D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[GX.Sigma]

Releasing it in the format you describe creates a very high probability that 5th edition will bomb right out of the gate...they're going to get a huge surprise on release day as they did with 4th edition's release in the format you describe. Which is *extremely* dangerous, because if someone rejected 4th edition, were happy with the early playtest packets that stepped away from 4th edition, and they discover on release day that 4th edition is suddenly prevalent...that's going to be a very upset customer.

You're assuming the "hates 4e so much that they won't buy a game where there are elements that even remind them a little bit of 4e (but not actually a whole lot like how 4e did them), even if they're optional; and only saw the early playtests, and liked them (even though they had a lot of elements directly from 4e)" demographic is statistically significant.

 

[Lanefan]

You're assuming the "hates 4e so much that they won't buy a game where there are elements that even remind them a little bit of 4e (but not actually a whole lot like how 4e did them), even if they're optional; and only saw the early playtests, and liked them (even though they had a lot of elements directly from 4e)" demographic is statistically significant.

Personally, I don't want it to remind me of 3e *or* 4e. But from what I've seen/heard/read lately I'm not sure there'll be anything left once all the 3e-isms and 4e-isms are stripped out.

Lanefan

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Each article since the playtest ended has made me increasingly certain that 5th edition will sell well in the first quarter it is released, Pathfinder will take the sales lead again in the second quarter, and D&D will drop to 4th or 5th place after that. Because I *really* don't think that all of the factions are going to buy into 5th edition long term and play with things they don't like.

I find that funny, the worst D&D has ever done with new product on the shelf is 2nd, and with almost nothing for 2 years is still 4th or 5th... even if you believe pathfinder will someday outsell D&D (and frankly I think it is a pipe dream that any retro clone can) there is no way you can honestly and logically think there are 2-4 other games going to out sell them...

My theory is starting in july or august D&D is number one for the life of the next edition, and is as it always was 'the most popular role playing game' and the 'best selling roleplaying game'. Maybe 1 or 2 times over the life of 5e we will see pathfinder (or a new company, no one saw white wolf coming after all) look like they are challangers to the titles, but by the time we are talking 6e odds are pathfinder wont even be a hot commodity (inless they can build on there success with a 2nd edition of pathfinder that keeps the feel but moves away from the d20 system atleast a little. They may be able to slowly make pathfinder it's own thing someday)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're assuming the "hates 4e so much that they won't buy a game where there are elements that even remind them a little bit of 4e (but not actually a whole lot like how 4e did them), even if they're optional; and only saw the early playtests, and liked them (even though they had a lot of elements directly from 4e)" demographic is statistically significant.

There is a non 0% of the market that actually feels that way, and that makes me sad . Somehow the edition war burned so bright this time that we have soldiers with lasting scars. However I doubt that number is statistically significant.

 

[Salamandyr]

Agreed. Regardless of how much complexity you want, none of it should be in the class description itself. For any class. Fighters are the basic class and make a good litmus test though.

Building things into the class rules rather than as system rules essentially tells me that all that stuff about modularity and customization they promised is never going to happen.

Only if you count Mearls & Co not getting it as "lost".

"Lost" more in the sense that it appears to me the majority of players prefer that even general classes like the fighter have unique "things" that only they can do, and they want their fighter characters to be doing things in combat that no one else can do. This is something you and I are in the minority on; since it's a matter of preference, it doesn't mean the other side is "wrong", they just have a different vision of the game and where they want it to take them. Mearls & Co are right to try to satisfy the greatest number of players.

 

[Hussar]

And, Salamandyr, this is hardly new. Fighters (and fighter subclasses) were the only classes to get extra attacks at higher levels and the only class that got percentile strength. In 2e, only fighters could specialise. Fighters having class abilities that no one else got has always been in the game. The only real difference is scale.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And, Salamandyr, this is hardly new. Fighters (and fighter subclasses) were the only classes to get extra attacks at higher levels and the only class that got percentile strength. In 2e, only fighters could specialise. Fighters having class abilities that no one else got has always been in the game.

This statement falsifies itself. Everyone got attacks, strength, and the first level or two of proficiency/stabilization. Fighters only ever got better numbers on the same things that everyone else could do, more attacks in a round, better strength scores, better proficiency bonuses. Just as they have more hit points, and not a separate health system to represent their resilience.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I on the other hand love the idea of playing someone who can play mind games on opponents... so 'trick you' is a big selling point to me...

I think this is ultimately an issue of agency.

Most of the time, when D&D tells you what your character must think, it does not dictate a particular action.

