D&D Next Q&A 9 August

[Ahnehnois]

They're still not answering why this innovative and unique mechanic can only be used with the fighter, and not with the rogue, wizard, or cleric.

Given how fundamental this mechanic seems to the combat system, this is an important point. What completely different mechanic is going to differentiate a rogue or a barbarian, provide 20 levels worth of play, and have the same depth and flexibility.

Now if you said that the rogue got less CS and got it as a dodge bonus and the barbarian's is slanted towards power attack-y and bull rush type uses that's fine, but this seems like the bounded accuracy version of a base attack bonus, i.e. the basic measure of competency that everyone should have.

The #1 complaint in the fighter vs caster wars is " Theres nothing a fighter can do that a caster can't do better".

I don't recall there ever being "fighter vs caster wars", but the last time they "fixed" this, it caused the very real edition wars.

Now the powers that be want to give the fighter something that the other classes can't do better and you want to know why?

Not really. It's why can the fighter do something that the other classes can't do at all. This system gives more granularity than BAB, so there's every opportunity to give fighters more and bigger dice with better uses, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be fighter-only. Quite the contrary.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We'll see what the classes bring, some of them have good starting points:
Paladin: Auras, Lay on Hands, Divine Channeling, Turn Undead?
Barbarian: Rage?

Also remember, that the playtest moradin cleric has a spell that makes him deal 1d10 extra damage for 1 minute...

that looks quite fine. 1d10, no flexibility for 2 combats, while the fighter has 1d4 every round of combat, on top of his already superior attack values.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

A version of Combat Superiority is going to be in the next Playtest Package (August) isn't it?

That's the impression I've gotten by some other comments.

I really hope they let you chose a use of superiority at first level. I'd even be willing to give up one of the "freebies."

 

[Cybit]

Given how fundamental this mechanic seems to the combat system, this is an important point. What completely different mechanic is going to differentiate a rogue or a barbarian, provide 20 levels worth of play, and have the same depth and flexibility.

Now if you said that the rogue got less CS and got it as a dodge bonus and the barbarian's is slanted towards power attack-y and bull rush type uses that's fine, but this seems like the bounded accuracy version of a base attack bonus, i.e. the basic measure of competency that everyone should have.

I don't recall there ever being "fighter vs caster wars", but the last time they "fixed" this, it caused the very real edition wars.

Not really. It's why can the fighter do something that the other classes can't do at all. This system gives more granularity than BAB, so there's every opportunity to give fighters more and bigger dice with better uses, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be fighter-only. Quite the contrary.

All I hear is "I want all the toys too."

Every non caster could ask why they don't get "spells", etc etc. This gives each class something UNIQUE to bring to the table, which was, ironically, a common complaint of folks who did not like 4E, that each class felt "similar". Why, oh why, all of a sudden, would we want to make that same mistake again?

 

[DEFCON 1]

God, I hope not. I thought the point of CS was that you could mix and match to create your own fighting style; not just pick a pre-baked one at level 1 and have all your future progression dictated by it.

Question #1 's answer specifically says "but we think there’s a lot of potential for building your own fighting style based on how you use your dice.", so no, it does not appear to be a whole pre-built set of styles you only get to choose from... but rather you built your fighting style based upon which moves you take.

The answer in the second question that said "We’re also looking at giving you a third right out of the gate, based on the fighting style you selected." is in reference to the style you choose to build as referenced in question 1.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't recall there ever being "fighter vs caster wars", but the last time they "fixed" this, it caused the very real edition wars.

You may have missed such discussions, but they have occurred often (even including ones you've posted in). They have occurred under multiple editions and predate recent edition wars, though they have been in those, too. Although 'non-casters vs caster' arguments (such as 'there is nothing a prepared wizard cannot do better than another class [see Spider Climb, Knock, etc]') are more prevalent. In 3E, the 'the buffed cleric is a better fighter than the fighter is' debates were endless. Even back to AD&D, where a common debate concerned the fighter starting tough but rapidly becoming little more than pass-interference for the casters.

I personally think this is great and a lot more interesting (and reinforcing of the class concept) than bending bars and lifting gates.


