Expertise Dice

[Grimmjow]

So basically this is D&D the expertise dice edition? It seems like a knee jerk reaction. Everyone loved what it did to help the fighter, now it seems that it's everywhere...

so far i think its okay. As long as not every class gets it then its an okay thing to do. When they mentioned paladin i was a little discouraged at first but i think paladin and ranger (who both should get spells) could get expertise dice. The expertise dice should not be as much as a fighter, rogue, monk, warlord, or barbarian. But its a good idea to give it to them, maybe only give them the same that the other classes would have by level 10? maybe 15?

 

[WhatGravitas]

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.

As long as that's not plain damage/attack bonus stuff, but something more flavourful that grows over levels, it'd be a fairly good shtick - a mace fighter knocks people around, a sword fighter hampers enemy mobility, a staff fighter attacks multiple opponents, a shield fighter protects allies... lots of potential for mechanics.

That level of simplicity is absolutely brilliant.

Good point! It *actually* allows minions without the need for a dedicated minion monster caste - I like that a lot.

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.

Yeah, though I wouldn't mind the paladin as a expertise-smite hybrid, similar to the monk now with the uses of ki (instead of stunning fist and wholeness of body, smite and lay on hands). There should be some further differentiation - but I don't think expertise are a no-no for the paladin. It just should not represent the paladin's divine powers.

 

[Tovec]

The expertise system should be unique to Martial characters only.

From what I'm reading from WotC, it is.

Any class that uses magical powers in combat (primal, divine, arcane, psionic, or otherwise) should be shut out of the Expertise System entirely.

What are these power sources of which you speak? [/sarcasm] But seriously, primal?

Only multi-classing should create a character who has access to the Spell System and the Maneuvers System at the same time.

I only partially disagree here. I can think of a few fringe cases, namely paladin and ranger, where they should be primarily martial classes and need some spells. I'll certainly agree that they shouldn't have a full progression in ED and a full progression in spells. Part progressions don't bother me.

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.

A. He is martial.
B. Explain power sources without using 4e terms, as (iirc) it was a 4e creation only.
C. Who says?
D. If his main schtick is to fight, usually in melee, and he does this regularly then he should have something to show his escalating proficiency in it.

I don't think no-cost Parry is the answer. I think the Fighter should be the only class with Parry on his list, though.

I can't believe how much I disagree or think the opposite about somethings you say Marty. I very much DON'T think that fighter should be the only one who can parry. Unless they redefine parry to be something completely other than it is in our reality.

I don't have a problem with block being a shield only ability, it is a defining characteristic of the shield. But parrying is something that you can do if you are trained to fight with a weapon.

The unique feature that I think would help give the Fighter a unique talent AND help a bit with his deficits outside of Combat would be a Stunt maneuver.

What kind of unique talent exactly? What should the fighter do that no one else can do? What is a 'fighter' anyway? How does that essential quality of fighter mean he can do something without anyone else being able to do it to? I'm sure all of these can be answered but I want to know what your answers are. I think my answers to these might surprise you.

I want to see fighters that leap from the saddle onto enemies with a thunderous crash. I want to see fighters that swing from chandeliers. I want to see Fighters that lift up a feast-hall table and toss it onto a trio of hobgoblins. I want to see Fighters wrestling a dire wolf's head under the waters of a fast-flowing river until the thing drowns to death.

First, I want to say that I can understand this playstyle and even why you would want to do it. I just want to add that it is not at all the kind of game I want to play. So I think that they need to be careful not to force my preference on you or your preference on me, but instead give options for both in a reasonably balanced way.

Second, you defined paladin by his mount but fighters are the only ones who can jump from their saddle onto enemies with a thunderous crash?

Third, all of these abilities fit much better in a superhero kind of game than in a typical fantasy game. At least, in my experience. That isn't a bad thing, but it is different enough that I don't think it should be standard.

Well the Fighter's unique feature should be a beautiful shiny button, a jolly candy-like button that says, "Have at it. Go nuts, kid," right there is raised lettering and bold type. Use the Expertise Dice as a guideline in terms of what the number crunching should work out to and let the player make a scene of it.

Actually, I think this is part of the problems with ED for me. I can't count how many times have I seen that maneuver X IS better than maneuver Y 99.9 times out of 100. If something is going to be an option then it should be a real option. That's why I think they have missed the mark with ED and need to go back the drawing board and think up something new. The ED does one thing but they are trying to make it do everything and that's where they run into problems. Maybe it should be fighter only, but I think in that case it shouldn't work anything like it does now. Maybe it needs to replace BAB from previous editions, but in that case they're doing it wrong (imho).

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.

Agreed, can't XP you again sadly.

Bloat is bloat, this form is as bad as any other.

