Expertise Dice Not Necessarily Fighter Exclusive

[Chris_Nightwing]

The fact that they are considering using expertise dice for other classes says two things to me:

1) That it's a good mechanic, flexible and trustworthy.

2) That the Fighter should have something different.

Essentially, what looked great on paper for simulating complex physical combat has now made the poor fighter redundant again. Already some of the fighting styles are looking more suitable for other classes - the Rogue Swashbuckler and the Ranger Sharpshooter. The Fighter *still* needs definition.

Either give CS to Fighters alone, but dial back what they can do with the dice, or transform it into a generic fighting mechanic and give them something new. I like Fighters to be weaponmasters, to have extra attacks, to be able to charge and block. There are some really easy mechanics they could put in place to enhance the Fighter's combat prowess, but they've got carried away with these expertise dice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fighters as a collection of bonus feats and static bonuses works. It would work even better if there were better feats and more things to apply bonuses to.

On what evidence? The only time they tried it they gave it a good go - and it failed. It failed badly. It failed despite there being over a thousand feats and many, many things to give bonusses to. And they gave it a fair run and feat after feat and patch after patch.

Well, what D&D has been evolving towards, and what 3e really wanted to be, is a system where this is not the case, where nothing is exclusive.

Correction: What 3e wanted to be, and one thing that made it fundamentally different from any other version of D&D was to be a point buy system. Now I've nothing against point buy systems (I own more books for GURPS than any other system) but they have advantages that are different from class based systems. 3e was an aberration in this respect, with both 4e and Pathfinder doing their best to turn their backs on point buy (despite PF being saddled with 3.X multiclassing).

3e has so many feats, skills, and alt class features that what your class choice is doesn't limit you much. But it's still there, and the classes as they're constructed make building your chosen character a lot harder than it needs to be.

It's a lot harder in 3e than in 4e precisely because 4e is a class based system - and a class based system allows you to really play with odd archetypes that don't need to play nice with others. And with 25 classes even before Essentials came out you have a vast range of options to play with.

 

[Li Shenron]

On what evidence? The only time they tried it they gave it a good go - and it failed. It failed badly. It failed despite there being over a thousand feats and many, many things to give bonusses to. And they gave it a fair run and feat after feat and patch after patch.

I don't think it failed, at least not badly, it depends how you watch it.

If you judge it in terms of how many people played a single-class Fighter all way up to 20, then yes it failed badly.

If you judge it in terms of how many people played a character with Fighter levels, then it succeeded because it was probably the most common class to "dip" into.

IMHO the real shame of the 3ed Fighter was that the designers unbelievably overlooked the potential (but also the duty they had) to design Fighter-only high level feats. It wasn't even that difficult... there was already a Weapon Specialization feat, why not making a Greater Specialization feat and then another down the chain? Why not having the guts to go a little over the top with Fighter-only feats? Clearly if you design Fighter-only feats that are no better than normal feats, you're not improving the attractiveness of Fighter higher levels, because the amount of feats itself is not enough (especially since many times you don't use them simultaneously).

Then of course the whole Fighter-dipping phenomenon was exacerbated by the fact that most gaming groups ignored multiclassing penalties...

[Sorry... I hope this doens't derail the thread! I just wanted to say that the seed for something unique for the Fighter was there in 3ed since the first print of 3.0, but the shame was that it was immediately left behind]

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why reinvent the wheel?

1. Because each class, including Fighter, deserve a mechanic that makes them a unique play experience.
2. Because embedding the mechanic in multiple places hinders modularity, due to it being more difficult to disentangle from the game.
3. Because depending on how easy multiclassing is, "lesser" CS dice could be available to any character who wants it via feats and/or multiclass.
4. Because there's more than one way to represent martial powers.
5. Because mechanics are tied to a class's identity and classes should have unique identities.
6. Because it's unnecessary to have CS apply to everything.
7. Because, to pit colloquialism against colloquialism, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and why put all your eggs in one basket, and etc.

Probably other reasons, too.

CS seems to be a pretty elegant system open to lots of expansion.

Sounds like the Fighter is going to be a pretty versatile class! Which is great, that's always been part of the Fighter's bailiwick.

If you break every possible maneuver down to unique mechanics by class again then you get into one of the classic complaints about 4e--that every class has its own unique power list and there are 5 different versions of a maneuver that amounts to "damage plus trip" or "damage plus daze."

