Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Stalker0]

Of course, mechanics are arbitrary. I think there is something to be said for having a single system to handle effects like these that all the martial classes could tap into, rather than writing a new mechanic for each subset of them that would reasonably be used by a given class.

I completely agree here. A unified mechanic provides a lot of design advantages and ensures it gets strong support. It also helps newer players get familiar with more aspects of the game quicker.

Here are a few ways you get use the core ED system, but adapt it to class specific uses:

(again, just some examples, certainly don't take the mechanics as gospel).

Sneak Attack: When a rogue uses the extra damage combat maneuver on a target that he has advantage on, those extra dice are maximized.

Favored Enemy: A ranger receives an extra CS dice per round which can only be used when the target is one of the ranger's favored enemies.

Combination Strike: Whenever a monk rolls a CS dice, and rolls a 6 or better, he gains another CS dice. This dice must be used on a combat maneuver the monk has not yet used this round. If a maneuver does not require a dice roll, the monk should roll anyway to check for combination strike.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, the AD&D paladin was very much a fighting man, not a cleric.

And the OD&D cleric gained a grand total of 0 spells at first level. They were very much heavily armoured combatants who took part in the line as well.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

When did the Paladin receive spells?

In early editions the campaign was likely over before that happened, and in 3E they were definitely weak spell casters compared to the Cleric - but that was an aberrant design as I saw the Cleric routinely out-fight the fighter!

I'm not against Paladin spell-casting, but I think the class should be built up from a virtuous warrior base, rather than a militant cleric base. It is erroneous design based on the latter that creates confusion about the Paladin's identity and questions of it's need to even exist.

 

[cmbarona]

My quick two cents...

For the Warlord, perhaps their ED could be split between any combination of the pools of Strategy (gained before battle), Tactics (gained during battle), and Morale (a Daily resource).

I have to say, at first I was against the ED concept spreading to other classes, but the suggestions within this very thread have convinced me that it could be handled quite elegantly.

 

[Stalker0]

\
I have to say, at first I was against the ED concept spreading to other classes, but the suggestions within this very thread have convinced me that it could be handled quite elegantly.

Someone please mark the time, a person has been swayed by an argument on the internet!

 

[Li Shenron]

I think paladins' being unable to parry, cleave, jab etc because of the need to balance a called mount is a pretty weak argument - and I'm seeing hopeful signs that WotC agrees.

But the Paladins are not unable to parry, cleave or jab. They do these all the time, it's part of the astract nature of combat, you don't need to say "I parry" every round, it's already subsumed in the fact that you are moving your arms while fighting (your Dex to AC, even when the modifier is negative it's still better than standing still = treated as Dex 0).

Just because the Fighter has a special ability called "Parry" doesn't mean everybody else is not parrying! It means that the Fighter can choose to parry better when he wants to.

As a matter of fact, there are many other ways in the game to "parry better when you want to". One of them for example is taking the total-defense (or whatever it is called) action. Sure, you have to give up your attack this turn, so what? The game is full of trade-offs and this is perfectly in line with the idea that if you want to "parry better" then you have to so something else a bit worse. And the Fighter is doing a trade-off too, if he chooses Parry he's not choosing Deadly Strike or something else.

So you have Total Defense, surely there will be a parrying option or two in the narrative module, and there will be at least one feat granting some defense bonus which even if the fluff doesn't mention parrying specifically you can probably just refluff that. But no, you want to step on the Fighter's toes at any cost and steal his stick? Why can't I say then that my Fighter must be able to steal your Paladin's sticks, all of them? Why can't my Fighter learn Paladin spells or abilities or auras, he could after all be receiving a bless from above for praying hard enough. But guess what... they can! It's called "multiclassing".

No, the fundamental problem here is not balance at all, it's about making classes different, if they can provide a good explanation why then great, otherwise they should just force it artificially. Call it gamist if you want, but it's a known fact that the Fighter class suffered for many years from the problem that people just didn't play it single-class for long and after a few levels they just used a few levels of Fighter for some bonuses.
Therefore either you go with Tony Vargas' suggestion to ditch the Fighter class completely (but then you have to explain to countless players why they have to shoehorn themselves into Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian when they don't want any of those specialist concepts), or you accept the fact that some class abilities just need to be "protected" or "restricted".