So, a few examples:

• Charm Person: If you fail the save, your character must believe that the caster is your trusted friend. But how you act with that new belief is up to you. Maybe you would not reveal some secrets to your truest friends.
• Morale: If it fails the check, your monster must want to end the fight and preserve their life. But how they do that is up to you. Maybe they flee, maybe they surrender, maybe they "pretend to be dead."
• Illusions: If you fail the save, your character must believe that the illusion is real. But how you act with that new belief is up to you. You may believe that there is a wall there, but maybe you take an axe to it instead of just ignoring it, and then....

So if you wanted to weave a "trick" into this, you'd probably want to follow a similar pattern: a successful trick makes you believe something, but it's up to the believer how they respond.

In that framework, a trick shouldn't force movement or action. If that's the goal of the trick, it should just make that course of action more appealing: if you succeed in tricking the target, they think you are weak, or that there is an opening, or that they'd get some bonus for that action. Then, on their turn, they decide what to do.

Such an ability might look something like this:

Apparent Opening
When you are damaged, as a reaction, you can use this ability. All enemies that can see you must make a WIS save or believe that they have Advantage on their next melee attack against you. They actually have Disadvantage. ​

...there's one other way that D&D has handled this in the past, and that is something similar to 3e Feinting: a skill check that gives you a bonus against the target. This also avoids dictating enemy actions, it just abstracts a kind of edge you get against them. Such an ability might look a bit like this:

Apparent Opening
When you are damaged, as a reaction, you can use this ability. All enemies that can see you must make a WIS save or believe that they have Advantage on their next melee attack against you. Your AC actually improves by 4 against enemies that fail this save until the end of your next turn, and such an enemy also cannot gain Advantage against you until then.
​

But in no case does it say that an enemy attacks you, or moves, or does some other action. I think that's the line that can be drawn: some folks are cool with that, but it's a significant violation for some other players.

(As an aside, I think it was 4e's prohibition on "wasted actions" that changed this dynamic, since the above scheme can result in pointless uses of an ability -- if you charm a sociopath, or try to surrender to one, or throw illusions at a party empiricist, or whatever, the mechanic might not result in the intended effects. Most elder editions were totally fine having the DM make this call, and had no issue/actively encouraged negating player abilities.)

 

[Salamandyr]

And, Salamandyr, this is hardly new. Fighters (and fighter subclasses) were the only classes to get extra attacks at higher levels and the only class that got percentile strength. In 2e, only fighters could specialise. Fighters having class abilities that no one else got has always been in the game. The only real difference is scale.

I'm sure there are examples of previous editions giving classes specific abilities that closed off options for everyone else, but those aren't them. Both multiple attacks, and for that matter, weapon specialization, are essentially "the same as everybody else gets, only better". The cleric can make attacks, the fighter can make more attacks. The thief can be proficient in longsword, the fighter can be a specialist in longsword (pour moi, weapon specialization spelled the end of the fighter as the archetype modeller he was intended to be, but that's a whole different argument).

What I'm referring to is giving the fighter discrete special abilities that mean that nobody else can do those things...like for instance disarming someone, or tripping them. If they did something like make those general maneuvers, but only the fighter could disarm someone and do damage at the same time (everyone else has to choose whether to do damage or accomplish the special effect), that would suit my vision of how the game ought to work. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish this. 3e's method was to make all those abilities theoretically possible for anyone, but to actually have a snowball's chance in Tarterus of succeeding at them, you had to take a feat, and only the fighter had the sufficiency of feats to actually take more than one or two of those (and he usually didn't either). So I guess I should thank my stars they aren't emulating 3e, because that way stunk.

But like I said, I lost this fight; most people want the fighter to have discrete things, defined within the class, that only the fighter can do. I think that makes for a poorer game, but I'm in the minority, so it's something I can live with. There's a lot of other stuff about 5e to look forward to.

 

[Obryn]

What I'm referring to is giving the fighter discrete special abilities that mean that nobody else can do those things...like for instance disarming someone, or tripping them. If they did something like make those general maneuvers, but only the fighter could disarm someone and do damage at the same time (everyone else has to choose whether to do damage or accomplish the special effect), that would suit my vision of how the game ought to work. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish this. 3e's method was to make all those abilities theoretically possible for anyone, but to actually have a snowball's chance in Tarterus of succeeding at them, you had to take a feat, and only the fighter had the sufficiency of feats to actually take more than one or two of those (and he usually didn't either). So I guess I should thank my stars they aren't emulating 3e, because that way stunk.

Every other class has things that require some levels in that class to do properly, though.

Want Wizard spells? Be a wizard for at least a level. Want cleric spells? Be a cleric for at least a level.

So ... want Fighter maneuvers and want to be awesome at weapons? Be a Fighter for at least a level.

I can't see a compelling reason that difficult maneuvers with weapons should be easier to learn and require less training than basic spells.