If someone wants to be a more effective fighter, I'd suggest they take levels of Fighter. Not everyone needs a damage + standard status effect kind of ability.

I could see CS ending up with a list of abilities by level, with each ability available to all, a few, or even a single class, much like the 3rd edition spell lists (or indeed, the existing 5e spell lists).

It sure sounds possible. It doesn't sound awesome. Everyone being a Vancian spellcaster doesn't sound awesome, either.

If each class has its own resource system then you're back to paladins expending their divine focus to knockback enemies, barbarians invoking primal might, rangers spending their quarry dice, etc--a dozen different fiddly subsystems when one elegant system could suffice.

Elegance isn't a goal to me, it is a tool in service of a goal. That tool isn't very useful when you're trying to get a unique playstyle experience out of each class.

In fact, I would include rogue's sneak attack in here, as well. Sneak attack could easily be rebuilt into a version of combat superiority that the rogue can only unleash with advantage. It could also let the rogue power all those sneaky rogue tumbling escape maneuvers if he needs to focus on defense rather than offense (for those times he doesn't have advantage). But that's a topic for another thread.

Awesome. Why not include spells in there, too? Spellcasters can spend CS dice to fire bolts of light and magic missiles and to heal wounds and to make walls...and then you have "CS Dice: The Game!"

The 4e warlord makes a lot of concessions to the fighter in terms of armor and shield proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, hit points, and healing surges. The fighter is strictly better in all those categories. In return, the warlord gets to do some things the fighter cannot--namely, provide healing for allies through a variety of ranged and area effects.

The 5e Duelist gives up things that the Archer fighter has in exchange for things the other cannot do, too. So do illusionists and necromancers. So do priests of Corellon and priests of Pelor. So do thieves and thugs.

Presumably, the 5e warlord will also make some concessions in terms of raw power in order to provide access to healing (or temp HP or whatever floats the wotc boat). Frequent healing (or even temp HP) is something that I don't think most people would see as appropriate for the fighter class (aside from something like Second Wind).

Why can't the Fighter class encompass the archetype of the military leader again (and better)? It did up until 4e.

Well, wotc doesn't seem to be going in that direction. Warlocks get both spells and their own unique feature, invocations. Sorcerers get spells and sorcerous powers. Clerics get spells and channel divinity. They all gain them at different rates and at different levels, but they use the same general framework. I feel that CS and the martial classes should be the same.

I'm on record a few times now pushing for greater divergence in how the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard work, so that's not an argument I'm terribly sympathetic to. They're too similar for me as it is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm on record a few times now pushing for greater divergence in how the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard work, so that's not an argument I'm terribly sympathetic to. They're too similar for me as it is.

You might as well add Cleric and (soon to be) Druid to that list... because ALL spellcasters pretty much work similarly. And that's because Magic is just one mechanic. You have a list of special abilities that break the rules of "reality"... and each spellcasting class gets to use those Magic abilities in a particular form and fashion (through unique acquisition and use mechanics, and unique story as to how/why they do so.) Whether it's fire and forget, spell points, Vancian, non-Vancian, pseudo-Vancian, at-will, encounter-based, willpower-based etc. etc... those are all just different ways of using the universal mechanic of Magic.

So it stands to reason that those classes of non-magical bent have a similar core concept mechanic... IE "Weapon Combat". As it stands right now... their core Weapon Combat mechanic is "wield a weapon, swing a weapon, do X amount of hit point damage". Which is fine for a baseline core mechanic... but which lacks a more interesting bent that the Magic-using classes get-- the ability to do more than JUST "do X amount of damage". And in order for the martial classes to get that, there should be SOME type of mechanic to do so... whether that be "tactical maneuvers" or "combat superiority" or whatever you come up with. But in any case... it is much easier to run and remember and understand and balance if there is ONE mechanic that all different martial classes opt into in different ways (just like the spellcasting classes do with Magic) than it is to try and invent SEVEN completely different mechanics (for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Warlord, Monk and Barbarian).

It's not done for Magic... I don't know why it would be done for Weapon Combat.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On what evidence? The only time they tried it they gave it a good go - and it failed. It failed badly. It failed despite there being over a thousand feats and many, many things to give bonusses to. And they gave it a fair run and feat after feat and patch after patch.

