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

[Ratskinner]

That's where I start to have an issue with it. If the Paladin can use expertise dice like the Fighter and cast spells like the Cleric, then what the hell is the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric?

"What the hell is the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric?" is a question that is much broader than ED. I know its a question I've been asking myself a lot lately.

 

[mlund]

"What the hell is the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric?" is a question that is much broader than ED. I know its a question I've been asking myself a lot lately.

We went around that mulberry bush already a few months ago. The response from WotC was this: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/18/paladin_design_goals

Their big bullet points:

1. The paladin is a champion of a divine calling.
2. A paladin can see and smite evil.
3. A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
4. A paladin has divine abilities.

#3 is the overlap with the Fighter.
#4 is the overlap with the Cleric.

To keep the Paladin from being a Fighter/Cleric they need to do two things major things. First, they need to put the core of the class into items #1 and #2 on the list. Next they need to make the points of overlap in #3 and #4 be more distinct mechanically from how the Multi-Class build would play out.

To me, that means not dipping into the Fighter's expertise system for things Smite could handle (like Damage Escalation) and making sure most of the Cleric spell-list is unique. A character defined just by fusing those two things is the Fighter/Cleric and should be distinct from the Paladin from low-earth orbit. It might even mean making Paladin-only spells/prayers that support his mechanics. Focus on short-ranged combat-enhancing magical effects that smite or protect and you'll have a paladin class that could include the avenger too.

- Marty Lund

 

[MoonSong]

We went around that mulberry bush already a few months ago. The response from WotC was this: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/18/paladin_design_goals

Their big bullet points:

1. The paladin is a champion of a divine calling.
2. A paladin can see and smite evil.
3. A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
4. A paladin has divine abilities.

#3 is the overlap with the Fighter.
#4 is the overlap with the Cleric.

To keep the Paladin from being a Fighter/Cleric they need to do two things major things. First, they need to put the core of the class into items #1 and #2 on the list. Next they need to make the points of overlap in #3 and #4 be more distinct mechanically from how the Multi-Class build would play out.

To me, that means not dipping into the Fighter's expertise system for things Smite could handle (like Damage Escalation) and making sure most of the Cleric spell-list is unique. A character defined just by fusing those two things is the Fighter/Cleric and should be distinct from the Paladin from low-earth orbit. It might even mean making Paladin-only spells/prayers that support his mechanics. Focus on short-ranged combat-enhancing magical effects that smite or protect and you'll have a paladin class that could include the avenger too.

- Marty Lund

Better yet, focus on the paladin as the champion of the universal good an law forces or as a peragon of virtue instead of a follower of a god or gods and the overlap mostly dies.

 

[mlund]

Better yet, focus on the paladin as the champion of the universal good an law forces or as a peragon of virtue instead of a follower of a god or gods and the overlap mostly dies.

Well, the LG-only Paladin is explicitly not in the cards:

Paladins who champion non-good or even evil divine callings are possible, and in some cases their goals and related specific abilities are directly antithetical to champions of good.

The whole "champion of the moral cause instead of the deity" thing works, but not the requirement to champion Good specifically. Bane's going to have Paladins, and they are going to eat babies and kick puppies as a matter of doctrine.

- Marty Lund

 

[howandwhy99]

Classes that are not Fighter or its sub-classes should be able to attempt and learn Combat Maneuvers. I see this the same way as gaining Weapon and Armor Proficiency. It is not a part of their Class, but it should be a possibility to gain during play.

I remember when it was complained about how Magic-Users could never learn to use a sword properly or wear full plate. I'd rather not go back to that.

 

[Ratskinner]

I voted for "yes, all martially-oriented classes should have them". I like the idea of giving the meatshields some maneuvers, but I don't want to weigh them down mechanically as much as spellcasters (as I saw Bo9S). I like the idea of each such class getting specific selections of maneuvers.

