Level Up (A5E) Issue with maneuvers

[dave2008]

As it is written right now, you cannot replace a maneuver you know with one of a higher degree when you learn a new one. It must be the same degree.
This means that any class that doesn't learn a new maneuver the level they gain access to a higher degree has to wait additional levels until they do learn a new maneuver to be able to actually use the higher degree.

For example, the preview of the Adept class has them learn their fourth maneuver at 7th level, when their highest degree is 2nd. When they then gain access to 3rd degree maneuvers at 8th level... they cannot actually have any 3rd degree maneuvers, cause you can't replace a maneuver with one of a higher degree, and it takes until 11th level for them to actually be able to gain and use a 3rd degree maneuver.

This is a huge delay and cannot possibly be intentional... right? Like, why give the player the theoretical ability to use 3rd degree maneuvers, without actually being able to have any until three levels later? Feels like a taunt.

My suggestion for fixing this is to allow replacement of maneuvers to upgrade their degree, but set a limit for how many maneuvers of which degree a character can know at any one time, to avoid people stacking too many high-degree maneuvers.

Question, can maneuvers be "up cast" like spells. So can you use a 2nd degree maneuver in a 3rd degree slot?

 

[Sansang]

Basically, in both cases these are options. They are not required to make your character functional and are therefore not a tax.

To go back to 3.5 where the term tax feat has born:
- Whirwind attack requires a pleatora of feats to be acquired. Is it an option? Yes. It is necessary for your character to work? No. Is it one of the most common examples when people talk about tax feats? yes.

Tax feat is everything that gatekeep a feature behind an option that ends up being forced on the player who don't want it, don't care for it, but that if he wants that ultimate feature he needs to invest in a lot of marginally related things. Adept speed is the perfect example of that, even though it's not so outrageous because it's the only tax in the whole Adept kit (as far as I noticed).

About the Sinergy feats you are quite right. They have a strange progression and everything, and honestly the first feat seems to be the core of it as far as we can see, the rest is added flavour. They are not tax feats but they look like one, which alarmed me and made me more cautious.

 

[Stalker0]

Question, can maneuvers be "up cast" like spells. So can you use a 2nd degree maneuver in a 3rd degree slot?

Manuevers don't use slots like spells. Each manuever has an exertion cost. You have a pool of exertion, and each manuever just costs from the pool. You could cast nothing but 3rd level manuevers if you wanted to....but they tend to have higher cost so will burn your pool quicker.

 

[dave2008]

Manuevers don't use slots like spells. Each manuever has an exertion cost. You have a pool of exertion, and each manuever just costs from the pool. You could cast nothing but 3rd level manuevers if you wanted to....but they tend to have higher cost so will burn your pool quicker.

We have a misunderstanding. I was wondering it you can "up cast" maneuvers conceptually - not actual slots. So can you take a 2nd degree maneuver, and spend 3rd degree exertion on it to get an increased result. Sorry to be asking, I just haven't followed the maneuvers previews much.

 

[Stalker0]

That is not what the designer said. If I understood correctly, they said there is no gap. The Adept has many other features the make up it is feature quotient. It would not be balanced to give it the additional feature. However, if someone wants to lean into that concept and invest into it, there is a feat for that.

I was not referring to gap as in "a lack of power", but a gap in understanding.... why do I get access to an ability but no way to actually use said ability?

So in this context, there is a gap. A player who read the class head to toe would ask the question "so I can have 3rd level maneuvers, but how do I get 3rd level maneuvers?"

Originally our assumption was that this was something just lost in the preview, we were missing something general about maneuvers that would readily explain this. The designer then clarified, nothing in the general description of maneuvers would explain this, the user would only realize this when they consider specific feats or multiclass combinations.

If this was a common thing in 5e, I could respect that.... even though I recognize LU is meant to be standalone I would assume most people trying it out would have some tribal understanding of 5e. But that's not normal for 5e, and so the most reasonable assumption to make would be "this is a mistake".


Now this can be corrected pretty easily. In some general section of maneuvers, a single sentence could say "some classes get access to a maneuver level but may not get maneuvers known of that level. They can gain access to them through feats, multiclassing, or some other abilities".

Or something to that effect. Now at least there is documentation in the system that reassures a reader "nope not a mistake, we were very intentional with this decision"

 

[dave2008]

I was not referring to gap as in "a lack of power", but a gap in understanding.... why do I get access to an ability but no way to actually use said ability?

That is what trigger the question about using a 2nd degree maneuver with 3rd degree exertion.

So in this context, there is a gap.

And another gap in my understanding of what you meant by a gap! I've got it now.

Now this can be corrected pretty easily. In some general section of maneuvers, a single sentence could say "some classes get access to a maneuver level but may not get maneuvers known of that level. They can gain access to them through feats, multiclassing, or some other abilities".

Or something to that effect. Now at least there is documentation in the system that reassures a reader "nope not a mistake, we were very intentional with this decision"

That would help, but ideally it is not there if it can't be used. Maybe there is a reason to provide things at particular levels for compatibility reasons that I am not familiar with.

