D&D 5E My thoughts on 5e (mostly martial power source)

[StAlda]

Fair enough, as much as I don't like using Healing Surges as a commodity, they could be used as the "price" to perform a manuever. 1 healing surge for an encounter equivalent, 2 for a daily equivalent. So when you run out of healing surges you are left with at-wills. If you don't like Healing Surges, then create a Manuever points pool and use that.

 

[kinem]

When used in the context of an "encounter power" it means a power that can be regained after a short rest (usually five minutes long), in much the same way as a daily power can be regained after an extended rest (usually six hours long) or (in previous editions) a daily spell or ability can be regained after a night's rest. PCs who do not rest do not regain their encounter powers.

Thanks but I did know what it officially means; though I'm not convinced it plays out that way at most tables. Not being a 4e player, I couldn't really say, but the terminology is not conducive to imposing those requirements.

In any case, while fatigue could justify some of it, most martial encounter powers can't be so justified.

Besides, I thought hit point damage represents fatigue in 4e. So if you take damage you should lose your encounter powers; conversely, if you use your enounter powers you should take damage. Not that I'm suggesting this seriously, just pointing out another way in which 4e doesn't make sense.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I was thinking that fighters should have gotten something like "high blow/power-strike" and "low blow" that would be modified by a bunch of other things, but that would most certainly fall into one of the complexity fields associated with powers. Even though I know there's some who just want a fighter that basic attacks all the time.

I don't think we'll fall back to the complex adjustments of the power attack/combat expertise feat, and use improved disarm and trip, as I think 4e's powers showed that it probably worked easier than the tweaking of those combat feats.

 

[keterys]

Much like 5E will be a failure of stated goals if they don't allow both Vancian and non-Vancian, it will also be a failure if it doesn't cater to folks who prefer the different ways to handle "fighters" and "rogues".

That is to say, there should be a reasonable option for someone who wants:

1) All basic attacks all the time
2) Mix of stances and other on-demand powers
3) Encounter and/or daily options

 

[kinem]

Much like 5E will be a failure of stated goals if they don't allow both Vancian and non-Vancian, it will also be a failure if it doesn't cater to folks who prefer the different ways to handle "fighters" and "rogues".

That is to say, there should be a reasonable option for someone who wants:

1) All basic attacks all the time
2) Mix of stances and other on-demand powers
3) Encounter and/or daily options

Don't forget that for simulationists, it's not about how your PC works; it's about how the world works. So including non-simulationist elements and characters is a DM option (his world won't have versimilitude), not a player option.

 

[keterys]

There's nothing particularly simulationist about any of those three options, but it's certainly true that different groups will find some more appealing than others.

It's D&D, groups choosing what stuff to allow and disallow is old hat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the part:

longsword

attack: Str vs AC

This would allow daggers to be wielded with dexterity from level 1, which in my opinion makes a lot of sense.
A rogue not able to use a dagger with a dexterity based base attack didn´t make sense in 4e, and a rogue only beeing able to select weapon finesse at level 2 also didn´t.
I can´t see how a light blade should not be wielded with dexterity instead of strength.
Everyone who wanted to be a light blade fighter eventually aimed for weapon finesse, not because it is a good choice, but flavourful.

 

[harlokin]

Don't forget that for simulationists, it's not about how your PC works; it's about how the world works. So including non-simulationist elements and characters is a DM option (his world won't have versimilitude), not a player option.

The GM's world would lose verisimilitude because a single character is slightly different from the run-of-the-mill? What a poor delicate flower that GM must be.

 

[gloomhound]

For me it all boils down to that in a fight anyone can swing a weapon of some type (no matter how in ineffectually) but everyone can't cast a spell.

In a melee all characters should have the Puncher's Chance but magic should remain well magical.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[keterys]

If someone is a brawler, does it bother you that sometimes they Jab, sometimes Hook, and sometimes Haymaker? (whether that's via the 2nd ed unarmed table, (1e/2e) oriental adventures martial arts options, a 3e selection of feats or tome of battle selection of powers, 4e Slayer-like choice of stances, or a 4e Weaponmaster-style use of power choices)

Similarly, how about monks using trips, stunning fist, or quivering palm?

 

[Deadboy]

I hope fighters retain abilities that go beyond "I attack," even if its an optional add-on system. Having played a 3.5 fighter and found it to be the most bored I've been playing an RPG, ever, and having played a 4e fighter and had an absolute blast, I'm never going back. 4e fighters play the way I think a fighter should work, regardless of some people out there who seem think that things making sense has ever been a feature of the D&D system (not that I'm saying fighter powers don't make sense, because they actually do - a lot more sense then fighters who just stand around and swing at things).

As to the original post, I'm a big proponent of making weapons more unique in the manner discussed. Having some weapons that default to Dexterity (or even Constitution) would help make more classes work from the ground up without having to use customization options like feats to make them do something they should be able to do by basic design.

 

[StAlda]

I like the part:

longsword

attack: Str vs AC

This would allow daggers to be wielded with dexterity from level 1, which in my opinion makes a lot of sense.
A rogue not able to use a dagger with a dexterity based base attack didn´t make sense in 4e, and a rogue only beeing able to select weapon finesse at level 2 also didn´t.
I can´t see how a light blade should not be wielded with dexterity instead of strength.
Everyone who wanted to be a light blade fighter eventually aimed for weapon finesse, not because it is a good choice, but flavourful.

This is where I really hope they go.

Longsword Strength vs. AC
Mace Strength vs. Reflex(Dex)
Dagger Dexterity vs. AC
Flail Dexterity vs. Reflex(Dex)

If you don't want the 4e feel for fighter characters, the weapon has all your infomation needed to start playing (plus the basic attack scaling, which I think, in game flow matters, is better than multiple attacks). If you do, the weapon powers are in the optional material. BTW, I'm a 1e player from way back, there is nothing wrong with basic attack and describe to the DM the how/what/why.

Another thing I hope they do (as mentioned in other threads) is a slow AC progression. There is nothing wrong with a Red Dragon with a 23 AC, if it has 800 hit points, and it dumps out considerable damage, it will still make you soil your armor.

The one other thing that will make 5e great, if they can acheive their goal of basic with options, is that systems like the one I describe above will probably be easy to add to the system. Third party products could come out of the woodwork again with there own systems. Remember how Mearls got put on the map? I definitely bought of his Quint books.