is that they also have the immediate backing of their God because of their devotion and adherence to an ethos, faith, or code.

My viewpoint is obviously not the only one. I view Paladins as Knights that have dedicated their life to a God (like a Templar or Hospitaler), rather than to a liege lord. They were trained as Warriors, and then dedicated their sword to their God.

A Paladin class that chooses only one of these viewpoints as a default, without acknowledging the others or incorporating the flexibility to be either, is a Paladin class that's doomed to failure.

 

[B.T.]

For all the talk of flatter math, they've just replaced attack bonus bloat with hp and damage bloat, which I think is even worse. Expertise dice right now scale to a ridiculous degree. The result is quadratic fighters and linear wizards. It's okay for the fighter to get a damage bonus. It's not okay for a fighter to do 4x (or more) as much damage per hit as a wizard or cleric.

What.

Say whatever you will about 4th edition, but at least it was mathematically solid and very well balanced. Even the worst math mistakes of 4th edition (like the expertise tax) are tiny in comparison to the enormous balance problems in Next.

Consistently adding +8 to +10 on attack rolls is a "tiny" mistake? Admitting that the entire first Monster Manual was done incorrectly is a "tiny" mistake? Gross monster hit point inflation leading to grindy fights is a "tiny" mistake? 4e math was "mathematically solid" in the sense that it was marginally better than 3e's.

 

[mlund]

With flatter attack/AC math and larger damage/HP spread, a kobold is never a life threat to high-level PCs, but is always a penalty for them (by grinding their HP a little).

Consequences of this are that tossing a kobold into an encounter always makes a difference, small but totally under control, hence you can (if you want) still feature kobolds in your game at all levels. Second consequence, lots of kobolds together can become also a large threat (but here I want to see how they manage to make the encounter easy to run... probably mob or swarm rules at some point).

It also reduces or removes the need to mechanically alter a lower-level monster into a higher-level minion like 4E did. In a system that levels primarily on damage escalation instead of To-Hit/HP this takes care of itself organically without the need for modification. That level of simplicity is absolutely brilliant.

The opposite approach: large attack/AC spread and small damage/HP spread. This leads to kobold forever being a life threat (they can kill you in one or few blows) but more and more rarely (need a roll of 20 to hit).

Yup, this alternative model has proven terrible in edition after edition. It was swingy, time-consuming, and required bolting on class levels or converting into rules for Mobs. It isn't that those things aren't fun some times, but they definitely aren't as elegant and simple to use.

Not everyone sees the Paladin in this manner.

Well, that's nice and all, but it won't fall as crisply in line with the class design they've proposed to justify giving the Paladin a stand-alone class. What you're describing is one of the following:

1.) A Fighter with a religious Background and a Divine specialty
2.) A Fighter with a bunch of unbalanced extras bolted on (AD&D silliness)
3.) A terrible excuse for a multi-class Cleric-Fighter

The shtick that justifies the Paladin not being subsumed into the spectrum of Fighter-build, Fighter/Cleric, War-cleric build is that his core identity is driven off a unique mechanic of faith manifest from a code and he gets to Smite. Take that away to pirate the Expertise system and you've got a Paladin that's nothing but class-bloat.

- Marty Lund