Expertise Dice

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So what started as a simple, flexible, interesting way for fighters to stand out has become another annoying part of the system math. Now everyone is ASSUMED to be dealing +3d10 damage at 10th level, and if the fighter wants to be special he needs another "parry" system ON TOP OF the expertise/maneuver system, so he can stand out beside the rogue who gets expertise, maneuvers, and skill stuff, and the monk who gets expertise, maneuvers, and ki stuff. Oh, and paladins and rangers and everyone else who can pick up a sword without cutting themselves also gets expertise and maneuvers. But hey, maybe the fighter gets a few more hit points and access to some different maneuvers!

 

[Stormonu]

I like expertise, and I don't mind other classes getting aspects (rogue -> sneak attack, paladin -> smite, ranger -> quarry, barbarian -> rage, monk -> ki) so long as the other classes focus is very narrow; just like you wouldn't expect a paladin to cast spells as well as a cleric or a swordmage to be as much an arcane caster as a wizard.

Likewise, I don't want to see "add more damage" be always the best option for CM dice. Doing wild and wooly stunts should really be encouraged in some way so they are on par with "moar damage". Mayhaps a stunt reduces the die size instead of eliminating it or bonus XP for converting CM dice to stunts?

I'd kind of like it if they could integrate spells into a dice pool, as that would eliminate a lot of issues that may crop up with multiclassing, but I'm afraid it would be too "un-D&D" for a lot of folks.

Also, I'm not really happy with the way damage is going to be what scales in D&D next. I wish that "flat math" meant attack damage was flattened as well, you just got more options at higher levels.

I would like to see HP progression outscale damage to provide PC's plot armor, but I don't want to have folks rolling handfuls of dice against monsters with hundreds of hit points at 10th level. Nor do I want to see HP grind fights again.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Another point - saying that all martial classes should do +3d10 damage per round at level 10 is incredibly limiting, as we're already seeing with the new rogue Sneak Attack.

First off, shouldn't some classes with better defense and/or mobility and/or other tactical advantages do less damage? I know we're not allowed to mention "class roles" anymore, but is it really taboo to suggest that maybe EVERY class that uses weapons shouldn't have exactly the same baseline damage? It's not like that's the case for casters.

Second, saying that everyone does 3d10 more or less EVERY ROUND cuts off all sorts of other options. Just look at the second playtest for contrast: at level 1, the fighter did +1d6 every round, the rogue did +2d6 when he had advantage (which he had to work for), the sorcerer did +2d6 when he had Dragon Strength on or +2 when he was out of juice, and the war cleric did extra damage when he had the right prayers running. On a "typical" adventuring day with maybe 10-12 melee attacks in it, each of those classes probably got more or less the same bonus damage from their class, but more importantly, each of them felt distinct in the way they made that happen. The sorcerer had to prep his spell and spend limited Willpower, the rogue had to get hidden, while the fighter just stood out front and dished out reliable damage.

Why can't barbarians do a ton of damage when they're raging, or rangers a ton of damage when they've got time to focus on their enemy, or rogues a ton of damage when they get the jump on their target?

 

[mlund]

I'm also concerned that, unless Expertise Dice damage and spell damage can overlap or make use of each other in an elegant way, this may wind up dividing the game into "spellcasters and everyone else," which isn't very flexible or modular.

Frankly, the game has ALWAYS been divided that way. Pre 4E D&D simply interpreted this to mean that non-casters (IE - "grogs") were not allowed to have nice things, period.

Now grogs have something nice, and the impulse to grind it down into something mundane and marginal that "everyone should be able to use," rears its ugly head once again.

I'm also concerned that this is narrowly focused on combat damage, instead of being relevant to multiple kinds of challenges.

The Rogue and the Monk already have maneuvers systems that aren't narrowly focused onto combat applications only.

The trick is that damage escalation becomes necessary with flattening attack bonuses and AC and generally scaling down multiple attacks per round.

Spells already had built-in scaling mechanics from OD&D forward that wasn't impacted by these changes. I think the toughest part for casters is hammering out the details on the spell list and scaling whatever at-will and recharge-based magic they may have.

