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

[CroBob]

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.

I'd say this is splitting hairs. I mean, the rogue gets Backstab, and I'd call that a mechanics. Yes, of course all classes use the same base mechanics, since they all exist in the same game and have to interact mechanically and predictably. That's granted. To presume that the specific features that each class gets are not mechanics, though, seems silly to me. They get specific mechanics in a combination which other classes do not, such that they're a specific class. For example, I'd say the mechanic for getting hit points, at least in more traditional editions, is different depending on the type of die they use. Yes, they all roll and add the number, but a different sized variable is a different mechanic. It's a different equation, at the very least.

We should define mechanic, I think, but I'm simply too tired to do it right now. I've been working all day.

A class simply gives characters advantages when attempting actions that fit within a theme. Yes, and the reason or method of acquiring that modifier is different from one class to another, or at least from one class type to another.

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.

Again, I think we have a problem of definition. I consider anything which has an effect on the math of the system a mechanic of the game. Oh, I guess I wasn't too tired, though that's not necessarily the definition I'll rest on.

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

Sure, but I can't claim it's important. In any game there will be archetypes you can build. Whether it's through classes or simply optimal skill purchases or whatever, there will be certain roles available to fill. However the game handles it, I can't claim I care.

I'm actually designing a game without classes, but I could easily translate a class into it's mechanics, or even include character outlines which provide certain class-like roles. I figure simply explaining what each skill does pretty well should be good enough, but I'm still way behind on actually formalizing a written set of rules.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I like expertise dice for different classes, in fact I'd be okay with using them for all martial classes, i.e. those who use physical attacks (whether fists, kicks or weapons), as long as it focusses on representing the non-magical part of their abilities.

I also think every class needs a strong and unique "shtick" so to speak that sets it apart. Expertise dice were good for the fighter... and now he needs something new. Parry won't be enough.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My vote goes to nobody getting expertise dice! Well, maybe the monk..

 

[Bluenose]

... 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?

Presumably classes are defined being able to do different things well. Sometimes different mechanics may be necessary to make that happen, but the different abilities seem rather more significant than different mechanics. In theory, mechanics should "fade into the background" during play anyway, at least according to some players.

 

[delericho]

Yes. Every martial class should get expertise dice. But the things that they can do with those expertise dice should vary by class - rogues get lots of tricksy ways to cause damage, monks get lots of mobility options... and fighters get access to all the options.

Likewise, every arcane class should get access to spells, every divine class should get access to prayers, and every psionic class should get access to powers.

Furthermore, all 'pure' martial classes should gain expertise dice at the same rate - this makes multiclassing nice and easy (since you just get the total). Meanwhile, 'blended' classes (like the Paladin blends martial and divine powers), accrue both expertise dice and prayers, but gain both at a lower rate than the equivalent 'pure' classes.

(Likewise, all 'pure' arcane casters should gain spells at the same rate, but provide access to different subsets of spells, with the Wizard getting access to everything. That way, multiclassing 'pure' arcane casters is easy. And, again, 'blended' casters like the Mageblade gain both spells and expertise dice, but at a lesser rate.)

 

[steeldragons]

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.

Point taken.

But may I say, way to wantonly miss the point. I'll rephrase my original post to only include "unique mechanics".

Fighters: No special abilities.
Magic-users: Spells.
Clerics: Turning Undead.
Rogues: Thieves' Abilities/Skills.

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.
​

Hope that's more clear. Carry on.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

I don't remember that. (And I wouldn't use that choice of words).

I remember that the problem was not that all classes shared the same basic mechanic, but that this mechanic itself (the AEDU approach) was problematic for a variety of reasons.

If, conversely, all classes had been built around the common mechanics of 3e (feats and skills), things would have been different (though a different crowd would have been unhappy, likely the old-schoolers).

They get specific mechanics in a combination which other classes do not, such that they're a specific class.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. In 2e, for example, you'd have "thief skills" but bards or rangers could access some of them, and multiclassing allowed a variety of characters to access them. They weren't exactly a thief-exclusive mechanic. Similarly, the fighter was built around a tiered weapon proficiency system (a nice approach, one that I rather miss). The other martial classes had access to it, but were not as good. And of course, spellcasters overlapped greatly.

With 3e, even more walls came down. Anyone could take hide and move silently. Class abilities like sneak attack, damage reduction, rage and the like were all spread around between multiple prestige classes and base classes. Various forms of alternate class features allowed almost any character could get (and get rid of) evasion with relative ease. Spellcasters became more interchangable.

What doesn't happen in either of these approaches (or even under the more restrictive 4e approach) is that if you choose class X, and someone else chooses class Y, you can't both have access to exactly the same capabilities if you really want to.

The approach I advocate is a simple and logical next step. Every character ability is either dimensional (i.e. something that can be measured on a scale) and is treated as a skill, or is not, and is treated as a feat. Every class looks essentially like a 3.5 fighter and receives skills and feats allocated preferentially to serve a particular concept. Spellcasting is a skill; spells are feats. A fighter simply chooses feats and skills that make him better with weapons and with combat tactics, a barbarian has the feats that make your survival skills and berserk rage better, and a wizard has the feats that enable spellcasting.

3e and PF are basically that hidden behind a layer of obfuscation. Why not cut to the chase?

 

[Gorgoroth]

..

Disagree, the AEDU unified mechanic, especially across say, the Fighter vs the Wizard, did in practice make the classes seem too uniform. Sure, that's how they balanced those core classes, but most people, in fact, did not in the end like it.

I detested that I couldn't memorize two of the same daily spell. What if I'm building a wall for fortifications and need an extra Wall of Stone instead of a Fireball today? Cannot do. What if today I don't need any utilities and it's final-battle time and I foresee really needing that extra fireball? Cannot do that either. The system was an annoying kludge compared to previous editions. They fixed the wizard by giving him a four-button etch-a-sketch instead of a pad and box of crayons, and thought to themselves, hey...let's do the same to fighters!!! yay... //I liked 4e, because it reminded me of a tactical turn-based videogame, NOT because it was a good ruleset to allow me to colour outside the lines. It actively penalized you for even attempting to do so.

Now in Next, with maneuvers and EDs, I re-read them all last night, and can say simply :I want more!! More maneuvers. But let us all playtest the crap out of them to find out what's broken. We don't want all wizards grabbing one level of fighter just for Parry, or stuff like that. I think martial classes should multiclass better amongst themselves, mechanically, and EDs allow that mechanic to scale with level regardless of whether you do a 2e / 3e or 4e style MC system, as someone else so aptly mentioned here.

+1 to maneuvers! I love me some Parry action. Always wanted that in a D&D edition. That said, if one can apply a variable DR every round, why not a fixed one with armor? //do not understand

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's where I start to have an issue with it. If the Paladin can use expertise dice like the Fighter and cast spells like the Cleric, then what the hell is the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric?

The Paladin would have acces to Expertise Dice effects fueled by his faith that the Fighter would not have access to. The Fighter would have access to Expertise Dice effects that reflect his singular focus on combat training that other warrior classes would not have access to. The Paladin would have spells that focus on his role as the front-line defender of his faith that even Clerics of his same faith are not granted. The Cleric would have access to spells that support the followers and tenets of his faith that even the warrior-caste Paladins of his own faith do not have access to. That's what would make a Paladin different than a Fighter/Cleric, while still making the F/C an interesting choice.

 

[fjw70]

Yes, non-fighters should have access to the XD system. It is such a great and flexible system that it would be a shame to limit it to fighters.