D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Manbearcat]

Not multiple attacks.


Not for Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues or most other martial classes, which is what we're talking about. Those multiclass feats give you skills & some kind of class ability (or simulation thereof), but not actually powers.

And besides, if something is a fundamental combat manuever, you shouldn't havto multiclass to do it.

Correct on 1. I didn't know you included iterative attacks within the concept of mundane maneuvers. If so, then yes.

On point 2, I didn't mean that the initial feat gave you a power. I meant it gave you access to the powers of your multi-class. This, of course, is done through power swapping by spending a feat. As I have said before, I would much rather have PCs just be able to grab powers from their multi-class without having to spend a feat beyond the initial investment (and house ruled it to be so). That is one of the shortcomings of the system IME.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I meant it gave you access to the powers of your multi-class.

Which is zero improvement, IMHO.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure how it suggest that at all so you would have to break that down for me further. You seem to be saying a better map for Powers would be to the Feat System rather than the, historically, siloed Class Feature System. 4e certainly isn't predicated upon that idea. The Powers are effectively Features that express the focus of the class both mechanically and in the corresponding fiction. Further, it seems that you're suggesting that the class structure in 4e should be diluted by way of free access to all powers within the power source (or at least specifically the Martial power source). It was my understanding that lack of differentiation/homogenization of the classes was one of the primary sources of angst amongst the edition's detractors.

It is but it's a more complex argument than that. Everyone gets the same number of powers, they fire off in the same way with the same recharging, attacks about the same, does a similar amount of damage, similar scope with minor trade-offs, yadda yadda.

But the way the powers are organized, particularly between fighters, rangers, and rogues, puts them in class-based groups that tie class identity to fighting style which shouldn't necessarily be so. It's hard to be a swashbuckling fencer or archer as a fighter. It's hard to be an axe and shield man as a ranger. To pick the fighting style I want, I have to take along the other baggage associated with a particular class and that may not fit the concept.

With a more flexible set of structures, I can take and blend two of them to form the character identity I want. This appears to be something 5e is coming to grips with even more than earlier editions and I think that's a good idea.

t
Historically in DnD (outside of some UA stuff and Skills and Powers), Classes' primary disciplines (features, spells, powers) are exclusive to them and it is borderline heresy to expect otherwise (hence the backlash against Skills and Powers).

Was that the nature of the backlash in your neck of the woods? In mine it was more that the point system for alternative abilities really just served to reinforce the classes/races that were already there. Plus the bifurcated ability scores just made min-maxing a bit too min-maxy. It wasn't about blending class abilities around here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But the way the powers are organized, particularly between fighters, rangers, and rogues, puts them in class-based groups that tie class identity to fighting style which shouldn't necessarily be so. It's hard to be a swashbuckling fencer or archer as a fighter. It's hard to be an axe and shield man as a ranger. To pick the fighting style I want, I have to take along the other baggage associated with a particular class and that may not fit the concept.

Pretty much this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm glad you like it. To me it's taking something the Fighter was always able to do and say no not anymore "its too tiring" or "the guy can see it coming" now you can only do it once. While telling me that I can stab that guy push him 15 feet and knock him down over and over and over and thats "not tiring" and "he can't see it coming". How does that have any sense of logic to it? I think its quite jarring, unpleasant and generally speaking total nonsense.

I don't know what power you even mean here -Tide of Iron only pushes 1 square, and that's 5 ft. But whether it's 5 ft or 15 ft - apparently it's not as complicated as you make it out to be. The effect of pushing someone around seems a little less impressive than attacking multiple times, but where the double attack thingy requires chance and effort, the push thing only requires a lot of effort.

---

Should a Fighter be able to learn, say, a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge or a Ranger's Favored Enemy? Those are just martial abilities as well, aren't they?
In 3E, the only way to get these abilities is multi-classing - but that brings a lot of baggage, which people don't seem to like with multiclassing in 4E.
What about Sneak Attack? I mean, come on - why would it be impossible for a Fighter to learn Sneak Attack? Why should he first need to learn how to handle thief tools?

So what is the desired approach for D&D Next? Should there simply be a divine caster, arcane caster and mundane guy class and that's it?

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't know what power you even mean here -Tide of Iron only pushes 1 square, and that's 5 ft. But whether it's 5 ft or 15 ft - apparently it's not as complicated as you make it out to be. The effect of pushing someone around seems a little less impressive than attacking multiple times, but where the double attack thingy requires chance and effort, the push thing only requires a lot of effort.

