D&D Next Q&A 9 August

[GX.Sigma]

But lots of classes have spells. Some classes use spells in a slightly different way, but lots of them use the same spells. Why should combat maneuvers be any different?

 

[Sammael]

But lots of classes have spells. Some classes use spells in a slightly different way, but lots of them use the same spells. Why should combat maneuvers be any different?

FWIW, I don't like spell overlap and have eliminated it completely from my Fatebinder system. There is no spell sharing. Classes may have spells that do similar things, but there are always significant differences that reflect the nature of each class.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm concerned about the power inflation that this mechanic might bring. They've said that fighters will be getting extra attacks as they go up in level, and now they're getting combat superiority dice on top of that? This means fighters will be able to put out ridiculous amounts of damage. Hopefully, this mechanic replaces the extra attacks fighters were going to get rather than adding on top of it. Even then, I'm still a bit concerned.

 

[Argyle King]

I like the sounds of the idea. It reminds me a little bit of Iron Heroes.


However, I'm starting to see phrasing such as 'greater numeric bonuses' tossed around more and more. How does that mesh with the idea of bounded accuracy and making the system more horizontal and broad rather than vertical and number-stacking?

 

[Steely_Dan]

But a level 5 rogue in 5e will have +5d6 sneak attack

Is that confirmed (i've only seen up to 3rd level characters so far)?

So, for negating oncoming damage, do you have to save dice?

 

[Jack99]

Is that confirmed (i've only seen up to 3rd level characters so far)?

So, for negating oncoming damage, do you have to save dice?

At some point, it was scaling like that yes. The CS system leads me to believe rogues will be able to trade SA dice for "effects". Like bleed damage or movement impairing, just like in 3.x and 4e. Never been a fan of it so far, but might work if its not an all or nothing thing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

At some point, it was scaling like that yes.

I find it best not to assume (people get fired that way); are we talking about a 13th level Rogue doing 13d6 SA damage?

 

[tlantl]

I find it best not to assume (people get fired that way); are we talking about a 13th level Rogue doing 13d6 SA damage?

Since the developers have reduced damage and hit points in the next round of play tests, I would think that they also had to reduce the number of dice the rogue gains each level for their sneak attacks.

What it looks like is the question.

I suppose that within the next couple of weeks we'll find out. I also suppose that things will change several times before everything written in stone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm concerned about the power inflation that this mechanic might bring. They've said that fighters will be getting extra attacks as they go up in level, and now they're getting combat superiority dice on top of that? This means fighters will be able to put out ridiculous amounts of damage. Hopefully, this mechanic replaces the extra attacks fighters were going to get rather than adding on top of it. Even then, I'm still a bit concerned.

It could well be that you need to use cs dice for your secondary attacks, or that secondary attacks are dailies (i.e. fighter surges)

I am really looking forward to the next playtest. Especially the lowered hp wake my interest, as i have the feeling, those are a bit too high right now.

What I like about the playtest, is that some iconic abilities are gained during the first 3 levels. So if you want a complete character like a rogue with nightvision (finally) you just start at 3rd level.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

While I agree there's already some caster overlap wrt spells, I definitely would prefer--as others have stated--that each class be as mechanically distinct as possible. This was, in fact, one of my biggest issues with 4.0. The mechanical homogenization.

It's great to be able to switch from a rogue character to a wizard, and have them feel completely different. 3.5's problem was that not all of the mechanical systems were equally compelling. Building/playing a cleric was amazing. You had domain spells and powers to consider, whether or not to spend resources on martial prowess (and if so what kind of focus), and of course high level spells.

Meanwhile the poor fighter (and to a lesser extent the paladin and ranger) while different...was simplistic, fairly boring, and in some cases outright ineffective.

This new system pleases me, in that on a conceptual level it adds a lot of distinctive complexity to the fighter class.

It remains to be seen whether the paladin and/or ranger will be core classes or kits (as far as I know), but if they are core classes, it's my hope that they are given equally exciting toys.

