Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Jawsh]

Maybe that's the sort of thing they'll ask all of us, the community.

Should sneak attack affect undead?

Yes

No



That still seems to be a contradiction. On one hand, D&D is whatever game the individual wants to play. On the other hand, we're taking a vote on how we are all going to play it. What if I'm on the losing side of the vote?

 

[Tallifer]

I will quote this in full, because it is a very clear and good idea, and hard to discuss otherwise.

Maybe they will use something like my idea and split character creation in multiple forms of complexity.

The 1st/2nd character would be simple and get the power of the more complex characters built in.

Basic Fighter

• Very High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC

Whereas the next level or complexity would be like 4E essential characters.

Advanced Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 4 Martial Stance Powers
  

The the final level of complex would get to 3rd/4th edition style additions


Expert/Master Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 1 Martial Stance Powers
• Power Attack 1/encounter at 1st level
• Brutal Attack 1/day at 1st level
  
• Weapon Specializatio at 2nd level and every 4 level thereafter
  

Somehow I would want to add a fourth category: a Fighter with a choice of powers at different levels like in Fourth Edition. Power attack and brutal attack lack the flavour and versatility of the cooler Fighter Powers.

But maybe the best way to get that would be to call it a Cavalier or Weaponmaster or something and make it a build in a later book. Still many Fourthers will be disappointed not to have their Fighter in some from in the Players' Handbook. I can see how he could get left out, considering all the different groups the Wizards of the Coast have to appease.

 

[Jawsh]

Still many Fourthers will be disappointed not to have their Fighter in some from in the Players' Handbook. I can see how he could get left out, considering all the different groups the Wizards of the Coast have to appease.

It would be interesting if they literally called them out by Edition Number. Fighter 1, Fighter 2, Fighter 3.5, Fighter 4.

 

[Argyle King]

Maybe they will use something like my idea and split character creation in multiple forms of complexity.

The 1st/2nd character would be simple and get the power of the more complex characters built in.

Basic Fighter

• Very High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC

Whereas the next level or complexity would be like 4E essential characters.

Advanced Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 4 Martial Stance Powers
  

The the final level of complex would get to 3rd/4th edition style additions


Expert/Master Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 1 Martial Stance Powers
• Power Attack 1/encounter at 1st level
• Brutal Attack 1/day at 1st level
  
• Weapon Specialization at 2nd level and every 4 level thereafter
  

When it comes to balance, how does the Basic Fighter make up for not having stances and weapon specializations (and other options)?

If the Basic Fighter has built in choices which grant the same end result, how do you present the Expert Level option in a way which doesn't seem like more work for no benefit?

If there's a desirable end number which allows a fighter to fulfill his role, I would somewhat assume that giving someone choices which take away from that end number in would have great potential to be trap choices.

 

[ferratus]

Maybe that's the sort of thing they'll ask all of us, the community.

Should sneak attack affect undead?

Yes

No

I think if people get hung up on the specific rules preferences like that, 5e is not for you. I don't think 5e is going to let you show up with your old 1e or 3e PHB and start playing.

I think there are going to be options reminiscent of various editions, but if you as a fan aren't willing to compromise for the sake of playing with the wider community, you're better off playing with your current edition.

5e is for people who haven't found their ideal edition yet, but like elements from all of them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When it comes to balance, how does the Basic Fighter make up for not having stances and weapon specializations (and other options)?

See the part he striked through. The Basic Fighter gets more basic benefit.

If the Basic Fighter has built in choices which grant the same end result, how do you present the Expert Level option in a way which doesn't seem like more work for no benefit?

Because there is benefit in some situations. You are more likely to have more "shining" moments when you use special abilities at the right time. Once you have encounter and daily powers, you can "spike" - this allows you to take out a monster a little earlier than if you play the other Fighter. But over the course of a day and encounter, the overall impact may be similar. The Expert Fighter shines in the encounter where he uses his dailies, while the Basic Fighter gets to shine when the Expert Fighter is spent and he consistently outperforms him in later encounters.

If there's a desirable end number which allows a fighter to fulfill his role, I would somewhat assume that giving someone choices which take away from that end number in would have great potential to be trap choices.

We don't know if there are still roles for PCs, and how they apply to classes. It oculd very well be that the "basic" Fighter is more designed as a "Striker", while the advanced versions focus more on defenders. Or it may be that all classes have some options to spread out, and the overall distinction between the roles gets smaller. For example, Leaders don't get something like Healing Word, and instead everyone has some more "Innate" recuperation or damage avoidance abilities.