It's also worth noting that this mechanic may be ported to other classes if well received, but in different ways. For example, the rogue might get 'deviltry dice', with the ability to use them to increase sneak, back-stab damage or certain skill uses. The wizard might get them for concentration checks or arcana uses. It's a great concept that has legs, IMHO.

 

[Pour]

All I hear is "I want all the toys too."

Every non caster could ask why they don't get "spells", etc etc. This gives each class something UNIQUE to bring to the table, which was, ironically, a common complaint of folks who did not like 4E, that each class felt "similar". Why, oh why, all of a sudden, would we want to make that same mistake again?

Misconceptions existed then and misconceptions exist now. Presentation goes a long way to changing the feel of things, both from a game and from a playtest. [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] can speak more about the underlying mechanics given a certain spin becoming suddenly innovative instead of stifling (unless I'm confusing people).

Gotta admit, though, to be so against something this early in a playtest sort of sounds a little bit like, "Now we have something awesome and you can never take it away!". Now that CS is here and at this juncture entirely for the fighter, it can always revert back to that. Lets try pushing it, though, and testing what happens next. Look, I'm not a fan of caster supremacy (I play 4e after all), but we have to explore multiple options here if we want to keep pushing the design. If it doesn't work out, we tone it back.

Ahnehnois makes an interesting point. Some reduced or specified CS for rogues and barbarians might actually be cool, slanted in a particular style and lacking the full range of a fighter. Maybe CS, in a basic form, will be a mechanic for all classes to perform combat basics trip, disarm, charge, and rush.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You may have missed such discussions, but they have occurred often (even including ones you've posted in). They have occurred under multiple editions and predate recent edition wars, though they have been in those, too. Although 'non-casters vs caster' arguments (such as 'there is nothing a prepared wizard cannot do better than another class [see Spider Climb, Knock, etc]') are more prevalent. In 3E, the 'the buffed cleric is a better fighter than the fighter is' debates were endless.

See, I would categorize those as arguments about the spells rather than the classes. Spells that give clerics full base attack are pretty sketchy. There have been a variety of powerful buff and utility spells that have caused complaints for a long time. I wouldn't categorize this as an argument that the classes using them were inherently detrimental to the game, and the thought of giving fighters spell-type abilities to compensate was not really what was being discussed.

It's also worth noting that this mechanic may be ported to other classes if well received, but in different ways. For example, the rogue might get 'deviltry dice', with the ability to use them to increase sneak, back-stab damage or certain skill uses. The wizard might get them for concentration checks or arcana uses. It's a great concept that has legs, IMHO.

Pretty sure that's what the poster that started this little chain was getting at. That's definitely what I was getting at.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't recall there ever being "fighter vs caster wars", but the last time they "fixed" this, it caused the very real edition wars.

Google "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards". Its a discussion older than dirt.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Agreed, but the sweetness of CS does raise another conundrum: the other martial classes will need to scramble to keep up.

Since the article makes pretty clear that the number and size of dice both increase in a linear fashion (so something like 1d4, 1d6, 2d6, 2d8, 3d8...) and given that a level 5 fighter gets 2d6 CS dice, it seems logical to think you'll have 3d8 by level 10 and somewhere north of 5d12 by level 20.

But to avoid any extra guessing, let's just use the 2d6 at level 5 mentioned in the first L&L article. This means that a level 5 archery-fighter can do 3d6 damage every round, without even a magic weapon. And if he's unexpectedly surrounded, he can switch his dice to defense, giving him a DR of 2-12. All the sudden, every fighter can do impressive damage with any weapon you put in his hand.

This is not a problem. If you're going to have a class called the Fighter then he should absolutely rock at fighting. Especially if you're discarding the AEDU structure so the non-fighters are much better at things that don't involve fighting than the fighter.

And I don't see why Ranger and Paladin will necessarily avoid CS. They just won't get as much of it as the fighter.

If the fighter can't kick a prebuffed cleric in a duel barring extremely bad luck, I'm going to consider D&D Next has failed at balance. Just as it will have if the Rogue isn't a better burglar than the wizard.

Edit: <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@Remathilis <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, I thought TV Tropes links normally came with a warning.