D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Remathilis]

While I remain optimisitc, I am starting to get worried about the direction NEXT is taking.

I'm noticing some trends are appearing as the playtests are progressing, and these trends are starting to bother me. In no particular order:

1.) The return of Power Sources

Martial Classes use expertise dice. Magic Users are classes that cast arcane spells (more on that later). It appears martial classes, arcane classes, divine classes, will share the same mechanics, rather than different classes doing things different ways, which further weakens the need for multiple classes and gives more credit to the "make ranger a X and not a class" argument.

2.) Spellcasting: Pick your type

Rather than having three (or more) different casters with unique casting mechanics, the trend is aiming toward three classes with different lists and possible casting tweaks and then choosing your spellcasting resource type (slots, points, ADE) which also further weakens each archetype. This is especially true if your DM limits/chooses one type for his campaign (we all use spellpoints) and then makes wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all point casters. Rather than making all casters unique, they fall back to "one size fits all, but now you can choose S, M, or L".

3.) Expertise Dice: The Cure All for Martials

In the beginning, fighters got combat superiority to show off maneuvers and increase damage. It was new and innovative. It gave fighters a new toy without getting stuck on the "longsword or die" feat specialization chain. Then rogues got it to fix the "sneak attack/skill mastery' duality issue. Then monks got it to represent chopy-socky. Now rangers, paladins, barbarians, warlords, and anyone else proficient with swords is going to get them. Its overused already. Monks have ki points to show off martial arts. Rangers have favored enemies to increase damage. Paladins have smites, barbarians rage. We don't need to give them all expertise dice. We need unique mechanics to keep the feel of paladins, rangers, barbarians and fighters unique.

4.) Moving toward a unified mechanic(s)

When Essentials came out, I commented on how Martial, Divine, Primal, Arcane, etc power sources should have unique mechanics to tell them apart. Martials lacked dailies but had multiple at-wills. Arcane lacked encounter-powers and were either at-will or Daily. Divine didn't have at wills, but had encounter and daily prayers.

I fear Next is going to take me up on such an idea. Each class will end up with a "power source" that determines its mechanics rather than letting each class have unique mechanics (and hybrids) to make the class stand out. Its going to homogenize the classes again.

Next has a chance to do something unique with its classes, I hope they don't fall into the trap of forcing everyone into the same boxes again.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I second this, the classes in the latest playtest packet seem to have taken a turn, wizards are now thinly disguised AEDU.

At least I always have the 1st packet (the best one).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

while I share some of your concerns, I don´t believe expertise dice are THE figher defining trait. The fighter will probably get some cool things, fighter exclusive etc. But we knew from the beginning, that there needs to be some mechanic to make bounded accuracy work: a damage inflation mechanic.
The only problem we have now is, that the damage inflation mechaninc derived from a mechanic which used to be fighter exclusive for a single playtest version. I believe, expertise dice would fulfil the damage inflation mechanic quite well. Maybe the fighter is just ahead. While usually everyone gets its first expertise die at level 2, the fighter starts play with such a die. He also gets maneuvers which he can use by spending expertise dice, and on top of that, he will get unique class features like parry/riposte etc. Combat surge, etc.

We just need to forget, that expertise dice were once fighter exclusive. And we should hope, that some things from the first packet are revived.

 

[Stormonu]

We don't need to give them all expertise dice. We need unique mechanics to keep the feel of paladins, rangers, barbarians and fighters.

I'm afraid I don't agree. When it comes to multiclassing, having unique subsystems for each class will either be a nightmare or a munchin's wet dream (or both).

Let each class determine how/what the dice can be used for, but keep the dice pool as one place it's all drawn from.

As an anology, we don't need to be tracking Duetchmarks, Francs and Pounds. Just use the Euro. France will still be France and Germany Germany, but you don't have to convert your money every time you visit a new county.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm afraid I don't agree. When it comes to multiclassing, having unique subsystems for each class will either be a nightmare or a munchin's wet dream (or both).

If they try to design in such a way as to have multiclassing work perfectly there'll in the end only be one class.

Better to design each class in mechanical isolation and then see if multiclassing works or not; and if it doesn't then just ban it outright.