 

[Kinak]

Classes that are not Fighter or its sub-classes should be able to attempt and learn Combat Maneuvers. I see this the same way as gaining Weapon and Armor Proficiency. It is not a part of their Class, but it should be a possibility to gain during play.

Presumably there will be a mechanic for Fighters to learn spells (be that feats or multi-classing). The same system can, and should, be used to allow Wizards and Clerics to learn maneuvers.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ratskinner]

We went around that mulberry bush already a few months ago. The response from WotC was this: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/18/paladin_design_goals

Their big bullet points:

1. The paladin is a champion of a divine calling.
2. A paladin can see and smite evil.
3. A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
4. A paladin has divine abilities.

#3 is the overlap with the Fighter.
#4 is the overlap with the Cleric.

To keep the Paladin from being a Fighter/Cleric they need to do two things major things. First, they need to put the core of the class into items #1 and #2 on the list. Next they need to make the points of overlap in #3 and #4 be more distinct mechanically from how the Multi-Class build would play out.

To me, that means not dipping into the Fighter's expertise system for things Smite could handle (like Damage Escalation) and making sure most of the Cleric spell-list is unique. A character defined just by fusing those two things is the Fighter/Cleric and should be distinct from the Paladin from low-earth orbit. It might even mean making Paladin-only spells/prayers that support his mechanics. Focus on short-ranged combat-enhancing magical effects that smite or protect and you'll have a paladin class that could include the avenger too.

- Marty Lund

Yeah. I'm just not sure I buy into it as such. I mean, those four bullet points still sound extremely Fighter/Cleric to me.

1. The first point is extremely "fluffy", cannot any character declare themselves to be the champion of a divine cause?
2. "See and Smite Evil" seems to be a pretty weak foundation for a class. More like a feat or speciality than core for a class.
3. Is a Fighter/Defender.
4. Is a Cleric.

At its best, I still see this interpretation of the "paladin" as redundant.


Is there another interpretation of "paladin" that still includes the old one and makes sense as the basis for a class? I dunno. (I fully expect we'll see one, whether the answer is yes or no.) So far, AFAIC, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] gave the best suggestion in that the paladin is the best at "being the hero". That is the Boyscout, Captain America, Superman. Maneuvers should shine for him. If that means he does it for (a) god, so be it. Is that enough to differentiate him from the Fighter? I'm not sure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't remember that. (And I wouldn't use that choice of words).

You don't remember people complaining that 4e classes were 'samey' and 'fighters cast spells?'

I remember that the problem was not that all classes shared the same basic mechanic, but that this mechanic itself (the AEDU approach) was problematic for a variety of reasons.

The criticism of AEDU was that it was a common structure for all classes. That it shattered verisimilitude because 'fighters cast spells' and so forth. This was a constant, strident thing, you cannot possibly have missed it or not remembered it.

If, conversely, all classes had been built around the common mechanics of 3e (feats and skills), things would have been different (though a different crowd would have been unhappy, likely the old-schoolers).

I think a lot of people would have misses spells.

What doesn't happen in either of these approaches (or even under the more restrictive 4e approach) is that if you choose class X, and someone else chooses class Y, you can't both have access to exactly the same capabilities if you really want to.

The approach I advocate is a simple and logical next step. Every character ability is either dimensional (i.e. something that can be measured on a scale) and is treated as a skill, or is not, and is treated as a feat. Every class looks essentially like a 3.5 fighter and receives skills and feats allocated preferentially to serve a particular concept.

Lovely idea. "Not D&D" on an Epic scale, though.

 

[CroBob]

Presumably classes are defined being able to do different things well. Sometimes different mechanics may be necessary to make that happen, but the different abilities seem rather more significant than different mechanics. In theory, mechanics should "fade into the background" during play anyway, at least according to some players.

How are different abilities not synonymous with different mechanics? If one class does something that another class doesn't, and that difference is supported by the rules (and it must be, or else the difference wouldn't exist), then there's a mechanical difference between those classes.