D&D 5E Martial Damage Dice and Skill Die reset?

[the Jester]

My opinion that the "refresh every turn" mechanic is awesomely powerful but NOT broken is solidifying with every playtest session that I run.

The real reason monsters will attack the fighter despite his parry move is because otherwise, nothing stops the fighter from totally kicking the monsters' asses. Sure, it might be easier to slay the wizard, but meantime the fighter has cut down four of your number.

 

[Li Shenron]

So let's say you're playing a fighter. From what I've seen from Mike, you could use all your dice to do extra damage on your turn. Then, let's say, a monster goes next. It moves in to attack you, hits and rolls damage. You can again use all your dice to parry, because it's a new turn - the monster's turn.

This would mean that if you have something like combat reflexes, you could use parry again on another monsters turn if it attacked you, and you would get to use all your dice again. And it wouldn't just work for parry, but also for other reactions like protect.

That's the way things look like they're working RAW and from what Mike is saying.

Really? Last time I checked the RAW of Combat Reflexes says that you can only use the extra reaction to make an Opportunity Attack, not for Parry or other things.

And the RAW of Parry says that you need to use a reaction to use it, which normally you only have one per round, not per turn.

But there can be something else in the current rules to provide for an exception... or maybe you at WotC are already playtesting the next packet

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've gotta say that this turn/round distinction is CRAZY fiddly. Do not want. Parsing arcane distinctions like that is boo. If I'm intended to spam these dice, don't say they're spent, just let me use them for always. If I'm intended to use them up, make that choice something with some lasting impact, something significant -- make ME have to do something to get them back, don't just give them out for free just because the initiative is going around. Don't make me study the artificial turn/round vocabulary to understand how to hit things with this hunk of metal effectively.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

Really? Last time I checked the RAW of Combat Reflexes says that you can only use the extra reaction to make an Opportunity Attack, not for Parry or other things.

And the RAW of Parry says that you need to use a reaction to use it, which normally you only have one per round, not per turn.

But there can be something else in the current rules to provide for an exception... or maybe you at WotC are already playtesting the next packet

Yep, that's absolutely right. I combined opportunity attack stuff in there with some of the maneuvers while I was looking stuff up and mixed all the rules in there. Fixed now.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've gotta say that this turn/round distinction is CRAZY fiddly. Do not want. Parsing arcane distinctions like that is boo. If I'm intended to spam these dice, don't say they're spent, just let me use them for always. If I'm intended to use them up, make that choice something with some lasting impact, something significant -- make ME have to do something to get them back, don't just give them out for free just because the initiative is going around. Don't make me study the artificial turn/round vocabulary to understand how to hit things with this hunk of metal effectively.

Absolutely agree!! I think that games too much based on jargon or tricky uses of in-game terms to generate new design content, always end up attracting rules-lawyers and munchkins. Also, they tend to give all us gamers a reputation of dorks. :/

Yep, that's absolutely right. I combined opportunity attack stuff in there with some of the maneuvers while I was looking stuff up and mixed all the rules in there. Fixed now.

Ok, thanks!!

 

[A'koss]

The language definitely needs to be cleared up on this. What would also help on the next playtest is perhaps have an example encounter (even just a mid-level fight) that includes a lot of the standard abilities and common feats, maneuvers, spells and such. Zero in on potentially tricky rulings, tactics and such. Keeping everyone on the same page benefits everyone from playtesters to developers...

Back to the MDD ruling... interesting. Certainly needs some serious playtesting at higher levels, especially after you start picking up extra actions from feats, spells, magic items and such.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What would also help on the next playtest is perhaps have an example encounter (even just a mid-level fight) that includes a lot of the standard abilities and common feats, maneuvers, spells and such.

This is the first time I've heard a call for an example, which says to me that they have done a good job keeping things easily understood up until now, but have made a misstep.

 

[A'koss]

This is the first time I've heard a call for an example, which says to me that they have done a good job keeping things easily understood up until now, but have made a misstep.

Seeing an example of how it all comes together in say, a 10th level fight with some tactical play involved as well as hazards, ranged, melee, reach, spell action I think would be very beneficial. Address some of the corner cases.

Just looking around there are plenty of rules that still need to be clarified, just look at the Q&A thread on Wizard's site. Stuff that's just come up recently for me... Reach weapons in battle - striking an enemy 10' away with an ally between you and your target. How about an enemy between you and your target? With Warding Polearm do you get opportunity attacks against multiple targets entering your reach? Picking up something off the ground in the middle of a melee - any problem with this? Grappling - If you successfully grapple a target, but not pin them, the target can still make any attack without penalty it seems. Haste and two-weapon combat? Do you maximize martial dice on a crit? (A lot of opinions on this, but I did get an answer from MM on twitter).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Seeing an example of how it all comes together in say, a 10th level fight with some tactical play involved as well as hazards, ranged, melee, reach, spell action I think would be very beneficial. Address some of the corner cases.

Oh, of course. Examples are always good. I'm mostly pointing out that we seem to be hovering over a complexity threshold, specifically in how mechanics interact.

 

[Unwise]

I personally don't equate technical and specific language with complexity. Specific language can be an aid to simplicity, it need not be its enemy. IMO turn/round was a helpful distinction in games I have seen it in and the consitency of its use led to certainty. I find that vague language leads to complexity and confusion more than exact language.