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

[steeldragons]

hmmmm....multiclasses vs. the established hybrids (Paladin, specifically)...

I think I'd go with something like this*...working off of my original post back on...page 1? 2? back there some place.

*Names of skills/abilities, the number listed, etc... is allllll completely hypothetical for the sake of example. Don't respond/argue with me about how everyone should get more than 3 things or that X should be a ranger ability instead of a rogue or any of that noise. Ok? Ok.

Expertise Dice: [Blah blah blah. Here's how Expertise dice work.] All non-caster classes get ED.
Spells: [Blah blah blah. Here's how Spells/Spellcasting works.] All caster classes get Spells.

Fighter: Yada, yada, you're a fighter. You get Maneuvers.
Here's a list of what Maneuvers can do/you can choose from: Deadly Strike, Parry, Extra Damage.
Use your Expertise Dice (as explained above) to use a Maneuver.
(Then you go on to explain other abilities of the fighter, such as Extra Attacks.)

Cleric: Yada, yada, you're a cleric. You get Divine Magic.
Here's a list of what Divine Magic can do/you can choose from: Bless, Light, Cure Wounds.
Use your Spells (as explained above) to use Divine Magic.
(Then go one to explain other abilities of the cleric, such as Channeling Divinity.)

Paladin: Yada, yada, you're a paladin. You get Channeling Divinity.
Here's a list of what Channeling Divinity can do/you can choose from: Smite, Protection Aura, Lay on Hands.
As a Paladin, you also gain access to Fighter Maneuvers.
Use your Expertise Dice [since a Paladin is a non-caster class!] (as explained above) to use either Channeling Divinity or Maneuvers.

-------------------------------
I would stipulate, as part of the "balancing" of multiclassing...Well, first of all, I would only permit 1e-style multi-classing, combine 2 classes. Period.
If they're going to go with that 3e-"clusterfunk" they called multiclassing, I can't help 'em...or rather, am not putting the thought into how to make it work at this sitting/writing.

So for part of how multi-classing works, you can only choose one or the other (depending on how you envision your character, do they lean more heavily on being a non-caster or a caster?). So for the Fighter/Cleric versus the Paladin...

[EDIT: to correct a flaw I saw in what I originally wrote.]

Fighter/Cleric: Yada, yada, you're a fighter/cleric. You get Maneuvers.
Here's a list of what Maneuvers do/you can choose from: Deadly Strike, Parry, Extra Damage.
You also get Divine Magic.
Here's a list of what Divine Magic does/you can choose from: Bless, Light, Cure Wounds.
Use your Expertise Dice (as explained above) to use a Maneuver AND Divine Magic
OR
Use your Spells (as explained above) to use Divine Magic AND Maneuvers.

You can't do both/have it both ways. You have access to the abilities of both (Maneuvers and Divine Magic), that's what multi-classing gives you, after all. But you only have Expertise Dive OR Spells to use them with. [/EDIT]
-----------------------------
Now, for those who immediately want to whine: But I want my Paladins to have spells!!!
1) That's not the point here.
2) That's what Theme/Specialties/Backgrounds are for. Snag an "Acolyte" or "Healer" or whatever they offer that gives you a few minor spells.

If you want to have "full casting potential" then multi-class. It's as simple as that.

OR, work it out with your DM to "swap out" Channeling Divinity from the Paladin for Divine Magic. But then don't whine when you can't Smite or Lay on Hands. You can still cast spells and use Maneuvers, but both are dependent on your Expertise Dice.

Did that get tl;dr or, more importantly, too complicated?
--SD

 

[Kinak]

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.

So true. I could be constant and strident, if we need a demonstration, but I'm sure nobody wants that

To be fair, I think those are two separate issues:
"I don't like how fighters feel like spellcasters" is people arguing that the mechanic applied to fighters doesn't fit the class as they see it, but isn't explicitly a problem with having a common mechanic.

"I got bored of one class, then tried the others, only to realize they're all the same" is people arguing you shouldn't have a common structure for all classes.

"I let other people play the complicated classes, but now all the classes are complicated" is people arguing that a common structure for all classes doesn't support their play style.

Those are all paraphrased from people in my gaming group in the year after 4e launched. Obviously, Essentials fixed some of that, but they weren't about to give WotC another chance.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

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.

The criticism of AEDU was that it was a common structure for all classes.