Failed? There may very well be more people out there playing 3e fighters today than any other version, several years after the 4e version officially "replaced" them. If not, it's close, and the PF version might be the most popular. Certainly the 3e and PF characters combined vastly outnumber any other version. And the PF fighter is just a 3e fighter with a better combat maneuver system and some static bonuses to cover up those dead levels. An acknowledgement that the fighter needed some improvement, but not a page 1 rewrite.

You might not like it, and I have no doubt that you are not the only one, but on what basis would you say this class is a failure?

Correction: What 3e wanted to be, and one thing that made it fundamentally different from any other version of D&D was to be a point buy system. Now I've nothing against point buy systems (I own more books for GURPS than any other system) but they have advantages that are different from class based systems. 3e was an aberration in this respect, with both 4e and Pathfinder doing their best to turn their backs on point buy (despite PF being saddled with 3.X multiclassing).

I would say that late 2e with all the various mods is getting towards the point buy approach. I would also say that PF's archetypes and alt race features push the game more in that direction. Many of the other OGL games have also pushed that envelope. D&D has been evolving away from a class-based system (to what I'm calling class-enabled) for decades and continues to do so; 4e is the aberration in that respect in that it has even less multiclassing flexibility than 2e does. And 4e's inflexible character creation, class "roles" and limited multiclassing are key reasons why we're posting in a 5e forum.

Maybe for you, and some players and playstyles, but obviously not for everybody. "Fighters are dull" was one of the major complaints back in 3.X. Just like "warriors shouldn't have spells" was a major complain with 4e powers.
It's hard to balance both, because differerent views have different desires, but I can say, without a doubt, that fighters being a collectoion of bonus feats and static bonuses does not work for everybody.

This is more of a fair assessment; the complaints against the 3e fighter are out there. It is hard to balance both groups.

My contention is that the problem with the existing 3e-style fighter is twofold. One, on a system level there is not enough design space; not enough things for fighters to be good at. Six saving throws might help a bit; I think an active defense mechanic and a robust combat maneuver/stunt/stance system helps more. The other problem is the class just doesn't get enough stuff. The feats, even after PHBII and the like, are not good enough, and the dead levels really hurt. If these things were fixed (CS seems to fill the design space niche alright) I would think that many of the complaints would be addressed, but who knows how many would remain.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On what evidence? The only time they tried it they gave it a good go - and it failed. It failed badly. It failed despite there being over a thousand feats and many, many things to give bonusses to. And they gave it a fair run and feat after feat and patch after patch.

Failed? There may very well be more people out there playing 3e fighters today than any other version, several years after the 4e version officially "replaced" them. If not, it's close, and the PF version might be the most popular. Certainly the 3e and PF characters combined vastly outnumber any other version. And the PF fighter is just a 3e fighter with a better combat maneuver system and some static bonuses to cover up those dead levels. An acknowledgement that the fighter needed some improvement, but not a page 1 rewrite.

You might not like it, and I have no doubt that you are not the only one, but on what basis would you say this class is a failure?

Correction: What 3e wanted to be, and one thing that made it fundamentally different from any other version of D&D was to be a point buy system. Now I've nothing against point buy systems (I own more books for GURPS than any other system) but they have advantages that are different from class based systems. 3e was an aberration in this respect, with both 4e and Pathfinder doing their best to turn their backs on point buy (despite PF being saddled with 3.X multiclassing).

I would say that late 2e with all the various mods is getting towards the point buy approach. I would also say that PF's archetypes and alt race features push the game more in that direction. Many of the other OGL games have also pushed that envelope. D&D has been evolving away from a class-based system (to what I'm calling class-enabled) for decades and continues to do so; 4e is the aberration in that respect in that it has even less multiclassing flexibility than 2e does. And 4e's inflexible character creation, class "roles" and limited multiclassing are key reasons why we're posting in a 5e forum.

Maybe for you, and some players and playstyles, but obviously not for everybody. "Fighters are dull" was one of the major complaints back in 3.X. Just like "warriors shouldn't have spells" was a major complain with 4e powers.
It's hard to balance both, because differerent views have different desires, but I can say, without a doubt, that fighters being a collectoion of bonus feats and static bonuses does not work for everybody.

This is more of a fair assessment; the complaints against the 3e fighter are out there. It is hard to balance both groups.

