D&D 5E Should non-fighters get maneuvers and expertise dice?

[Kavon]

That work for folks?

Can't exp you, but I'd say that looks pretty good!

 

[Stormonu]

I think they ought to be "class dice", but the amount and usage should be different.

A monk might use them to power his supernatural abilities (such as slow fall, self-healing, super-jumping, etc.) and ki strikes (flurry, stunning fist, quivering palm, deflect arrows, etc.).

A fighter uses them for combat stunts (bullseyeing womprats, extra damage, trip, parry/dodge/absorb, hitting three guys with one swing, bulldogging a chimera, hitting multiple foes in succession, etc.)

A rogue uses them for skill stunts (advantage with a skill, bypass the need for tools, jury-rigging/sabotaging traps, etc.) and underhanded combat (sand to the eyes, ambush/assassination unwary victims, flanking strike, etc.)

A wizard uses them for spells (at-will, daily and ritual)

A cleric uses them for spells (buff/debuff, healing, divination) and divine channeling

A paladin uses them for his martial abilities (smite/vengeance, protect) and sacred abilities (lay on hands, cure disease, etc.)

 

[CroBob]

Classes aren't defined by having a specific unique mechanic.

... Then what are classes defined by, if not the mechanics which make them different from other classes? Further, what's the point of having classes if they don't have different mechanics?

 

[steeldragons]

Classes aren't defined by having a specific unique mechanic.

mmmm, actually?....not meaning to dogpile or anything...BUT...

Fighters: d8 HP per level, any armor, any weapons.
Magic-Users: d4 HP per level, no armor, only weapon can be a dagger, oh yeah, and magic spells! (not even getting into only MU's can use Wands or anything like that).

From that moment forward, classes are, ironically enough, by definition, defined by their unique mechanics. i.e.: What can this guy do that this other guy can't.

Yeah. They are.

 

[Sonny]

mmmm, actually?....not meaning to dogpile or anything...BUT...

Fighters: d8 HP per level, any armor, any weapons.
Magic-Users: d4 HP per level, no armor, only weapon can be a dagger, oh yeah, and magic spells! (not even getting into only MU's can use Wands or anything like that).

From that moment forward, classes are, ironically enough, by definition, defined by their unique mechanics. i.e.: What can this guy do that this other guy can't.

Yeah. They are.

Different hit points and weapon allowances are not unique mechanics. Hit Points is a mechanic. Everyone has access to it. Differing amounts doesn't change that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

... Then what are classes defined by, if not the mechanics which make them different from other classes?

They're defined mechanically, but not by unique mechanics. A fighter takes attack actions, rolls an attack roll, and does damage. So does a ranger or a rogue. The fighter might be able to take those actions more often or more easily or with a higher chance of success, but the basic mechanics for resolving them are a property of the system, not the character.

A class simply gives characters advantages when attempting actions that fit within a theme.

This is true for any action (with the possible exception of magic).

Further, what's the point of having classes if they don't have different mechanics?

Good question.

Probably the best answer is that it reduces the amount of system mastery and technical expertise necessary to build a character, making the game easier to learn for beginners and faster to play for non-beginners. That is, you can take a level of barbarian and read the benefits it grants, rather than searching out the specific mechanics that make you tough, give you survival skills, or allow you to rage.

Certainly, the value of the class-based approach is debatable.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd like to see four general sets of unique mechanics, one for each group of class archetypes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). Variant classes like rangers and druids can share the mechanic of the "base archetype", perhaps with slight adjustments or modifications. There should not be cross-over in mechanics between archetypes.

Feel free to add additional future unique mechanics for misplaced-genre weirdos like the psion and monk.

 

[Kinak]

... Then what are classes defined by, if not the mechanics which make them different from other classes? Further, what's the point of having classes if they don't have different mechanics?

A fine pair of questions.

I largely agree with you, although I'd add that certain classes can share mechanics if their purposes and play styles are distinct. For example, the Wizard and Druid in 3.x share a lot of mechanics, but their role in the campaign and the party are different enough that they're still distinct.

I'd just say that each class should have its own play style, with the mechanics, abilities, and fluff to back that up.

Certainly, the value of the class-based approach is debatable.

In a general sense, absolutely. But we're talking about D&D Next and they're going to have classes.

What's debatable in this case is how to best use them.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Tony Vargas]

Classes aren't defined by having a specific unique mechanic.

Wow, did you say that with a straight face?

Remember, 4e was lynched for not giving every class their own unique sub-system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Should the system of expertise dice and maneuvers be expanded to classes beyond fighter (rogue and monk currently) or should they be an exclusive class feature of fighters?


Yes. Every class (martially-oriented or not) should use expertise dice in some form.[/LIST]

With bounded accuracy stripping away the illusion of advancement provided by THAC0, BAB, 1/2-level bonuses, 5e needs something to put back the illusion. Damage is it.

For casters, top-level spells do level-appropriate damage - and other cool stuff, maybe to a lot of enemies - and lower level spells provide a variety of alternate choices at the price of less damage.

For non-casters, XD grant level appropriate damage, or they can be squandered on 'interesting' maneuvers that do less damage for some variety (though not a fraction of the variety of casters, of course).

So, it sounds like the developers have a basic idea of what they're doing. It's the usual double-standard, working one way for casters and another for everyone else, and balancing, in theory, at some prescribed number of encounters (or rounds or exp) per day.