And the structure is also an issue. There is no reason why all characters should gain their learned abilities at the same rate or that all of them should be functionally equivalent, nor is that what I'm advocating. The play experience of 3e and earlier editions could easily be preserved while breaking down the existing classes in their constituent elements.

One character is a fighter who chose combat skills and weapon focus feats. Another is a wizard who chose evocation as a skill and magic missile as a feat, the feat being usable only a few times a day through some mechanism or other. The characters function the same way as they did in AD&D, but now it's possible to build a fighter/mage hybrid who chooses both without all the misery of multiclassing.

I think a lot of people would have misses spells.

I think a lot of the functionality of spells could be duplicated with skills replacing caster level, and feats providing the ability to cast a certain spell.

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

Depends who you ask. I agree that it would be different from earlier editions (though very similar to 3e's standardization and consolidation of disparate mechanics). However, any substantial revision is going to be "not D&D" in some sense.

Given that many people do consider 4e to be D&D, and others feel that it is a departure but has independent merit, I see no problem with advocating change, particularly what I think would be change for the better. My point being: people are flexible.

 

[fjw70]

For me the paladin is a fighter subclass that can do things such as lay on hands to heal, detect evil, has a permanent protection from evil radius around him, can call a special warhorse to serve him, and at higher level can cast a few cleric spells. Basically the 1e Paladin.

Now how to handle him in 5e? I still see him as basically a fighter with some divine powers. Maybe he can have expertise dice like the fighter and use them to power his divine abilities. To balance it with the fighter he wouldn’t get the special fighter-only thing that they are working on. The lay on hands can be a daily power. Maybe he would use expertise dice to maintain a protection from evil radius around him. Just some thoughts.

Maybe the Paladin could be a specialty and the paladin stuff could be gained through the feats. So a classic-like Paladin would be a fighter with a Paladin specialty (I still like the word theme better). Hmm, the more I think about it this may be the way to go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Actually, the problem is labeling a mechanic 'spellcasting,' when it's more general than that. Fighters in 4e categorically do not cast spells. Not any more than they did in 0D&D when using a magic bow, because magic missle was equivalent to a +1 arrow from a +1 bow. But, while the objection is spurious, it is powerful, and the sort of thing you suggest - spells being feats and spell-casting being skills would be just as vulnerable to the same sort of spurious objections. Of course, the same emotional impetus to launch a campaign of hatred and mis-information, might or might not be there in whatever hypothetical alternate universe WotC might actually try such a thing.

Still, it's as (in)valid an objection to the idea as it was to 4e, and it was one of the things that helped pull down 4e in only 2 years, so it would seem like a very risky move, as well as being a 180 from the stated 5e goal of stitching together a new edition from the "best" (most popular/familiar/whatever) bits of the various dead editions.

And the structure is also an issue. There is no reason why all characters should gain their learned abilities at the same rate or that all of them should be functionally equivalent, nor is that what I'm advocating.

There are very solid 'gamist' reasons - balance, consistency, playability, ease of designing new material, etc, etc... There also aren't any reasons characters of the same level shouldn't have the same number of various arbitrary mechanics, like hit dice, for instance, or feats, or max ranks in trained skills.

The play experience of 3e and earlier editions could easily be preserved while breaking down the existing classes in their constituent elements.

"Play experience" is very subjective, of course, and a virtually classless system would likely be perceived as different, even if it did cleave very closely in many ways.

Really, the direction you're outlining is a good one, I don't really want to discourage you from speculating on it. It's just the same direction as 4e took, and that didn't work out so well. You're starting from a different point and taking it much farther, but it's still the same direction.

When 3.5 was current, it became very clear that the balancing of the fighter, an elegant class design if ever any edition of D&D had one, against classes with dailies, simply didn't work. At the time, like you're doing now, I'd occasionally advocate that the game would be better if everyone worked like the fighter: with abilities all what we now call "at will," and classes highly customizable. The downside, of course, was that it "wouldn't be D&D anymore." The alternative, which I was always quick to dismiss, was to 'make everyone a caster' - give all classes dailies.

4e did that, it gave everyone dailies and balanced them something like casters, though turned down from 11.

The launch of 4e was somehow mis-handled, garnered a lot of bad will, and because WotC also chose to abandon the OGL, left a wide-open opportunity for Paizo (as it turned out) to cash in on the nerdrage. But, the upshot of it is that "making classes the same" mechanically, is now viewed as anathema to D&D. Since it really amounts to moving towards a classless system, that's not 100% hate and hysteria, there's a grain of truth there. Class is one of the eldest and most sacred of the D&D cows.

