Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bow_Seat" data-source="post: 5997012" data-attributes="member: 6698793">I basically think of the fighter having CS dice as the fighter having everyone 4e maneuver that he can think of that he could use at his level. If in 4e you have a maneuver that was just X[W] damage, and you had some that were (X-1)[W] plus some special ability or effect. So once the fighter has access to more dice he can pick and choose how to customize it's usage so that he has access to whatever power he needs at that moment. This is way more fluid design than making him just choose from a strict set of powers.In another thread on the fighter someone was talking to me about the fighter effectively not having any encounter or daily powers, so as a compromise I have suggested that fighter maneuvers that cost more than (some number) or CS die to implement be applicable less often. This could make those powers still fall in line with the "trading damage for effect" but the effect:damage lost ratio would be greater, and thusly justify the 1/encounter or 1/day usage.Also the damage on a miss is just one of the fighters available maneuvers. It's called glancing blow, and it's not very good. The issue with the new one is that the damage on a miss only works if the fighter rolls > 10, but because of the math on the bounded accuracy system the fighter basically never misses if he rolls a 10 or above--this is just a small kink that the dev team needs to work out.You shouldn't call it vulnerable, just because that is already a keyword for a condition. If you are vulnerable (subtype-damage) then you take double damage from that type of attack. This is really just a semantic thing, you could call your condition anything else and it would be fine.DEX and armor are good, since it accurately rewards people who are in heavier armor with higher AC.What was left out of the packet on contests but was talked about at gencon is that contests are for when two people are acting against one another based upon non-attack criteria and there is a considerable amount of variability brought upon by circumstance. This mostly occurs when things are happening fast in combat. For example, if two people arm wrestled the person with the higher strength would auto-win, but if two people were trying to wrestle each other to the floor because they didn't have weapons and it were a life or death situation then you would use opposed strength checks. I think its a very elegant system.Ability checks are also now the norm for previous editions skill checks. Since most people are not trained in most skills, ability checks are now the primary go to check. If you have had specific training in a skill area, and that skill has categorical applicability to the ability check you are making, then you get to add 3 to your ability check result. Simple, fast, intuitive.Adv/Dis is great because it doesn't shift the random distribution, but rather skews it and maintains the same minimum and maximum to avoid number bloat. This is all part of the new mathematical system they are using, which they are calling bounded accuracy.Within bounded accuracy you are not going to see + attack modifiers adjusting too much from level 1 to 20, and if it does adjust it won't be anything to the extent that 3e or 4e were (+1 BAB to +20/+15/+10/+5 is not happening). Correspondingly armor values do not need to change much.These more static values are what allow magic items to no longer be necessary to keep PC advancement at an appropriate pace with monster advancement.I really like where all of this is headed.</blockquote>

Verification