D&D 5E Should non-fighters get maneuvers and expertise dice?

[Tony Vargas]

I actually think the feat+skill approach can help with balance, because feats can have prerequisites, and thus costs or restrictions. Thus, if not only magic missile, but also polymporph, teleport, resurrection, etc. are feats, they can be dealt with on an individual basis rather than under the envelope of freely available spells. The feats could have high prerequisites, or simply be DM options as many feats are. To cherry-pick good spells from different schools, you'd need to devote a lot of character build resources to meeting their disparate prerequisites.

Sure, that could restrict customizabilty some. It does create a need for a complex sort of 'web' of balance instead of an innate systemic balance, but it's not an impossible task. On the downside (and its a completely different downside), and you saw this with the 3.x fighter, getting some feats (spells) with a lot of preqs eat up a lot of character options, making going for some of the 'best' options very build-constraining.

Not that you couldn't do this with spells as they are, but it makes more sense with feats.

I don't know if it makes more sense, but it certainly makes design sense to use one customization mechanic for both.

That essentially still what I think, that the rogue is clunky, the casters anachronistic and abusable, and the fighter is the way to go.

I'd have to have agreed 5 years ago. But, now that I've seen what 4e was able to do, I'm less certain. Dailies are problematic, you still have the 5MWD issue, even in 4e for instance, but limited-use abilities of some sort do add interest. 4e demonstrated that you could still have that, while having a good degree of class balance, which I found surprising.

Still, it lacked the elegance of the fighter design.

I don't disagree with that assessment, but I find it unfortunate. On both a business level and a creative level, D&D needed a change; 3e was stagnating as a business and design flaws were becoming apparent. Just because the direction they took had its problems and didn't meet expectations doesn't mean that all change is bad.

Nod. 3.5 still had some life left in it, as Pathfinder showed, though. And, I think they really overlooked the power of the open source paradigm in trying to change the way they did. 4e was a big improvement over 3.5, but, as has always been the case with D&D, it was 'behind the times' in how it tried to make that improvement. Before, TSR or WotC could just say "here's the new D&D." And everyone would either buy into it or be marginalized. With the OGL out there, there was no marginalizing the hold-outs, and 4e (quite independent of the nature and depth of change it represented) was doomed. If 4e had been something like what you described above, it might also have been a great improvement over 3.5, but it would have faced the same grim fate. Essentials would have just brought back Vancian casting instead of dailyless fighters.

 

[CroBob]

I do, and they do. The problem with fighters using the spellcasting mechanic is that it's a spellcasting mechanic, and is inappropriate for nonmagical tasks.

It was actually defined as non-magical, making it not a spell-casting mechanic. It was used for both "martial" maneuvers and "arcane" spells. It was used for all class special attacks, including, but not limited to, spell-casting. Calling it a spell-casting mechanic ignores what the rules actually say it is. If you're personally uncomfortable with that, okay, but that's on you, not the system.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It was actually defined as non-magical, making it not a spell-casting mechanic. It was used for both "martial" maneuvers and "arcane" spells. It was used for all class special attacks, including, but not limited to, spell-casting.

My point is that it more closely resembles the way spells worked in other editions of D&D.

Calling it a spell-casting mechanic ignores what the rules actually say it is.

I'm okay with that. Just because they wrote something doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

If you're personally uncomfortable with that, okay, but that's on you, not the system.Well, not just me.

Well, not just me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure, that could restrict customizabilty some. It does create a need for a complex sort of 'web' of balance instead of an innate systemic balance, but it's not an impossible task.

I think that's the way to go.

On the downside (and its a completely different downside), and you saw this with the 3.x fighter, getting some feats (spells) with a lot of preqs eat up a lot of character options, making going for some of the 'best' options very build-constraining.

There are definitely possibilities of headaches, and I make no claim to having the perfect approach. Feat design has improved over the years but it would take a lot of work to merge spellcasting with it while retaining the functionality of the pre-3e spellcaster.

If 4e had been something like what you described above, it might also have been a great improvement over 3.5, but it would have faced the same grim fate.

Well, that depends on a lot of things. A feat/skill-based rpg with a closed license, insulting marketing, and wholesale fluff revisions likely would have met the same fate. Obviously, if I were in charge, that would not have happened. If wishes were horses and all that.

 

[CroBob]

My point is that it more closely resembles the way spells worked in other editions of D&D.

More closely resembled spells from older editions than... than what? What else might it have compared to?

I'm okay with that. Just because they wrote something doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Haha, okay, no. You could reskin it and replace the "martial" keyword with "arcane", or "psychic", or whatever you want. You could replace it with "Lint-Roller" if you really wanted to! Is it okay the Paladin got abilities like this? The rogue? Exactly what's the problem?

Well, not just me.

No, other people didn't like it either. Due, again, to their personal tastes, not any actual problem with the system itself.