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.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?
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?
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?
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'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.
knock people prone, to push people around (think tide of iron, 4E players)
to shift around the battlefield
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
Except maybe, when you use a grid... then those things may be useful.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.
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?)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 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 likeDamaging 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.
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?
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.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
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?
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.
To any 4e players: was that a problem with at-will powers?Which also highlights the likely problem with it - spamming the optimum move over and over again.
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.To any 4e players: was that a problem with at-will powers?