D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

[fjw70]

Yes, but the die pool that's being discussed isn't just extra damage; it's bonus dice that you can choose to add to a variety of things, like To Hit, AC, or damage.



Context of the thread's discussion and the mechanic being put forth in the article. If the die size was based on weapon damage, that meant you could add a d10 to your AC if you so choose.

If 4e's [W] mechanic (or a variation thereof) pops up in 5e, the previously discussed (but still unseen) combat maneuver system would probably be a better fit.

I didnt see anything in the article about using CS to increase to-hit or AC. There was a sentence about the shield specialist turning a hit on an ally to a miss but I would give shields their own [W] for that sort of thing.

 

[fjw70]

Definitely. That is done by using 1d4's for the dagger and 1d12's for Great Axes and 2d6's for Great Swords. Plus potentially an additional strength modifier when wielding two-handed weapons.

The difference between longswords and two-handed swords (for example) are too small for me this way, but to each his own.

 

[ferratus]

I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.

You only need three inches of steel to kill a man.

Two handed swords can cause grevious wounds, but so can daggers, so a damage bonus doesn't really work. The real advantage to two-handed weapons is mass (to overcome defenses) and reach (to hit the person before the other person hits you). So good against calvary, great in a charge, not a bad strategy against armour. Terrible when guarding a door in a dungeon. Not the best idea when fighting a mobile opponent with lighter weapons.

I wish people would take the idea that weapons do more or less damage and put it in the dust bin. Weapons are tools, and different tools are better depending on the situation. How much armour are they carrying? How mobile is your opponent? Is anyone on a horse? Do you need to conceal your weapon?

Weapon qualities (bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, reach, versatile, critical, light, etc.) are a far better way of distinguishing weapons than using different damage dice.

 

[Umbran]

Sounds fairly similar to DCC

To me it sounds like Force Points from Star Wars.

"I have a point that can get me extra dice for certain use," has been around quite a while.

(Hm. Late to that party. Never mind...)

 

[fjw70]

To follow-up on my point of using [W]s for CS is it would be a good way to implement multiple attacks for fighters. Suppose a fighter had 3[W] available to him he could make a single 3[W] attack, he could make a 1[W] attack against three separate opponents, or he could make attack against two opponents (one at 1[W] and one at 2[W]).

 

[jrowland]

I like the idea from a purely gamist perspective...more options, more goodies, more power = win

However, from the simulationist perspective I think it falls short on the *feel* of the fighter. It is an abstract fix to an abstract combat system.

This systen means the fighter is better mechanically at doing the same stuff fighters have always been doing, but really possessing a unique schtick.

Consider:

Wizards get spells. Does this extra dice feel as unique as a spell? I am not saying we need fighter "spells", but rather a unique set of task-resolution devices that feel different from spells or skills.

Maneuvers make more sense, thematically. I can understand why the felt it wasn't unique: They made the maneuvers too generic and abstract to fit the abstract combat system.

Spells exist in large measure outside the abstract combat system (or at least tangent). A fireball is a concept we all understand in its spcific nature: a big ball of fire makes ouchy. But a sword attack is still an abstraction. Fighters need specific sword attacks: Thrust, Slice, Feint, Parry, Riposte, Overhead swing, etc. This is how you make fighters unique. Sure, my cleric can "make an attack roll with a sword" but only the fighter can do a Feint, sidestep, then thrust. Fighters should have auto-access to a whole host of these (a set for each of the main types: archer, sword n board, 2-hander, etc) and others could have a very limited access via themes/feats (just as fighters can get a spell or two from themes/feats)

my 2 cp

 

[Harlekin]

This is a key point

Functionally, the change seems to be this:

1. Take your fighter's bonus to damage.
2. Convert it into dice that you roll.
3. Give fighters some options to trade damage for other things.

Functionally, it's the same as something like an expanded Expertise. You trade one thing for another.

If this is really all they are doing, then this new Combat Superiority is pointless. Mike's article suggests that The CS dice will actually be usable for a wider range of more interesting things, such as counterattacks and acrobatic maneuvers. Moreover, you may be able to use them in reaction to your opponent, which again makes them more interesting than moving AB to DB or mathing around with power attack on your own turn. It looks to me that much of the positive reaction is to this potential of the CS rules.

However, CS dice will slow down combat somewhat, both because they create analysis paralysis and because evaluating multiple dice takes a little longer.

Thus, CS dice are really only an improvement if they provide the Fighter with substantially more flexibility from round to round than he would get from 3.x feats.

 

[IronWolf]

To me it sounds like Force Points from Star Wars.

"I have a point that can get me extra dice for certain use," has been around quite a while.

I think the combat superiority dice are for use every round and less resource driven than something like Force Points.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mike's article suggests that The CS dice will actually be usable for a wider range of more interesting things, such as counterattacks and acrobatic maneuvers. Moreover, you may be able to use them in reaction to your opponent, which again makes them more interesting than moving AB to DB or mathing around with power attack on your own turn. It looks to me that much of the positive reaction is to this potential of the CS rules.

Subjectivity is a curious thing.

"Trade damage for other things" includes counterattacks and acrobatic maneuvers and reactions to your opponent.

It's an expansion of Power Attack and Combat Expertise and the like (into the action economy and suchlike). And silo'd a bit differently (rather than coming from a general resource that fighters get more of, it comes specifically from a fighter-specific resource). But it's clearly a close kindred to me. It's not dramatically different in fundamental design from the much-panned Weapons of Legacy: take a penalty in one place to get a bonus ability.

It IS markedly different psychologically. You have a physical fob, it feels more like a trade and less like a penalty, it's part of your class rather than part of some item you possess...but in principle, it's the same design idea: if a fighter's "class ability" is damage, they can swap that class ability out for something a little more creative.

Others might not see it that way, I guess. And it doesn't really matter. If all it takes to make people worried about the fighter happy is a little menu of trade-offs, that's awesome. It's much easier to do that and to swap that and to modify that while keeping everyone content than it is to redefine a class's resource management scheme and do the same.

I'm just happy that this doesn't invalidate the simple character. They didn't have to take away the simple fighter to give people an option for complexity. They just gave it the option to trade its damage bonus for other things, and present it in such a way that people didn't feel like they were taking a penalty. For that little trick of psychology, they deserve a high-five.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, I suspect you are in a very small minority in this case.

The people who wanted every character to possibly be able to access anything usually moved on from D&D to other game systems that were built for this... GURPS, Hero/Champions, and the like. The one attempt to do it in D&D (2E's Player's Option: Skills & Powers) died on the vine.

Actually, I'm articulating the philosophy that became more and more prevalent throughout 3e (with alt class features/substitution levels/Unearthed Arcana/feats that give you class abilities and spells/etc.), became even more prevalent in PF (with archetypes), and pervades in many of the offshoots and retroclones. More and more, choosing a class has become less of a metagame choice (I want to be smart and have Vancian superpowers, so I play a wizard) and more of an in-game choice (I want to be smart and have superpowers, which may be Vancian/spell point/recharge/etc., so I play a wizard). Design-your-own-class is the philosophy that powered PF's Advanced Player's Guide and helped it take over the market.

So when I say that I want everyone to be able to access the fundamental rules of the game, and want to basically design their own class progression, I think I'm speaking for a rather large portion of people.