For dedicated Martial characters the Expertise Dice provide a simple, viable damage scaling option via Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack or whatever other dice-dump-damage maneuver the class happens to get.

Then you just need to hammer out specifications for multi-classing and classes that feature both weapon and spell use for combat. Starting forward from the Warbringer Cleric should give a baseline frame of reference for the Paladin, Bard, and possibly a Swordmage, Hexblade, or Bladesinger.

Get things up and running on the Core 4, then experiment with splicing the ends in a balanced fashion.

- Marty Lund

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, that's nice and all, but it won't fall as crisply in line with the class design they've proposed to justify giving the Paladin a stand-alone class. What you're describing is one of the following:

1.) A Fighter with a religious Background and a Divine specialty
2.) A Fighter with a bunch of unbalanced extras bolted on (AD&D silliness)
3.) A terrible excuse for a multi-class Cleric-Fighter

The shtick that justifies the Paladin not being subsumed into the spectrum of Fighter-build, Fighter/Cleric, War-cleric build is that his core identity is driven off a unique mechanic of faith manifest from a code and he gets to Smite. Take that away to pirate the Expertise system and you've got a Paladin that's nothing but class-bloat.

- Marty Lund

No, what I'm proposing is a Paladin. Plain and simple. It may not be the way you envision a Paladin, but it is a Paladin. And I didn't say anything about "taking away Smite"...

A Paladin class with access to expertise dice would easily fulfill what I and a lot of other people see as a Paladin, without any "silliness".

This game needs to be many things to many people. As soon as people stop trying to define D&D by only their own desires and conceptions, then those people will stop being so angst ridden over everything they don't like with D&D Next, and start focusing on what they do like. If D&D Next ends up conceding to a small vocal minority, as it seems many in these threads continue to advocate, then it will be a fail right out of the gate.

The Paramount goal of D&D Next is to bring D&D players of multiple editions back to current D&D. It can't do that if people are unwilling to let in mechanics that support multiple concepts, rather than only supporting the concepts that they prefer.

Instead of pointing out why things won't work, or staking out little teritories and niches and trying to defend them for the next edition, perhaps try figuring out how to make it work so everybody will enjoy it.


(And people should be careful what they call "silliness" or "terrible" as pertains to a subjective hobby. One persons "silliness" is another persons raison d'etre. It helps to say "I think it's silly, YMMV." It seems like a small thing, but it reaps huge rewards in good will and continuing constructive conversations. We all need to get along, and we all need to put in the effort to get along...)


-Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong

 

[mlund]

A Paladin class with access to expertise dice would easily fulfill what I and a lot of other people see as a Paladin, without any "silliness".

No. What you have proposed is a Fighter with bolted-on extras to be the "Paladin" in this edition. "Silliness" is a polite way of putting it. Taking most (if not everything) the Fighter gets and then getting MOAR for being a Paladin is unbalanced - greased skids straight to Munchkin Land.

Seriously, what are you going to put back to fit the whole "Paladin" thing into your class budget? You can't put back the Swords, the Armor, or the Hit Dice (good-bye knight-in-shining-armor). Once you take the Expertise Dice you've got the whole dang Fighter class and THEN bolt on Paladin powers and tell me that's in any way balanced and fair?

Stop trying to drink everyone else's milkshake already.

Nobody is going to get anywhere by resorting to fallacious appeals to "inclusiveness" whenever ideas run afoul of fundamental class design goals for the edition (balance, distinctiveness, enjoyment, ease of access). An unqualified "I should be able to play however I want," doesn't get us anywhere.

The Paramount goal of D&D Next is to bring D&D players of multiple editions back to current D&D. It can't do that if people are unwilling to let in mechanics that support multiple concepts, rather than only supporting the concepts that they prefer.

You can't build a game including all the mechanics of prior editions, period. There were a lot of bad mechanics, balance mistakes, and incompatible visions between the editions. They want to get the good parts of the "feel" of various editions built into the options for Next, not inherit 30 years of baggage in a dysfunctional jumble.