 

[Argyle King]

See the part he striked through. The Basic Fighter gets more basic benefit.


Because there is benefit in some situations. You are more likely to have more "shining" moments when you use special abilities at the right time. Once you have encounter and daily powers, you can "spike" - this allows you to take out a monster a little earlier than if you play the other Fighter. But over the course of a day and encounter, the overall impact may be similar. The Expert Fighter shines in the encounter where he uses his dailies, while the Basic Fighter gets to shine when the Expert Fighter is spent and he consistently outperforms him in later encounters.


We don't know if there are still roles for PCs, and how they apply to classes. It oculd very well be that the "basic" Fighter is more designed as a "Striker", while the advanced versions focus more on defenders. Or it may be that all classes have some options to spread out, and the overall distinction between the roles gets smaller. For example, Leaders don't get something like Healing Word, and instead everyone has some more "Innate" recuperation or damage avoidance abilities.

I get the idea of spiking, but being really good for a few encounters out of a day and then being less competent the rest of the day doesn't seem to match the utility of being good at what you do all the time. Granted, that's something which will vary wildly by campaign style. If you're playing in a game where you have a chance to rest all the time (going back to the 15 minute adventuring day problem) then you're not going to mind needing to rely on spikes. If you're playing a game where the action isn't neatly broken down into X encounters during a day, the guy who can perform his job all the time seems a lot better to me.

 

[IronWolf]

I have been curious if they meant two different player types could sit at the same table. It seems that is the goal. It will be interesting to see how they pull this off, the mixing of playstyles at the table. Some good suggestions already in this thread at this approach.

My next question is how this pans out for the DM. Say I want a simple game as DM, but I have two players who want complexity. I wonder how those competing desires will be merged? It seems as DM I would have to be ready to support resolutions to some of the more complex characters tactics during combat encounters or possibly even skill challenges.

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to balance, how does the Basic Fighter make up for not having stances and weapon specializations (and other options)?

If the Basic Fighter has built in choices which grant the same end result, how do you present the Expert Level option in a way which doesn't seem like more work for no benefit?

If there's a desirable end number which allows a fighter to fulfill his role, I would somewhat assume that giving someone choices which take away from that end number in would have great potential to be trap choices.

The Basic Fighter would be a High Defense, High damage character. It would simply walk into battle, clobber enemies, survive, and draw all the immediate attention.

The Advanced fighter would have to choose between stances for offensive prowess and defensive strength. No one stance gives +4 damage and +2 AC at the same time and there is no way to use two stances at once. But it has access to Tiger Stance for bonus speed and Wolf Stance for automatic trip attempts on hit. The Basic Fighter lacks Stances. The Expert fighter only gets one stance by default and has to use 3 feats just to get another.

The Expert Fighter gets daily and encounter powers. This let's the player customize the fighter into either a barbarian style striker, a warlord like leader, or a traditional 4E fighter style defender. But the Master Fighter lacks the Basic Fighter's brute strength or the Advanced Fighter's library of stances.

The Basic classes would contain the most raw power in their character but lack almost any way to customize and be very straightforward (brute power fighter, wizards with many spell slots). The Advanced classes and Master classes would give different ways to customize with Advanced being the simplier of the two.

 

[talok55]

Pre-selected may not be all to it.

Essentials had character classes (or builds) that didn't have daily powers, for example. They weren't "pre-selected". They didn't exist. Instead, they got various bonuses that were roughly equivalent to having daily powers (no spike potential, but more reliable).
They still had encounter powers. But I suppose even those could be replaced with static bonuses.

So, if you play the "Simple Fighter", you may get something like +1 to damage every level and 1 extra hit point per level and make basic attacks.
If you play the "Complex" Fighter, you get encounter, utility and dailiy powers.
If you play the semi-complex Fighter, you get stances, basic attacks, and an encounter power you can 1-3 times per encounter, and +1 to damage every 4 levels.

Now, the reason it worked for 4E was basically - people had healing surges. That still limited how much they could do over the course of a day, as combat will inevitably cost hit points. Does that imply something like healing surges will remain in the game?

I sure hope not. 4E had a few good mechanics, but healing surges were not one of them.