D&D 5E Are we back to Feat taxes?

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm with you on a decent bit of that there (specific builds should be able to wield a single rapier with the effectiveness of a barbarian wielding a greataxe) but in total, I think we diverge as I'm not ok with feat taxes in order to do it.

1- I don't want to cede the authority of gameplay to a process simulationist agenda that will ultimately result in narrowing the scope of martial builds to an optimal/viable few (see 2e's dual wielding katana ginsus)...over a dynamic, diverse narrative agenda that accounts for a wide swath of genres. Not interested in that at all. I want to see the Huns, the Macedonians, the Hoplites (out of phalanx formation), the Roman Legions, Achilles, Zorro, etc, etc represented in this game.

2- I don't believe that that process simulationist agenda actually bears out the truth of martial combat. I really, really, really don't want to get into the morphological disadvantages of the great weapon and its narrow applications but suffice to say that only two cultures used the weapon and only in an exceedingly narrow band (14th to 16th century). All other cultures' infantry used one-handed weapons, polearms or variations of formational fighting (spear hedges and shield walls, etc). The largest step-changes in infantry technology was not weaponry, but steel and plate armor.

3- Regardless, I want a wide, wide swath of fighting styles equally viable. That means you can't start a race, working off the same $ budget while down 1/4 horsepower. You spend some of your budget to get that 1/4 horsepower back and the guy next to you has stiffened his suspension and grip and now kills you in the corners. I want these three guys:

to be just as viable as these 3 guys




This is easily enough achieved in an AEDU system with a rich action economy. However, 5e possesses no such rich action economy. As is, things like swinging from chandeliers that actually provide legitimate modes of attack that are worth an Action (and not just practices in horrible adjudication of percentages and bad risk assessment, eg 3 rolls to accomplish one effect because that properly simulates all the step...and provides you...ooooh 15 % chance of success) such as:


or your free hand having actual mechanical impact (such as in the 3 attacks above) are not in the mix of 5e. There is no p42 for limited damage expressions or balanced adjudication of action (not 3 checks for one mundane act with little to no chance at success). What's more, there is no actual hard-coded mechanical legitimacy to that claim. In the current iteration (sans tactical module), its just DM fiat (and one DM may not be as on board as the next) as mechanical resolution. One of the reasons for 4e's huge success with my group was legitimizing/making viable the play of a swashbuckler, flashing his blade, tumbling through enemies and cutting them down. Personally, I'm not interested in the DM fiat and without that hard-coded, built-in viability of those PC builds, I am certain that 2 of my PCs (therefore my group, as it is 3) will have no interest in this game.

Those are actually goals that should be easy enough to achieve with

-> a tactical module
-> expertise dice
-> the general ability score/skill checks

I just miss take atribute for resolving such things without needing to roll.
I also have high hopes, that wotc won´t miss the opportunity of including a page 42 when the core is set in stone. I really can imagine, how improvised atacks can make use of expertise dice to make them worthwhile on high level, without needing strange damage tables.

 

[B.T.]

I'm not sure what all this nonsense is about the Expertise feats being a matter of ego, but I take Expertise feats because I don't want my character to suck.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

They could also reconcile several competing agendas by taking a hard look at some of the early assumptions that, near as I can tell, haven't really been examined with all the other changes to the game.

For example, consider:

1. Sword and Board
2. Two handed weapons
3. Dual weapons
4. Single weapon (empty hand)
5. Unarmed combat

They tried to do all kinds of funky things, at different times, with 2H and Dual by increasing the damage. This has typically scaled poorly. But now with a tighter rein on to hit numbers, maybe do what other games do and have those styles get a +1 to hit? This is easy to verify as something that scales appropriately, because the system wants the attack numbers to be controlled. If they are, a +1 to hit is always valuable (maybe not equally, but reasonably so).

This implies that:

• Dedicating both hands to offense helps you hit more reliably.
• Dedicating a hand to defense helps you avoid getting hit.
• Leaving a hand free isn't as much about direct combat as it is about circumstances.

You can look at the earlier GDS (Gamist, Drama, Simulation) to see how that can appeal. It's a reasonable gamist trade, or can be made to be one. The dramatic appeal is generally to let the character pick any style that fits the character, and have it work. Check. Simulation? A guy with a big weapon in both hands, probably is more likely to "hit" in the D&D sense of "do meaningful damage", and the whole point of dual weapon offense is to increase attack angles, and thus increase chances to hit.

So then the rules that flow from this to appeal to each group of players are driven by what the hand is dedicated to. The weapons in the hand become an expression of that. Now, on top of that layer some other tweaks based on other relevant differences, such as mace versus longsword or great spear versus great sword.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This implies that:

• Dedicating both hands to offense helps you hit more reliably.
• Dedicating a hand to defense helps you avoid getting hit.
• Leaving a hand free isn't as much about direct combat as it is about circumstances.

I generally agree with what you said. I just wanted to point out a couple things about leaving a hand free.

First, depending on the type of weapon, that off hand might be in use fairly regularly. For example, a gauntlet allowed a knight to do some rather tricky two handed maneuvers with a sword while holding it by the blade.

Second, there's the traditional gish archetype of a weapon in one hand and spells in the other.

The more we talk about this, the more having weapon choice interact with the maneuver system seems to feel right.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[/LIST] I generally agree with what you said. I just wanted to point out a couple things about leaving a hand free.

First, depending on the type of weapon, that off hand might be in use fairly regularly. For example, a gauntlet allowed a knight to do some rather tricky two handed maneuvers with a sword while holding it by the blade.

Second, there's the traditional gish archetype of a weapon in one hand and spells in the other.

The more we talk about this, the more having weapon choice interact with the maneuver system seems to feel right.

Yes. I agree with that also, though I think the means of interaction should include examining assumptions, such as the replacing bonus damage on 2H weapons with bonus accuracy.

I didn't get into the free hand(s) equivalents to that logic, because they are more complex, and I'm not at all sure which pieces would work well and which wouldn't, whereas I'm fairly certain that the 2H swap from damage to accuracy is a good choice. There would be others.

But I do think that is the framework in which to approach it. Make the list of what having a hand free does for you. Then take into account that a shield or 2H weapon removes it, while being empty-handed enhances it. Now all the things that flow from that should be included in the model in ways that satisfy all the major playstyles. There will be some niche "empty hand" possibilities that will need to be shunted into classes or feats or maneuvers or magic or whatever because they are too complex or counter to other playstyles. Then there will be a core set that really distinguishes using unarmed styles or a single one-handed weapon. These are the ones that should be built into the default of having that hand free.

And as the 2H (or dual weapon) accuracy bonus is critical but insufficient, there will also be other elements of having a shield, as well as distinctions between a big weapon versus smaller weapon(s).

 

[Manbearcat]

@Crazy Jerome

Last two posts are great and I'm generally in agreement. What it should probably do is tangibly enhance mobility (slides, shifts, skirmishing) and increase defense by proxy. Couple that with placing negative status effects on enemies (disadvantage, negative to hit, slow, etc) and leveraging ripostes and you've got a good style. Just needs intra-PC-build mechanical potency to back it up.

 

[timASW]

I'm attempting to homebrew a new D20 combat system and this thread encouraged me to think about feat taxes with combat.

All the details are here, I would love some feedback. I promise to react to it faster then WoTC.... LOL

http://www.enworld.org/forum/tabletop-gaming/332438-d20-variant-attacking.html