 

[Faolyn]

We have a misunderstanding. I was wondering it you can "up cast" maneuvers conceptually - not actual slots. So can you take a 2nd degree maneuver, and spend 3rd degree exertion on it to get an increased result. Sorry to be asking, I just haven't followed the maneuvers previews much.

It's been a while since I really studied the maneuvers playtest packet, but I don't recall there being a lot of maneuvers where you get added results for additional exertion. Most of the time, you pay your exertion cost and that's it. Everything else depends on your attack or skill rolls.

 

[Stalker0]

Adept speed is the perfect example of that, even though it's not so outrageous because it's the only tax in the whole Adept kit (as far as I noticed).

I think by your example Gale Walk could be one as well, as its the lock for the much more power Hurricane Walk. That said, I think there is a difference between prereq and feat tax, though a subtle one. The term "marginal" is a key note here, I also think that "staying within the niche" is another.

3.5's Whirlwind Attack required Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack. And frankly none of these feats have anything to do with attacking or spinning around....you are taking a bunch of defensive feats to get a really cool "offensive one". That is weird. It also doesn't hurt that mobility and spring attack are not great feats to your main fighter types.... great for a fast monk, but a monk doesn't have the feat space to take Whirlwind attack until very high levels. So its not optimal for anyone.



Now lets look at Adept Speed -> Gale Walk -> Hurricane Walk.... which I think is the biggest "chain" you see for the adept, and the closest to your "feat tax" concern.

Adept Speed is a very nice bonus, solid and useful. Gale Walk is a solid improvement. First, it actually utilizes adept speed, so its not wasted. Second, they are both working in the same niche....increasing my mobility.

Hurricane Walk once again is a focus on mobility, so we still moving in a straight line, and adept speed still works with this ability. Now you could argue that Gale Walk is mostly overwritten by HW. Unless there is a mechanic in LU that allows you to jump farther than your movement normally allows....fly is superior to jump in every way. However, Gale Walk does provide bonuses that either:

• Do not require exertion
  OR
• Do not require a bonus action

So while HW is generally the superior ability, there is still a niche for GW when you don't want to burn exertion and/or don't want to use a bonus action, which considering all of the various focuses and manuevers you have that utilize both....will probably be fairly often.

So while HW is a chain of prereqs, I think the prereqs both make sense AND are still ultimately useful in obtaining the niche I want, which is ultimate mobility. So I don't think that quite matches the old 3.5 whirlwind attack comparison you were making.

 

[Stalker0]

It's been a while since I really studied the maneuvers playtest packet, but I don't recall there being a lot of maneuvers where you get added results for additional exertion. Most of the time, you pay your exertion cost and that's it. Everything else depends on your attack or skill rolls.

At least from the playtest and from the final manuevers we have seen, nothing seem to let you "upcast or nova" manuevers with additional exertion.

 

[Sansang]

Adept Speed is a very nice bonus, solid and useful. Gale Walk is a solid improvement. First, it actually utilizes adept speed, so its not wasted. Second, they are both working in the same niche....increasing my mobility.

This is actually really a good point. In particular I appreciate how the adept speed actually improves the following techniques, which I haven't noticed at first, but still I don't like it. It's a tax that makes all the sense in the world, but it's still a tax. I'm not sure about how fair will be this comparison, but I think that you can have these same situations for spells, while the progression isn't forced on the player.

A Sorcerer doesn't have to learn "Long jump" or "Levitate" in order to learn "Fly", while an Adept have to learn his version of "Long jump" in order to learn his version of "Fly", and to learn all of this he needs to learn to be faster.

A Sorcerer isn't forced to waste "Spells Known" to prove it's improving his control over the law of physics, while the Adept is forced to waste "Techniques Known" in order to prove his control over the law of physics.

I used the Sorcerer as a comparison because "Spells Known" are a limited resource like the "Techniques Known" are, but the example makes even more sense with a Wizard. A Wizard, conceptually, needs to learn and study the arcane, it isn't something that is born within itself, so it only makes sense that he should get progressively better at manipulating fire (Fire Bolt > Fire Ray), progressively better at enchanting minds (Charme > Charme Monsters), etc etc. Obviously the way magic works at the moment is right to me, no strange prerequisites all over the place except for levels, and I don't see why martials should work differently.

Anyways, Adept speed is not a huge issue to me. It's there, I roll my eyes every time I see it, but it's just a little thing across many more features the Adept have and gain, so I can go over it. On the other hand, the actual argument of this thread (which I feel like I was hijacking) looks like a Massive issue to me.

The Adept unlocks 3rd degree Maneouvers at level 8, but can't use them until level 10 unless it pay a feat as a Tax, the stars aligns or it prays Yog-Sothoth.
The Adept unlocks 5th degree Maneouvers at level 17, but can't use them until level 19 and this time it doesn't even have a feat to waste.

Yesterday night I had a game night with my friends and, talking with them about this, none of them could find this reasonable or acceptable. I wonder how many players, without the luxury to talk with the designer himself, are going to notice this and say "Oh, ok, it looks fine".