 

[mlund]

As long as that's not plain damage/attack bonus stuff, but something more flavourful that grows over levels, it'd be a fairly good shtick - a mace fighter knocks people around, a sword fighter hampers enemy mobility, a staff fighter attacks multiple opponents, a shield fighter protects allies... lots of potential for mechanics.

Nah, I think that's just the territory where Maneuvers should get expanded to create better combat styles - weapon-class specific maneuvers or benefits to maneuvers.

If anything needs to get bolted onto the Fighter at this point it is something that let's him break the pattern of "I hit it with my [weapon name here] or I twiddle my thumbs."

Yeah, though I wouldn't mind the paladin as a expertise-smite hybrid, similar to the monk now with the uses of ki (instead of stunning fist and wholeness of body, smite and lay on hands). There should be some further differentiation - but I don't think expertise are a no-no for the paladin. It just should not represent the paladin's divine powers.

The Paladin already has the Fighter's weapons, armor, shield, and hit-dice. He doesn't need his Expertise Dice AND divine powers on top of that. That's the terrible AD&D Fighter++ sub-class model Paladin badly necromanced.

A Paladin shouldn't even need to have extensive Martial training. He just needs to take up arms with a faithful heart and Divine Inspiration can take care of the rest. Expertise Dice makes extensive martial training into an underlying requirement of the Class where none is required.

- Marty Lund

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think it would be cool if the Fighter's fighting styles allowed the fighter to augment certain maneuvers when using an appropriate weapon.

It builds upon the expertise system, gives them something unique, works with the traditional view of fighters as weapon-masters, and differentiates weapons in a realistic manner.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Not all maneuvers need to be equal.
2. By definition of wotc, everyone needs a deadly strike equivalent.
3. expertise die bloat is better than increasing damage and attack bonus

Look at 4e. Everyone increases damage regularily, and then everyone attacks better... it does not work well.

Look at 2nd edition: mostly attack bonus increases, and it works rather well...

Face it: you need some kind of increasing competency. Be it attack bonus or damage. Pick one and it works. Pick both and the system will fall apart, as it scales up and down terribly.

Here is the first time I disagree with marty lund here:

I believe, the palladin is oblieged to get expertise dice and divine powers, both at a slower progression than the fighter and the cleric. I even believe, the cleric should get limited amounts of expertise dice, if he worships a god of war.

I think some prayers and some smites could ramp up the damage potential in some circumstances (if he faces evil).
I don´t want smites just to be a similar mechanic just by another name!

 

[gweinel]

Fourth, we can use feats as a way for characters to gain more maneuvers, focusing on options like Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and so forth—things that many different classes could opt into by using feats in prior editions. If the paladin uses expertise dice, someone playing a paladin can opt into the generic maneuvers and use the dice to fuel them.

This remark/complain has to do with the feats and their role in the game. From the 1st playtest during the last we saw the changing of this role. At the start (1st playtest) feats were something more general, more loose and grand than the previous editions. In the last playtest this thing changed. Again the feats became part of the micromanagement of the charcters changing a bit of this and a bit of that. The above quote from Mearls just seems to confirm this.

I don't like that. I prefer the more loose and grander aspect of the first two playtest.

 

[Evenglare]

"Not all maneuvers need to be equal"

What the hell? I seriously hope you don't believe this. If an option is presented it should be good enough to take.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, I get that as a character gains levels, they gain damage.

And okay, cool, spellcasters get that via increased spell damage, and weapon people get it through a dice they add onto their weapon damage. Sounds fine. More interesting than flat damage boosts, anyway.

But I think a lot of people viewing this are conflating "expertise dice as an extra damage mechanic" with "expertise dice as a maneuvers mechanic."

I'm also concerned that, unless Expertise Dice damage and spell damage can overlap or make use of each other in an elegant way, this may wind up dividing the game into "spellcasters and everyone else," which isn't very flexible or modular.

I'm also concerned that this is narrowly focused on combat damage, instead of being relevant to multiple kinds of challenges. Okay, as you gain higher level, your attacks are no more accurate really but they deal extra damage. What about the lands you can explore and the creatures you interact with? How does your class escalate at dealing with those parts of the game?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"Not all maneuvers need to be equal"

What the hell? I seriously hope you don't believe this. If an option is presented it should be good enough to take.

no, really not.

You could as well asign levels to maneuvers just as you assign levels to spells.

But even better:
If deadly strike is the default maneuver for everyone, all other maneuvers can be optional. You may even allow the fighter and so on to learn new maneuvers like the wizard learns more spells. With expertise dice to fuel them and the loss of expertise dice for damage, some maneuvers could be cool.

If you get enough maneuvers to chose from, there may be maneuvers that are very situational, as long as it is assured, that you have auto access to your most important maneuvers.
And if the fighter gets parry independant from everything else, what do you need more?
You can protect yourself, you can add to damage and once in a while, do cool things!