The way to do that is to measure each idea against the big-picture Design Goals and then see if it can be adapted to a place where you aren't abandoning any of your fundamentals. The whole mentality of "Ooh, that's shiny, I'll have what he's having too!" runs you right off the rails of Balance and Distinctiveness.

- Marty Lund

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Seriously, what are you going to put back to fit the whole "Paladin" thing into your class budget? You can't put back the Swords, the Armor, or the Hit Dice (good-bye knight-in-shining-armor). Once you take the Expertise Dice you've got the whole dang Fighter class and THEN bolt on Paladin powers and tell me that's in any way balanced and fair?

Stop trying to drink everyone else's milkshake already.

I kind of agree with your conclusion but from the opposite direction: if I'm playing a monk or a rogue or a paladin, I don't want it to be a fighter-lite with additional class abilities tacked on. The new monk already shows us how having two separate mechanics (ki and expertise) dilutes both and restricts character flexibility. I don't want to track expertise dice AND daily spells to play my paladin; I want ONE primary mechanic. You could make an argument for spell points, spell slots, activation conditions, rechargeable powers, or any number of other systems. Heck, you could even design a nice paladin class that uses only Expertise and maneuvers. But if you have to start bolting together multiple class mechanics, IMHO, it might be time to rethink the class.

It annoys me that they seem to think the solution here is to go the exact other direction and make fighters special by adding ANOTHER new fighter mechanic, this non-expertise Parry that Mike talks about.

 

[mlund]

I kind of agree with your conclusion but from the opposite direction: if I'm playing a monk or a rogue or a paladin, I don't want it to be a fighter-lite with additional class abilities tacked on.

I think it is going to be different on a case-by-case basis for the classes, but that concern has to be paramount. "How am I not the Fighter?" is a question that needs to be answered* when critiquing those classes.

The Rogue and the Fighter share something important in common - their shticks are completely martial in nature. They rely on training and talent to be extraordinary. They are both basically Action Heroes.

They have radically different styles, though, so their maneuvers lists should be radically different. There are crucial maneuvers that are unique to their classes - like the Rogue's use of Skill Mastery. That works for me.

The Monk is basically an Action Hero too. His fluff wreaks of Martial Expertise with a ton of Martial Arts training and discipline. He's got this Kung Fu vibe that sets him apart, and then he's got the Ki-shtick added on there to consolidate it. He's got his own distinct maneuvers list and does the unarmed and unarmored fighting thing.

The Paladin is a Holy Knight-in-Shining Armor. The Fighter already does the Knight-in-Shining Armor thing, but without the Holy Power shtick. Because of this you have to put more separation between the two mechanically. They are already using the same weapons, armor, and hit dice. There's not a whole lot left to the Fighter other than Maneuvers, and both classes are trying to accomplish the same general mission in a party to boot!

- Marty Lund

(* In the Monk's case, the primary answer in AD&D and 3.X was, "Because I suck at fighting" followed shortly by "I can't use most magical weapons and armor," and "I'm better at keeping myself alive than helping my party achieve any goals.")

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like to have the paladin with limited expertise, limited spellcasting and s lot of smiting.
I guess, smiting could take advantage of the expertise dice and replace maneuvers. Or you get a lower number of dice and smites always add something. I am currently not sure which will work better, but paladin are also "warriors" and so they should gain some expertise dice.

 

[gyor]

I don't see how expertise dice interferes with a Paladin's ability to smite any more then an increasing attack bonus does in previous editions.

Also we now have presedence for using EDs for magical none spell effects, via the monk.

Example Hurricane strike is concidered a magical effect if one spends enough dice.

Here's how I see them going with the Paladin.

Features:

Lay on Hands: You can spend your hit dice to heal other characters, add your charisma or wisdom modifer to total healed.

Expertise dice: Your Paladin gets expertise dice

Smite: You can spend all youradd a smite effect. You gain one type of smite depending your choose of Virtue and you can choose others as you level.

Divine grace: add +1 to any ability check you make to defend against an attack.

Virtue: Gain a special bonus and a smite.

Example Smite: Holy Smite, dazes the target and deal holy damage, and does extra damage.