D&D 5E New take on why expertise dice is a bad mecanic

[mlund]

I actually brought up the idea of certain maneuvers "occupying" or "exhausting" expertise dice the other day. A static effect, like a Stance, could knock out one or more expertise dice until the Stance ends. A Limited Expression power would knock out one or more expertise dice until a Short Rest, Long Rest, or some sort of condition is met.

Deceasing your output due to over-exertion seems like it appeals on the grounds of simulation and narrative, and if it is balanced correctly and fun to use it'll acquit itself as a game mechanic.

- Marty Lund

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I still like the idea of warrior-types being able to "over-exert": getting extra dice for one round, then being exhausted (no more dice at all) until the next short rest.

This actually models 'stamina' in a way that 4e's martial encounter powers didn't.

I hope that abilities like that will be available through feats, or maybe even through special abilities tied to styles, but I don't know if they should be built in by default, since they add to complexity in tricky ways.

I can see a feat like "Act of Valor: All your expertise dice are maximized for one round, but they don't recharge until you take a short rest." Or, "Heroic Reserves: You can double your expertise dice once per day." Sort of gives the martial classes some "nova" ability.

I also DEFINITELY think that if classes beyond the fighter get expertise dice, they should recharge in different ways. For example, maybe rogues could get a more dice but only recharge them by taking an action to do so, so they'd have an incentive to jump in and out of combat.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I feel like I'm a bit lost trying to figure out whether some of these posts are sarcastic or not, but the OP touches on something that's already been mentioned before. In my opinion, there are a number of flaws with expertise dice, though that's not to say that they aren't without merit, these are just criticisms and worries.

What the OP noted is true to some extent. It is difficult to balance per-round abilities when one's actions are already limited on a per-round basis. Out of turn, you decide whether or not to use the dice to take (currently) defensive actions, and in turn you try to use what you have left as best possible. Now, not everything has to be balanced against deadly strike damage, since cleave and whirlwind attack offer tools to spread that damage around, but any maneuver that does something to your single target that round does have to be compared with deadly strike. I think this is limiting.

On the subject of per-round abilities, I certainly was hoping for something more encounter-based. I don't mean once per encounter either, with all the flaws that have been noted before, but something more akin to a stamina system. Fighters and the like are exerting themselves during a fight, and the player gets to choose when to spend their reserves of energy and push to get that extra damage or clever maneuver, which can be balanced by different costs. Fighters might get back a stamina every round, as they are reliable, whereas a beserker might get stamina back on a kill, or when significantly damaged.

The use of dice also troubles me, because again, I think they are limiting. There is a desire to use the roll of the dice in some way for a given maneuver, since you get better dice as you increase in level. This leads to the monk, for example, being unsure how far he'll move exactly until he spends a dice on it, which is unusual. It also threatens the flattened math because suddenly a character can have +d6 to AC or a saving throw, which is quite beyond any bonuses we've otherwise seen so far.

There is also the ubiquitousness of the mechanic at present. I find it odd that reservation was expressed about using it for the monk when there wasn't much fuss made until after complaints when it was extended to the rogue. Especially odd, since the monk has always had increasing dice in its progression, and that the mechanic really suits monk powers. If they're going to have the same progression of dice, and a list of maneuvers that are already design-limited as above, I don't think the mechanic has legs - something else is needed.

 

[hbarsquared]

I don't have a problem with the expertise dice mechanic being used across multiple martial classes, as long as two things are done to individualize those classes:

• Different and unique maneuver lists
• Different methods to access expertise dice

The first seems obvious, but I would like to point out that I would, personally, prefer there to be zero overlap. Slippery slope, and all that. A maneuver is either fighter, rogue, or monk. Not fighter and rogue, or monk and paladin, or whatever.

The second is something that I'm finding more and more appealing, especially since the concept can apply to the spellcasting classes and their different spellcasting mechanics, as well.

• Fighters can use their expertise dice every round
• Rogues must have advantage to use their expertise dice every round
• Monks have a "ki pool" of points as a daily resource they can expend on expertise dice.