Depends who you ask. I agree that it would be different from earlier editions (though very similar to 3e's standardization and consolidation of disparate mechanics). However, any substantial revision is going to be "not D&D" in some sense.

Nod. Which is why 5e is cobbling things together from past eds rather than trying anything new. Even 'bounded accuracy' and XD & maneuvers have turned out to just be BAB & bonus feats turned inside-out. In that sense you're getting part of what you want - martial characters will all essentially be a bit like 3e fighters.

Given that many people do consider 4e to be D&D, and others feel that it is a departure but has independent merit, I see no problem with advocating change, particularly what I think would be change for the better. My point being: people are flexible.

The problem is the many people who don't. 5e is catering to them. Change just isn't in the cards this time around. 4e tried it, failed, and the pendulum has swung in a decidedly reactionary direction as a result.

I rather like the idea of building on the elegance and customizability of the 3.x fighter design, but it would have it's issues, too. Customizability leaves the door pretty wide-open to the worst abuses of 'powergaming,' for instance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be fair, I think those are two separate issues:
"I don't like how fighters feel like spellcasters" is people arguing that the mechanic applied to fighters doesn't fit the class as they see it, but isn't explicitly a problem with having a common mechanic.

Implicitly, it is, though, since there's no way to have a common mechanic, yet have classes 'feel' different if they don't use the common mechanic. Distinction without a difference.

 

[Kinak]

Implicitly, it is, though, since there's no way to have a common mechanic, yet have classes 'feel' different if they don't use the common mechanic. Distinction without a difference.

Yeah, taking a step back, you're going to end up with some complaint like that whenever you paint everything with the same brush.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ahnehnois]

I rather like the idea of building on the elegance and customizability of the 3.x fighter design, but it would have it's issues, too. Customizability leaves the door pretty wide-open to the worst abuses of 'powergaming,' for instance.

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

The system still describes a character with the full suite of potentially game-breaking abilities that D&D players have come to expect, but the players will have much greater difficulty accumulating those abilities.

At the time, like you're doing now, I'd occasionally advocate that the game would be better if everyone worked like the fighter: with abilities all what we now call "at will," and classes highly customizable.

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

It's just the same direction as 4e took, and that didn't work out so well. You're starting from a different point and taking it much farther, but it's still the same direction.

Well, in some sense its the opposite direction (since I want everyone to be more like fighters and they made everyone more like casters), nor do I advocate a variety of other directions they took in areas besides class design, but I see what you're saying.

The problem is the many people who don't. 5e is catering to them. Change just isn't in the cards this time around. 4e tried it, failed, and the pendulum has swung in a decidedly reactionary direction as a result.

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.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I sometimes feel like these arguments assume an all or nothing approach. That having expertise dice as a universal martial mechanic means that classes can't also have unique mechanics.

Obviously, we all know that isn't true.

The current Monk is a solid example of a class with Expertise Dice that also has unique additional mechanics and that utilizes the generic mechanic in a special way.

It's easy to imagine how the Rogue could do the same thing. The current rogue doesn't feel right, and really feels like a class that should situationally augment maneuvers in combat. Also, using dice to augment skills shouldn't be a martial maneuver. It's out of scope.

The Fighter has fighting styles. I suggest that these should become the fighters unique element. Gaining fighting styles would be a method by which the fighter can augment maneuvers.

 

[Gorgoroth]

For those of you

who believe that Paladins' niche is only as some bastard step-child of Fighter + Cleric, you should check out the archetypes in Pathfinder. They aren't all good (okay, mostly aren't incredibly), but there are plenty enough combos that you could make only part of Paladin training that wouldn't be available to a cleric or a fighter separately, or it would make it too complicated to balance having a full, or even half ED progression with the spells vs their single-classed counterparts without getting completely swamped.

What I really don't want to see, however, is 3e-style grocery-shopping list of classes to pick up and in what order. I'd rather no multiclassing and extensive class feature swapping ala 4e hybrid + hybrid talent system than either a feat-based or a level-by-level bump. I don't even see how 3e-style would be possible even in theory, given that fighters at level 1 get +3 to attack.

I could see a fighter-mage with no expertise mechanic but takes spellcasting instead as a secondary, for example. Maybe a separate table for spellcasting progression if it's a secondary. It should be a "thing" to not get both mechanics, or if you do, no way to get full caster levels AND Expertise Dice.

And no more than two classes, ever. With all the customization already possible, that should be enough.