Expertise Dice

[FireLance]

What? No mention of the most important part of the article?

"An optional power system might give weapon users encounter or even daily powers".

There may be hope for 5e after all.

 

[Stormonu]

I haven't seen anyone mention this aloud since expertise dice first came onto the scene, but isn't the design space for XD very similar to "tokens" in Mearls Iron Heroes? I have the book for Iron Heroes, but I never used it because tokens seemed to fiddly (they don't seem that way in 5E).

As I recall, Iron Heroes covered the equivalent of the Fighter, the Ranger, the Rogue, the Barbarian, the Paladin and the Monk - all using the token system, but with different effects for spending tokens, requirements to use tokens and different ways to gain/regain tokens.

 

[dd.stevenson]

What? No mention of the most important part of the article?

"An optional power system might give weapon users encounter or even daily powers".

There may be hope for 5e after all.

Alternatively, another optional module might be a copy/paste job from DCC, for those who want to run a 5E game with that old school feel.

Regardless of what else they say, I'm pretty sure that's the main point of expertise dice: giving 5E a delivery mechanism that can handle 4E powers, 3E feats, or can just offer up a rough set of guidelines to inform DM rulings.

Naturally, this puts a lot of pressure on their ability to design great maneuvers for every module. I hope they take this part pretty seriously. The current crop of maneuvers sure isn't doing it for me.

 

[Drago Rinato]

I think that Wizard spells can use a little power up, but Fighters actually are not 4x better. If I want my Wizard to kick ass, I'll create a Battle Mage and make use of the Spell Tactician Feature, maximizing the area damage.
Wizards shouldn't be Glass Cannon, and they weren't in the past... with fly, stoneskin, and invisibility.Wizards should do impossible thing: Fly, Teleport, Invisibiliy, illusions... with some area damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

For me, I don't think it was quite that openly hostile. Like I pointed out here, I think there were other considerations at work. I think that characterizing it as hostile leads to some reactionary defenses -- there's a lot of people out there who played straight simple fighters in games with complex, powerful spellcasters who didn't feel jilted, too. It's a lot more complicated than "D&D UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO HATED ANYONE WHO DIDN'T USE MAGIC!"

For me personally, I like the idea of a unique fighter mechanic, but I also acknowledge what the designers are saying about this being much like spells -- spells themselves are not unique mechanical elements. There's no reason additional damage (that you trade for other things) has to be a unique fighter thing.

It can be. And the profusion of other systems helps make that something of a reality.

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

Part of the issue there is that it's still "trade this combat ability in order to constantly spam this generic non-combat ability." But it's an issue of refinement, not of concept.

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 onthe Core 4, then experiment with splicing the ends in a balanced fashion.

I don't dispute the broad ideas here, but I will quibble -- I don't think that 5e is going to lock anyone into a given magic or martial system. "Whatever at-will and recharge-based magic they may have" likely is going to depend on the DM
(with a default that likely has some).

I think the "baseline Core 4" are going to be remarkably basic.

I just don't want them to ensconce a strict martial/magical division in the maths, and I do want them to consider non-combat successes as relevant. There's signs they're thinking that way, but the fan-base tends to be a little frothing-at-the-mouth about some of these things (in whatever direction), and there can be an echo chamber effect.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Certainly you would never build a party without at least one decent melee guy before 4th edition because magic resistance was far more prevalant, and pre-3E there was nothing you could do about it. You really needed those multiple attacks with a decent strength in 2E when you fought 90% magic resistant drow.

 

[El Mahdi]

"Silliness" is a polite way of putting it...

...greased skids straight to Munchkin Land.

Stop trying to drink everyone else's milkshake already.

Nobody is going to get anywhere by resorting to fallacious appeals to "inclusiveness"...

I asked you to be nice and tone back the rhetoric in the last post, though I did so indirectly.

I'm now asking you directly: Please dial back the rhetoric and post with at least a modicum of politeness. Please employ some simple respect for others ideas, and try to carry on a constructive conversation rather than attacking any idea that doesn't fit your preferences.

For example: "Silliness" used to describe AD&D is impolite. There are still many fans of AD&D that find it, and all add-ons to it, to be their game of choice. Their game is not "Silliness", just as yours isn't. Many of those AD&D fans do currently post here at ENWorld, and WotC very much wants to draw them into D&D Next also. Please don't marginalize someone else's game just because you don't like it.

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?

I do believe it can be done in a balanced manner. However, I'm not a professional game designer, and near as I can tell neither are you. However, in the article WotC just posted on this, it clearly states that WotC is addressing such concerns and is working to keep the classes balanced even with the inclusion of expertise dice for all martial based classes. They mention (without going into too many specifics, as the concepts and mechanics are still being worked out) that there will likely be unique uses of expertise dice that only fighters have, and likely maneuvers that fighters will only have (or have unlimited use of).

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.

My appeal to inclusiveness is hardly fallacious. Inclusiveness is most certainly not a fallacy, and I am not being either deceptive or misleading. And again, I'm asking you to tone back the rhetoric and post politely.

In essence: Yes, I (and you, and every other fan of D&D) should be able to play D&D however I/you/we want. However, that doesn't mean a complete lack of balanced mechanics (as you seem to imply that I desire, and incorrectly so). There are balance concerns for a reason. I however believe that the designers at WotC are able to incorporate the expertise dice mechanic into all classes with martial aspects and still retain balance. I believe this because they are professional game designers, and you and I are not. I also believe that they can incorporate the myriad interpretations of Paladins into the Paladin class...both yours, mine, and every other common view of them. I have faith they can do this as they seem to be properly motivated to do so (specifically, this time around failure is not an option...).

