D&D (2024) Speculation on the next UA in April


log in or register to remove this ad

Pauln6

Hero
There's no way to end that sentence that I could support.

Alas, I have lost that argument.
That's the problem isn't it? The fighter is actually a top damage dealer already, especially if you only count the damage that actually matters (doing 50 damage to something with 10hp feels cooler than doing 10 damage but the actual damage inflicted is the same). They don't lack power, they just lack options and a nova ability to make players feel good. Despite that, they are a very popular class - easy for novices and children to play without too much mastery. You can't give them at-will options without stomping all over the feats and Battlemaster manouevres so you have to find some sort of compromise that synergises with those. And I don't think the goal is to make them a vastly more complicated class.

One fairly simple change I would like to see is to the Banneret, giving them d6 Superiority dice to spend on Persuasion checks instead of the boring proficiency. You could then also give them give them access to a limited list of warlord style manoeuvres to make them a bit more like what people would like to see for a warlord. The Martial Adept feat and Martial Versatility fighting style could be taken for more variety.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
You can't give them at-will options without stomping all over the feats and Battlemaster manouevres so you have to find some sort of compromise that synergises with those. And I don't think the goal is to make them a vastly more complicated class.

I will agree that it's simple to just tack on abilities that get X uses per rest, but that doesn't mean I think other options aren't possible. And it doesn't have to be damage-dealing.

For example: "When making an ability check using Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity, you may roll with Advantage. However, if you then fail the check you have Disadvantage on any ability checks with that attribute until you have taken a Short or Long rest."

(I'm not saying this is great design, this is just the first thing that popped out of my head.)

It's at-will, it's not damage-dealing, and yet it would be a bad idea to spam the ability every time you make a check.
 

Pauln6

Hero
I will agree that it's simple to just tack on abilities that get X uses per rest, but that doesn't mean I think other options aren't possible. And it doesn't have to be damage-dealing.

For example: "When making an ability check using Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity, you may roll with Advantage. However, if you then fail the check you have Disadvantage on any ability checks with that attribute until you have taken a Short or Long rest."

(I'm not saying this is great design, this is just the first thing that popped out of my head.)
1
It's at-will, it's not damage-dealing, and yet it would be a bad idea to spam the ability every time you make a check.
Most PCs would rather just take the Lucky feat!
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Most PCs would rather just take the Lucky feat!

Yeah, some of the best design space got taken by Feats. Which is basically why, in the post you responded to, I was suggesting ripping some functionality out of GWM and just giving it to Fighters.

(That said, Lucky is still a 3x/day ability. And consumes a Feat. I'm talking about class abilities you get for free. I'd rather have the ability I described AND Lucky.)
 

The experts are united by expertise, and the priests by channel. I suspect the mages will be next, because all they need is for some mechanism to let them cast more spells than clerics, druids, and bards. That isn't too hard, which is why I think mages will be the next playtest.

The warriors have it a little harder, because traditionally anything that makes you better at hitting someone with a weapon ends up being available to all the melee classes. I don't see much that would make sense for a fighter, barbarian, and monk but not for a ranger or paladin to have.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The experts are united by expertise, and the priests by channel. I suspect the mages will be next, because all they need is for some mechanism to let them cast more spells than clerics, druids, and bards. That isn't too hard, which is why I think mages will be the next playtest.

The warriors have it a little harder, because traditionally anything that makes you better at hitting someone with a weapon ends up being available to all the melee classes. I don't see much that would make sense for a fighter, barbarian, and monk but not for a ranger or paladin to have.
We've already gotten a clue as to how Warriors are distinct with the Paladin and Ranger, because the Paladin and Ranger get a narrow subset of Warrior toys each.
 

We've already gotten a clue as to how Warriors are distinct with the Paladin and Ranger, because the Paladin and Ranger get a narrow subset of Warrior toys each.
It is funny how "we only stole part of your gimmick" is okay for warriors, where it isn't for the other groups. I mean where is the petition for barbarians to get "limited expertise" or sorcerers to "channel magic" (although now that I think about it....).
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
It is funny how "we only stole part of your gimmick" is okay for warriors, where it isn't for the other groups. I mean where is the petition for barbarians to get "limited expertise" or sorcerers to "channel magic" (although now that I think about it....).
The Bards do it for Mages, too, and I would be surprised if we see some more.of thar with the remaining Classes.

Based on the hints in the weapon traits provided, what Rangers and Paladins get is, indeed, a small slice of the Warrior options.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
The experts are united by expertise, and the priests by channel. I suspect the mages will be next, because all they need is for some mechanism to let them cast more spells than clerics, druids, and bards. That isn't too hard, which is why I think mages will be the next playtest.

The warriors have it a little harder, because traditionally anything that makes you better at hitting someone with a weapon ends up being available to all the melee classes. I don't see much that would make sense for a fighter, barbarian, and monk but not for a ranger or paladin to have.
I think that because the warriors are harder they might be next, they need more exposure to get traction. I think what the warriors will get is weapon mastery which will come on tap at certain levels like expertise and allow a warrior to gain abilities by specialising with certain weapon sets.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top