My contention is that the problem with the existing 3e-style fighter is twofold. One, on a system level there is not enough design space; not enough things for fighters to be good at. Six saving throws might help a bit; I think an active defense mechanic and a robust combat maneuver/stunt/stance system helps more. The other problem is the class just doesn't get enough stuff. The feats, even after PHBII and the like, are not good enough, and the dead levels really hurt. If these things were fixed (CS seems to fill the design space niche alright) I would think that many of the complaints would be addressed, but who knows how many would remain.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You might as well add Cleric and (soon to be) Druid to that list... because ALL spellcasters pretty much work similarly. And that's because Magic is just one mechanic.

And I will!

Vancian magic is awesome for the feel of the wizard class but, as I pointed out in my post on what the arcane classes are to me, it ain't the only game in town, and I want to see different, unique mechanics for everyone. I'd love a cleric who uses Channel Divinity to power spells, a Sorcerer who is entirely based on at-wills and metamatic (perhaps similar to the CS dice!), a Warlock who must use souls to power their magic, a Druid whose magic depends on the environment they're in, a Paladin who radiates with divine power as they get more wounded, a Ranger who performs more subtle nature magic, a Psionicist with a Power Point and/or Psionic Focus mechanic...

There's no reason all the spellcasters and all the warriors need to play the same. It was one of my big problems with 4e, too.

And in order for the martial classes to get that, there should be SOME type of mechanic to do so

Yeah, there should be mechanics for killin' things with swords. But CS is only one such mechanic, and there are plenty more. Some of those plenty more reinforce the central ideas of the different classes much better than CS would. CS ain't necessary to do that.

it is much easier to run and remember and understand and balance if there is ONE mechanic that all different martial classes opt into in different ways (just like the spellcasting classes do with Magic) than it is to try and invent SEVEN completely different mechanics (for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Warlord, Monk and Barbarian).

It's a good thing players only play one or two classes at once, then! All they need to know is the one mechanic for their class, whatever that mechanic happens to be. Maybe another one if they multiclass, but that's opt-in, so they presumably are OK with the added complexity.

It's not done for Magic... I don't know why it would be done for Weapon Combat.

It shouldn't be done for either one.

 

[Umbran]

I think any time you're making a class and you're tempted to steal the mechanic from another class...

...you need to really examine why what you're making actually needs to be a class and not something else.

Examine, yes. But be open to the possibilities.

For example, note that the Fighter has Expertise dice, but that they exist to drive the Combat Superiority feature, and manuvers in Fighting styles. Those features define the use of the dice.

The Expertise mechanic, then, is not the same as the Combat Superiority feature,. You can use the same mechanic to drive *other* features. Combat Superiority can remain Fighter-specific. Maybe the Warlord will have Leadership Superiority, with a whole different use of the dice that the Fighter doesn't have.

"Unique mechanic for everyone" sounds nice, until you realize what a barrier to entry that can pose. If I have to learn about 17 different mechanics before I can really make well-informed choices about what class I want to play, well, that's burdensome.

Plus, "unique mechanic" means "no clear mechanical synergy". If a couple of classes have shared mechanics, then it becomes more clear what you can do when multiclassing among those classes (if they choose to have multiclassing, which I very much expect they will).

 

[Tehnai]

The way I'm seeing it, having other classes have expertise dice doesn't mean other classes will get "Combat Superiority".

That absolutely is the Fighter's thing. He's superior. In combat. If he wasn't he wouldn't be much of a Fighter now, would he?

This, though, does not stop other classes to have expertise dice. Note that they are called expertise dice and not Combat Superiority dice. Let's take two example from classes that don't exist, but are still pretty awesome, a Monk and a Warlord. Two very, very different class.

So the Warlord, first, gains expertise from his "Battlefield Tactics" ability, and gets a progression similar to the fighter's. He gets 2 "free" tactics move.

-"Inspire", with which the warlord can prevent damage or heal or something
-"Order the Attack" with which you can spend a dice(and your action) to have an ally get an attack on your turn.

And then the warlord gets another one depending on his "Commander style" or whatever.

Now the Monk gets a pool of expertise dice from the "Mind, Body and Soul" ability. The Monk, again, as the same progression as the fighter as to the amount of dice gained. Just like the fighter, she starts with 2 moves.

-"Flurry of Blows" Spend a die after a physical attack is successful to attack once more
-"Enearthly grace" Spend a die to move out of an opponent's threat range without being bothered.