 

[Someone]

I'm trying to figure how this will work within the simple combat frameword 5e has at the moment.

knock people prone, to push people around (think tide of iron, 4E players)

Incredibly useful in 4e, since the marking and OAs mechanics usually meant the enemy couldn't reach other party members without negative effects; in 5e, they flip you the bird, spend at most 5 feet of movement and continue their merry way. Exception made of convenient cliffs and pools of lava.

to shift around the battlefield

I don't know what this exactly means, but with a grid 5 feet of movement can be a big deal. In a system where distances are "Am I there yet?", doesn't even have an abstract measuring system, and you can move anywhere you want anyway this has the potential to be pretty useless.

to make quick jabs that deal less damage, to be able to damage multiple enemies with a single attack, to riposte when an enemy misses, and so forth

Damaging multiple enemies being the exception (you won't use it when facing just one enemy, so it's situational), those are matematically solvable, meaning you'll choose a combination of movements and spam them round after round.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm trying to figure how this will work within the simple combat frameword 5e has at the moment.



Incredibly useful in 4e, since the marking and OAs mechanics usually meant the enemy couldn't reach other party members without negative effects; in 5e, they flip you the bird, spend at most 5 feet of movement and continue their merry way. Exception made of convenient cliffs and pools of lava.



I don't know what this exactly means, but with a grid 5 feet of movement can be a big deal. In a system where distances are "Am I there yet?", doesn't even have an abstract measuring system, and you can move anywhere you want anyway this has the potential to be pretty useless.



Damaging multiple enemies being the exception (you won't use it when facing just one enemy, so it's situational), those are matematically solvable, meaning you'll choose a combination of movements and spam them round after round.

Except maybe, when you use a grid... then those things may be useful.
You also don´t know how standing up from prone works in the next iteration
Also I would guess attacking a prone defender nets you advantage, which in fact will be a great thing to do, even if it is only to allow one great attack from a rogue friend.

In 4e, knocking prone is so good, especially in combination with daze, that you can give up an unlimited amount of damage to have those effects. And those effects are really boring in the long run.

So i am in favour of damage and damage reduction as your prechosen universal, always useful options, and some options that you use in rare circumstances. However, I really would like the fighter not to be limited to x numbers of maneuvers per x levels. Instead I would like him to be able to learn maneuvers like a wizard does learn spells. Maybe tie it to his int, how easy he can learn them. But make it possible.
This way, it does not matter, how rarely useful a maneuver is, as it does not take away your more universal options.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't know what this exactly means, but with a grid 5 feet of movement can be a big deal. In a system where distances are "Am I there yet?", doesn't even have an abstract measuring system, and you can move anywhere you want anyway this has the potential to be pretty useless.

I don't see this as necessarily bad; people using more grid-focused rules (shifting, OA, etc.) are going to get a benefit out of the forced movement the Fighter can perform. The people not using those rules might use the forced movement attacks some of the time, but they'll probably select the more "useful" maneuvers, anyways. Won't this essentially be self-solved at the table, depending on what modules you're using (something more grid-based or TotM?)

Damaging multiple enemies being the exception (you won't use it when facing just one enemy, so it's situational), those are matematically solvable, meaning you'll choose a combination of movements and spam them round after round.

I imagine that they're okay with this being the case most of the time, with conditional maneuvers (which are hopefully going to be included) varying things up for you. We'll see, but there definitely is potential for this to be done relatively well, or very poorly. As always, play what you like

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

But lots of classes have spells. Some classes use spells in a slightly different way, but lots of them use the same spells. Why should combat maneuvers be any different?

If you think about it, spells are basically the ONLY iconic class abilities that use basically the same mechanics for every class (in 3e). Rage, smite, favored enemy, sneak attack, wild shape, monk unarmed damage, etc. all had their own little subsystems, for better or worse.

Right now, I'm thinking of CS like 3e Sneak Attack. Sure, you could play a stealthy and tricky ranger or bard, but that doesn't mean they got sneak attack dice. If you wanted your sweet sweet +1d6, you took a level in rogue. The fact that other classes could make good use of stealth in their own ways just added synergy. The only classes that got honest-to-God Sneak Attack dice were rogue variants and rogue prestige classes.