But back to "Inclusiveness": whether one may like it or not, WotC has stated this from the start as their Primary Goal with D&D Next. It's not going to change, it's not going to be dropped, no matter how much people rail against inclusion of anything they don't like. If "inclusiveness" is anathema to one's game preferences, then D&D Next will absolutely not be the game for them.

Mike Mearls - 9 January, 2012 Legends_&_Lore

We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.


Monte Cook - 16 January, 2012 Legends_&_Lore

The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone.


Monte Cook - 30 January, 2012 Legends_&_Lore

...I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions.

...why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost, however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community, no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than we have differences.

So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like, makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way.

And that's what the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about.

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.

Again, you are implying a desire on my part that I did not state or imply. Nor has WotC stated an intention to do this either. Creating a position that I don't possess, then attacking that position is a type of informal fallacy and flawed reasoning (specifically, a Straw Man). I believe it's occuring here out of a motivation to block a personally undesired concept, rather than based on a real issue of imbalance.



The argument that the Paladin concept I described earlier is untenable has yet to backed up by clear logic or evidence, and WotC disagrees that balance will be an issue. With WotC's stated goals for D&D Next, the exclusion of a concept (concept...not a mechanic) simply because some people may not like it is not a consideration in this iterations design. D&D Next is going to be a buffet with a vast array of dishes and flavors. Take the ones you want, and leave the others behind...but please stop insisting that the dishes you don't like should be banned from the table.

- Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong

 

[mlund]

I asked you to be nice and tone back the rhetoric in the last post, though I did so indirectly.

I'm now asking you directly: Please dial back the rhetoric and post with at least a modicum of politeness.

Politeness is not permitting vigorous or passionate criticism of ideas, systems, and arguments spill over into attacks and poor treatment of people.

It's not coddling bad ideas by holding back criticism. That's just terrible post-modern conflict-avoidance behavior that stifles debate.

I'm pretty sure excessive meta-discussion is off-topic and against forum rules as well, so let's curb it. If you think I've broken rules, report me to a moderator. If you personally want me to do something, PM me. If I see any more of this passive aggressive, public blame-and-shame meta-arguments about subjective opinions of politeness I'm just going to flag it "off topic" and move on.

Thank you.

Please employ some simple respect for others ideas, and try to carry on a constructive conversation rather than attacking any idea that doesn't fit your preferences.

"Constructive conversation," in my opinion, involves breaking down bad ideas along the lines of their flaws.

For example: "Silliness" used to describe AD&D is impolite. There are still many fans of AD&D that find it, and all add-ons to it, to be their game of choice.

Every game has it's silliness. I've never found one that didn't. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed playing AD&D for many years. Every edition of D&D has its silly problems. If you found someone that was 100% satisfied with everything in the rules of their edition I'd faint dead away in shock. Move on.

I do believe it can be done in a balanced manner.

Well, I have specific concerns as to why it wouldn't be balanced as it stood. I've seen examples of bad attempts to balance this process in the past, and I don't see any particularly pressing need to go down that path and struggle with patching the glaring flaw when you could just use a distinct design space and avoid the mechanical problem entirely.

My appeal to inclusiveness is hardly fallacious. Inclusiveness is most certainly not a fallacy, and I am not being either deceptive or misleading.

<SNIP>

However, that doesn't mean a complete lack of balanced mechanics (as you seem to imply that I desire, and incorrectly so).

The implication that to be "inclusive" of broad concepts you must be inclusive of specific mechanics is fallacious..

The proposal put forward was unbalanced and no suggestions on how to balance it or even acknowledgement that it needed to be compensated for were put forward alongside it. That fails to wow me to say the least.

I also believe that they can incorporate the myriad interpretations of Paladins into the Paladin class...both yours, mine, and every other common view of them.

There's a huge difference between conceptual interpretations and mechanical interpretations. Mechanics are fussy things. I hope they are successful in casting a very wide net to fit at least the narrative concepts of the Paladin. I'm sure there are people out there who dream up a Paladin with all sorts of mechanics that, in the end, will run afoul of the over-arching goals of play balance and distinct class identities. I hope they don't get their first choice in the matter but the final result is of such quality and vision that they are happy to play regardless.

If "inclusiveness" is anathema to one's game preferences, then D&D Next will absolutely not be the game for them.

It's almost as if "inclusiveness" doesn't mean everyone gets to have their way and that some desires / ideas / details are just incompatible. Will wonders never cease?

With WotC's stated goals for D&D Next, the exclusion of a concept (concept...not a mechanic) simply because some people may not like it is not a consideration in this iterations design.

Your argument conflates mechanics and concept an awful lot. Giving a Paladin the Expertise System is a mechanical decision, not a concept. The entire article is about how far to extend a mechanic. Trying to inject "inclusiveness of concept" into such a discussion is just a mind-boggling non-sequitor.

(In fact, one of the most maddening things I've noticed is some people just won't be satisfied even if they can play their exact concept of a character. No, it must be a dedicated, stand-alone class with exactly the right class name and everything. No sub-classing, build type, background/specialty combination, or multi-classing will do.)

- Marty Lund

 

[El Mahdi]

If you think I've broken rules, report me to a moderator.

Okay. Reported.

 

[GX.Sigma]

From Mike Mearls's Twitter:

I'm about 80% sure that the fighter and monk will be the only classes that use the dice for combat maneuvers w/o spending feats.
...
Also, fighters will have a fighter-only list of maneuvers (same for monks, ki-based maneuvers) and a few unique mechanics.
...
[In response to the question of whether other classes will use them just as a damage bonus, or for non-combat things] It's a damage bonus. For non-combat, we have some idea for a change to how skills work.