Enough to keep the classes unique, but able to use the same underlying mechanic.

 

[mlund]

The first seems obvious, but I would like to point out that I would, personally, prefer there to be zero overlap. Slippery slope, and all that. A maneuver is either fighter, rogue, or monk. Not fighter and rogue, or monk and paladin, or whatever.

So, I take it you're for making sure there's no overlap on the Sorcerer, Wizard, or Cleric spell lists, right?

• Fighters can use their expertise dice every round
• Rogues must have advantage to use their expertise dice every round
• Monks have a "ki pool" of points as a daily resource they can expend on expertise dice.

I understand the desire for diversity, but there's a value in simplicity too - especially in the core. It makes for cleaner balance and easier pick-up-and-play functionality just for starters. One of the major pit-falls D&D can fall prey to is insisting on overloading the core game rules with a lot of layers of complexity in the name of simulation or making every class its own special little snow-flake mechanically.

I'd much rather see diversity in expertise dice consumption and/or generation put into modules. That said, I'd like to see at least some of those module options included in the initial PHB or DMG right at product release.

- Marty Lund

 

[Skanderbeg]

Doesn't hurricane strike knock an enemy across a room? And then your expertise dice refresh! I love the expertise dice mechanic and think the monk only maneuvers have shown what more can be done with it than the fighter's relatively straightforward maneuvers. I like the ease and fluidity of the ED system and I guess it will make balance across the martial classes very easy and with the differentiation shown by the monk, still allow the classes to be unique from one another.

But then I'm becoming less and less a fan of any dailies at all, including in spell casting and even encounter abilities I'm a bit meh on.

 

[hbarsquared]

So, I take it you're for making sure there's no overlap on the Sorcerer, Wizard, or Cleric spell lists, right?

Yes, as long as you can choose the mechanic for spellcasting. So, a 3E "sorcerer" would actually be a 5E Wizard with the "spontaneous casting" mechanic choice.

I understand the desire for diversity, but there's a value in simplicity too - especially in the core. It makes for cleaner balance and easier pick-up-and-play functionality just for starters. One of the major pit-falls D&D can fall prey to is insisting on overloading the core game rules with a lot of layers of complexity in the name of simulation or making every class its own special little snow-flake mechanically.

Completely agree. Simplicity versus unique, casual versus depth, are difficult knife-edges. Of course, everyone's ideas of simple and complex are very different.

To me, if every martial class had expertise dice, but their own unique access to that mechanic, it would be easy understand and to pick up and play.

 

[n00bdragon]

No. The plausibility issue is one thing, moreso for nonmagical abilities, but having an ability limited to some arbitrary number of uses per unit time is unbalanced, needlessly confusing and complex, and it's not fun either. Daily mechanics are simply indefensible.

There needs to be a like a sarcasm flag one can attach to their posts.

 

[Valetudo]

The 4th edition monk was the best class of that edition(not the strongest, just the funnest IMHO). The next monk looks like the 3rd ed. monk in alot of ways. Im wondering if next is gonna be a 1 trick pony.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is actually the exact same problem the wizard had, just in the opposite direction. Rather than being ALL DAILY, Expertise Dice are ALL AT-WILL.

The solution: modular mechanics.

Expertise Dice are an "always at-will" ability, and so they'll be balanced on that metric. But you should be able to ditch Expertise Dice and grab you some...I dunno....Endurance Points that recharge when you take a short rest rather than in the middle of a fight.

Or whatever.

Being always at-will doesn't make ExD's bad, they're just designed for a specific feel that isn't always going to work for everyone for every class all the time.

The designers are already talking about magic mechanics being modular. Non-magic mechanics should be modular, too. That way, if you're not happy with ExD's at-will balance, you can swap 'em out for something that spreads out fewer abilities of greater power.

And if you really don't like daily or encounter-limited abilities, you can stick with ExD's, and in fact, you can hypothetically apply them to everyone in your games.

Herpaderp, we all get the rules we want.