 

[cmbarona]

Li Shenron,

Would it feel appropriately unique if a Fighter were the only class whose ED regenerated every round?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you 100% that a Fighter needs a unique schtick. I was very glad in 4e when I saw they weren't as bland as I thought the 3e Fighter was. But to say that a Fighter needs uniqueness is not exactly the same as saying other classes shouldn't have access to a similar Parry mechanic. One is a design goal, the other is arguing the mechanics of achieving that design goal. Do you see the difference? Put another way, D&D Next Wizards and Sorcerers both have access to a spell list, and there is some overlap. Do they still seem like different classes? If so, and I think it is so, then perhaps the same could be achieved on the Martial end of things.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I had a 3E Paladin with power attack and combat expertise and it was really cool to be able to opt for power or defence as the combat ebbed and flowed. That to me was a better level of combat abstraction than the default 'hit/miss' set-up. However it chewed up a chunk of my options for character optimization to create a feel which should have been a baked in.

 

[triqui]

Li Shenron,

Would it feel appropriately unique if a Fighter were the only class whose ED regenerated every round?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you 100% that a Fighter needs a unique schtick. I was very glad in 4e when I saw they weren't as bland as I thought the 3e Fighter was. But to say that a Fighter needs uniqueness is not exactly the same as saying other classes shouldn't have access to a similar Parry mechanic. One is a design goal, the other is arguing the mechanics of achieving that design goal. Do you see the difference? Put another way, D&D Next Wizards and Sorcerers both have access to a spell list, and there is some overlap. Do they still seem like different classes? If so, and I think it is so, then perhaps the same could be achieved on the Martial end of things.

I think other classes should have a different kind of "parry" mechanic.

For example, Paladins can have a "purity vow" or whatever, that they recharge when they hit an enemy, or heal a friend. Spending that, they can get +4 AC as a reaction. Rogues, on the other hand, have the option to make a Dex Save against the incoming damage, to halve it, but only if they have The Initiative (meaning they attacked that guy last turn with sneak attack). And Barbarians can get regeneration, allowing them to ignore some damage while raging.

Those are just three stupid examples that came to my mind right now, they aren't balanced or playtested, but you get the idea, I think. Other classes *can* defend themselves. Just make their mechanics different. The fighter got the ability to trade damage done, for damage reduction. It's cool, it's fluffy, and it's unique. Let him have his own toys.

 

[Li Shenron]

Li Shenron,

Would it feel appropriately unique if a Fighter were the only class whose ED regenerated every round?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you 100% that a Fighter needs a unique schtick. I was very glad in 4e when I saw they weren't as bland as I thought the 3e Fighter was. But to say that a Fighter needs uniqueness is not exactly the same as saying other classes shouldn't have access to a similar Parry mechanic. One is a design goal, the other is arguing the mechanics of achieving that design goal. Do you see the difference? Put another way, D&D Next Wizards and Sorcerers both have access to a spell list, and there is some overlap. Do they still seem like different classes? If so, and I think it is so, then perhaps the same could be achieved on the Martial end of things.

Let me think...

Let's not say that necessarily CS and expertise dice need to be restricted to Fighter at any cost.

Let's not say that Parry (the single ability currently usable with expertise dice) need to be restricted to Fighter at any cost.

But if both of these are allowed to another class, and then presumably on the same ground also many others will be, then we have a first problem related to the fact that other classes can get more or less anything that the Fighter can, while the opposite is not true. This is just plain unfair.

And that there is a second problem arising from multiclassing.

At the moment it might sound like a great idea to have many classes share the same CS/ED mechanic, because then when multiclassing e.g. Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Barbarian, you will have synergies from accessing both Fighter's and the other class's abilities from the same "pool" of resources. Sounds great doesn't it?

Well in practice it becomes not so great when you realize that this works only for some multiclass combinations. It's exactly what happened in 3ed: warrior classes multiclassed perfectly because they shared their main mechanic (BAB) and all their additional abilities (feats, Rage, special abilities) didn't generally become too weak at higher levels if you had only a few levels in their class, while at the same time all spellcasters did not have a mechanic to share! Their spells remained completely separated. The result: multiclass in 3ed worked great for warrior-types, and very poorly for spellcasters or hybrids warrior/spellcaster. Once again, plain unfair.

On a side tangent, in 3ed this problem also made the Fighter became the ultimate level-dipper for other classes who were just looking for full proficiencies and a couple of bonus feats without losing BAB.

If they can make sure that (more or less) every multiclassing combinations result in a decently balanced chararcter, then they can surely go ahead with using a shared CS/ED mechanics. Buf if they can't, then it's quite necessary that CS is Fighter-only. Otherwise, if you have to start with martial classes sharing a mechanic (i.e. using the same rules AND merging the resource pool of the two classes) and spellcasters not sharing a mechanic (i.e. totally separate spellcasting abilities, even tho they share the rules), then it's very hard if not impossible to come up with a multiclassing system which is mostly fair to all.