---

Should a Fighter be able to learn, say, a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge or a Ranger's Favored Enemy? Those are just martial abilities as well, aren't they?
In 3E, the only way to get these abilities is multi-classing - but that brings a lot of baggage, which people don't seem to like with multiclassing in 4E.
What about Sneak Attack? I mean, come on - why would it be impossible for a Fighter to learn Sneak Attack? Why should he first need to learn how to handle thief tools?

So what is the desired approach for D&D Next? Should there simply be a divine caster, arcane caster and mundane guy class and that's it?

RE: Tide of Iron: my fighter knocks them 15 and prone at will, I can detail the build if you like but it does really seem germaine to the discussion. The point is there is no way you can tell me that hitting twice is somehow logically or reasonably harder to do or set up than hitting pushing a great distance and making an extra move sorry.
For my part there might have been buy in if my 11th level fighter actually got better at hack and hew or rain of blows maybe by 7th level he could do it twice/encounter 3 times at 11th etc. But you were never going to convince me that Tide of Iron being at will makes any kind of sense by comparison.

RE: Fighters learning uncanny dodge I'm going to assume this was intended for someone else since i have not advocated anything of the sort.

 

[Manbearcat]

But the way the powers are organized, particularly between fighters, rangers, and rogues, puts them in class-based groups that tie class identity to fighting style which shouldn't necessarily be so. It's hard to be a swashbuckling fencer or archer as a fighter. It's hard to be an axe and shield man as a ranger. To pick the fighting style I want, I have to take along the other baggage associated with a particular class and that may not fit the concept.

With a more flexible set of structures, I can take and blend two of them to form the character identity I want. This appears to be something 5e is coming to grips with even more than earlier editions and I think that's a good idea.

Thanks for the clarification. I think we definitely have an area of agreement on the point that archetype recreation can certainly be difficult (some more than others) in 4e with the rules RAW (at least relative to 3e). It can be done but can it be exceedingly fiddly and, as you mention, you likely will end up with some default class build resources tied up in "baggage" that do not meet your specifications for the archetype (and that can be a problem in a tightly balanced game). This somewhat parallels my post regarding the Swashbuckler in 5e. If we are not going to have a large number of classes, then the classes need to have unpluggable proficiencies and features (rather than rigid presuppositions that tie up build resources in "baggage") and a number of alternates available in their place.

If 5e goes with a more 3e format of multi-classing (without the issues inherent to the front-loading of class features), then I think archetype recreation will be much easier across the board. Again though, 3e multi-classing is my preference in spirit (minus the ability to poach for defense gains and feature bloat) and would prefer it, there are some (many?) who have made the compelling argument that it undermines the class structure of DnD. While I personally am ok with it for many reasons (including ease of archetype recreation), those 2e, and earlier, advocates that cringe at the idea of anything undermining DnD's class-based, PC build infrastructure seem more than a little rattled by it. Hopefully 5e can appease their concerns while creating the archetype recreation flexibility that you (and I) endorse.

Was that the nature of the backlash in your neck of the woods? In mine it was more that the point system for alternative abilities really just served to reinforce the classes/races that were already there. Plus the bifurcated ability scores just made min-maxing a bit too min-maxy. It wasn't about blending class abilities around here.

It was primarily the backlash that I witnessed but there was definitely a secondary undercurrent of what you mention here.

 

[Steely_Dan]

If 5e goes with a more 3e format of multi-classing (without the issues inherent to the front-loading of class features), then I think archetype recreation will be much easier across the board.

It looks like the 3rd multi-classing system could work as they have got rid of BAB and the Fort/Ref/Will and Skill point system; as long as they deal with the cherry-picklng problem.

And the Divine Bard/Fighter/Battlesmith/Deepwarden/Dwarf Paragon/Hammer of Moradin action.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can understand not liking something. I can understand not choosing the thing you con't like. I'm not so sure I get the need to actively suppress something you don't like.

The 4e fighter itself effectively "suppresses" any style of play that does not involve use-limited powers that you have to know to be able to attempt (i.e. basically everything that you ever did with any other D&D fighter). There is virtually no action that a 4e fighter could attempt that any other one could not; the powers simply codify what you can and cannot do; mostly in the form of imposing limitations that preiously didn't exist. Removing that particular mechanical structure and replacing it with something that doesn't have those limitations is the precise opposite of suppression (liberation?). That's what will get 5e to a broader audience.