Let's think of CS the same way. Sure, rangers and paladins and other melee-heavy classes have their own advantages in combat, but if you want real CS dice, you need to multiclass. And hey, if they do a good job on multiclassing this time, the synergies could be a lot of fun. Smite your enemy while reserving your CS to defend your ally!

On a separate note,

to make quick jabs that deal less damage, to be able to damage multiple enemies with a single attack, to riposte when an enemy misses, and so forth

Damaging multiple enemies being the exception (you won't use it when facing just one enemy, so it's situational), those are matematically solvable, meaning you'll choose a combination of movements and spam them round after round.

Well, I'd think "quick jabs" would be a way to hit a secondary target (maybe a minion or near-death enemy), so that would be situational as well. Assuming you need to "reserve" dice from your attack to have them available for reactions on other characters' turns, ripostes are only mathematically solvable when you know the enemy's attack bonus, so you know the chance that they'll miss you.

To me, this all sounds more like fun tactical adaptation than spreadsheet grinding.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm reserving judgement until I see more on how exactly this works. If "quick jabs" means I get multiple attack rolls in a system where that is not the norm, I can already think of a few ways that becomes easily abused and problematic.

In particular, if it means multiple attack rolls, the flat distribution of a d20 means playing the odds of getting a critical becomes a valid strategy; some 4E builds were specifically built with that idea. There's also potential for the 3rd Edition problem where a high level fighter had a higher chance of critical failure than a low level fighter. Those are only two of many which come to mind for me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But lots of classes have spells. Some classes use spells in a slightly different way, but lots of them use the same spells. Why should combat maneuvers be any different?

You are assuming that CS is a full-on replacement for the entire tactical maneuver system they were going to put into place... which I am not so sure is the case. My sense has been that CS is only replacing tactical maneuvers for the Fighter, because the CS moves are going to be outright strong than the standard tactical maneuvers will be.

So the game would have a Charge for everybody to use, but the Fighter might have a better one using CS dice. Everybody could Trip, but the CS would be better (probably because the Fighter would also do damage along with the Trip). Everyone can Sunder, everyone can Disarm, everyone can Grapple, everyone can Bull Rush etc. etc. etc., but Combat Superiority just allows the Fighter to do all those things better (plus probably a few other tricks that only really experienced weapon-users can do, like Riposte.)

As a result, not everybody needs to have access to Combat Superiority.

And when you think about it... this is really EXACTLY the reasoning behind the Fighter in 3E and the feat system. In 3E, everyone could do all those moves... but only the Fighter was given enough feats that they could spend on all the "Improved" versions that actually made those move effective. Everyone else sucked at them... the Fighter was actually somewhat competent because he could spend the feats. And that's what CS pretty much sounds like... a new way of creating/distributing the "Improved X" feats without actually using the feat system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which also highlights the likely problem with it - spamming the optimum move over and over again.

In 3E, a good move was often to use your lower attack bonuses for a trip - if you had Improved Trip and a Tripping weapon at least, otherwise you should only use it if you're superior to your enemy in the first place and your only goal is making it difficult for him to run away.

 

[john112364]

Which also highlights the likely problem with it - spamming the optimum move over and over again.

In 3E, a good move was often to use your lower attack bonuses for a trip - if you had Improved Trip and a Tripping weapon at least, otherwise you should only use it if you're superior to your enemy in the first place and your only goal is making it difficult for him to run away.

And I don't see the problem with this. You probably should stick with what you do best. Trip, disarm, grapple, etc. are difficult to pull off successfully unless you've trained and practiced the maneuver. If I got into a fight I stand a fair chance of hitting someone. Now if he's attacking me with a knife and I try to disarm him? I'm going to get hurt. Even if I have a weapon of my own. I've never done it, so I'm sure I would suck at it. Now a trained fighter OTOH, would stand a much better chance of pulling it off. And making it hurt too.
And that's what combat superiority is all about.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Which also highlights the likely problem with it - spamming the optimum move over and over again.

To any 4e players: was that a problem with at-will powers?

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

To any 4e players: was that a problem with at-will powers?

Some, yes. The ranger power Twin Strike would frequently get used a lot, but in combination to minor action Encounter and Daily attacks. But across the board, not really.