Moreover, 3e had the TOB, which had some things similar to powers. The key differences however, were that it was not in the core rules, it was not called "fighter" and did not replace the core class, and was optional. The same thing, except without being forced down anyone's throat. I certainly expect the 5e rules to have a similar approach, except without waiting as long. Maybe 5e will do a monk with use-limited quasi-superpowers, or maybe they will simply release a set of rules that imposes those limitations for everyone. Optionally. (And hopefully not under the misnomer of "tactical combat").

The 4e fighter wasn't broken. It didn't imbalance the game, grind it to a halt, or render it un-playable. Quite the contrary, it was part of a better-balanced, more smoothly running iteration of D&D than had previously been accomplished. Why then, is your preference so much more important than that of others?

The 3e fighter wasn't broken, didn't unbalance the game, grind it to a halt, or render it unplayable. Quite the contrary. It was part of a better-balanced, more smoothly running iteration of D&D than had previously or subsequently been accomplished. Why then, is your preference so much more important than others?

(The other editions aren't that bad either).

Surely, you can't believe your own appeal to popularity: Pathfinder only caught up with 4e (in what un-dependable numbers we have) /after/ a power-less fighter had been re-introduced for Essentials. Clearly fans of 4e, while not numerous enough deliver the kind of revenue numbers Hasbro wanted from WotC, are not some tiny minority - like fans of gnomes (whom WotC famously got stung for ignoringl).

Well, there's sales and then there's the opinions of the fans. 4e sales (particularly the initial sales when people didn't know what they were getting) are hardly a statement of support of the fighter or any other element; while the conscientous choice to doff it and buy a 3.5 revision is pretty clearly an indictment of it. Nor do sales perfectly reflect the player base. As they say, no one takes your books away. 4e was almost certainly never the majority of D&D games, and I doubt it was ever even the plurality. 3e may not even have been the majority in its best days; though this is far more likely. There are a significant number of players still playing every edition, even the ones that aren't available for free online and still being revised (notice how WotC hates copyright violations now; it's because they're afraid of the competition-with themselves). The broader community of related games without D&D on the cover further complicates the issue.

WotC has access to the sales and poll data and playtest responses that we don't (the sort of data they collected very little of and reportedly ignored with 4e), and they've pretty much done a 180 on the fighter and the power system. Despite the fact that many of them bet their careers on those things in the past. What does that tell you? If by appeal to popularity you mean finally giving the fans what you want, WotC and me are both guilty as charged. Not that it makes sense to apply logical fallacies to game design (where popular opinion is pretty much inherently right).

Since I first read through the 1e PH, there is nothing about D&D I've found more jarring, more nonsensical, or less appropriate for inclusion in D&D than Psionics. My feeling about that are about as extreme as I'm going to be able to generate on the topic of a game - as close as I could come to honestly saying something is 'anathema' to D&D for me.

Psionics = optional. Powers = not optional (because they are the foundation of the system). Big difference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Should a Fighter be able to learn, say, a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge or a Ranger's Favored Enemy? Those are just martial abilities as well, aren't they?
In 3E, the only way to get these abilities is multi-classing - but that brings a lot of baggage, which people don't seem to like with multiclassing in 4E.

Yes. many of those abilities are available to multiple classes through various substitutions; UA in particular does this a lot. Still, you're right that having to multiclass to get these things can be problematic and make it more difficult to render a given character concept than it should be. ("Themes" or whatever they renamed them to be are supposed to address this).

What about Sneak Attack? I mean, come on - why would it be impossible for a Fighter to learn Sneak Attack? Why should he first need to learn how to handle thief tools?

??? Is he sneak attacking with thief tools? More to the point, the lack of advantage for non-rogue characters striking defenseless enemies has been a problem with many iterations of D&D.

(The overall point being that no one is saying 3e is perfect, even if it is the best approach we've seen under the D&D label so far).

So what is the desired approach for D&D Next? Should there simply be a divine caster, arcane caster and mundane guy class and that's it?

Isn't that where D&D started?
(I'm not old enough to know for sure).

Anyway, yes, in sense. A "rogue" is a character that gets better at stabbing people in the back, scouting, and dodging. A "barbarian" is a character with toughness, survival skills, and berserk rage. A "fighter" is a character with exceptional weapon and armor training and martial skill. None of these concepts are mutually exclusive. The modern conception of a class is merely a convenient package of thematically related abilities that makes the game easier, particularly for beginners. It's not a straitjacket.