As an anology, we don't need to be tracking Duetchmarks, Francs and Pounds. Just use the Euro. France will still be France and Germany Germany, but you don't have to convert your money every time you visit a new county.

In this analogy the difference is entirely flavour while mechanically underneath they're all the same - it's a single-class system with options, which defeats the point of a class-based game.

The problem, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is that a designer has a cool idea that works great for one class but then tries to shoehorn it on to a bunch of other classes.

Lanefan

 

[Cybit]

FWIW, Even Pathfinder has thinly veiled AEDU. So that's not really something to get too worked up about...

Cantrips = At-Wills
X times per day = Encounters / Utilities [Also, I think PF has flat out 1/fight abilities]
Vancian casting = Dailies

That said; I do wish they would downplay ED / Maneuvers for other classes, and instead make Ki the big mechanic for Monks, and...something for rogues, I'm not sure what.

Or, just make the maneuvers really, really distinct for each class, and have very little overlap. (Basically, there should be like 4-5 maneuvers at most that are across all classes)

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me, the answer is clear:

Nobody can agree on what are the right mechanics to use for each class. For every person who says a Wizard is Vancian and a Sorcerer should use spellpoints... there is another person who says Wizards should use spellpoints too because Vancian casting is stupid. And for every person who says Expertise Dice should be a Fighter-only mechanic... another person says that ED are too complex and shouldn't be used at all, or that all martial classes should use the same weapon-fighting mechanics because there's no reason to suggest that a Fighter should know how to Parry an attack or hit with a Glancing Blow but Paladins and Barbarians somehow don't.

Thus... mechanics do not describe classes. Story does.

So long as the Story for Wizards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers are all different... they all have their own reason for coming into being, for how a PC acquires the ability to use the spellcasting, from whom or what they receive the magical power from... then it doesn't really matter what mechanics any particular player wants to use to illustrate it.

Paladins ARE NOT Fighter/Clerics. Their Story is different. Even if both the Paladin and Fighter/Cleric end up with Expertise Dice when the game is released. So please stop telling us we should just get rid of one of them altogether, because we're not playing one over the other because of its mechanics. We're playing one of the other because we want to play THAT class (or multiclass).

 

[Kinak]

The classes having their own mechanical identities (defined by a mix of mechanics and the options they have available) is my number one requirement for Next.

To me, the answer is clear:

Thus... mechanics do not describe classes. Story does.

And I'll argue with you about that just as vehemently as the Vancian wizards people will argue if you try to give them AEDU

Refusing to make the decision doesn't mean everyone will be happy. It just pushes the work of designing the game down to each table.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Stalker0]

I think monk shows how paladin and barb mechanics might be introduced that mix with expertise dice.

The Monk gets ki which lets him do things a certain number of times per day. The paladin might get the same.

Channel Divinity: A certain number of times per day, the Paladin can channel his divine force to aid his allies or smite his enemies.

Lay on Hands: You may spend a use of channel divinity to heal yourself or an ally for X amount.

Smite Evil: When you hit an evil creature, you may spend one use of channel divinity to make that attack a crit.


Or there could be class features that work with expertise dice.

Defender of the Weak: A paladin receives the Protect maneuver at 1st level. Whenever rolling expertise dice for this maneuver, treat any 1 rolled as a 2.

 

[CroBob]

To me, the answer is clear:

Nobody can agree on what are the right mechanics to use for each class. For every person who says a Wizard is Vancian and a Sorcerer should use spellpoints... there is another person who says Wizards should use spellpoints too because Vancian casting is stupid. And for every person who says Expertise Dice should be a Fighter-only mechanic... another person says that ED are too complex and shouldn't be used at all, or that all martial classes should use the same weapon-fighting mechanics because there's no reason to suggest that a Fighter should know how to Parry an attack or hit with a Glancing Blow but Paladins and Barbarians somehow don't.

Thus... mechanics do not describe classes. Story does.

To put it bluntly, that's BS.

Just because people don't agree what mechanics should be put in place for each class doesn't mean every class should be cookie cut-outs of one another. The fact is, D&D is a game which includes classes. If the classes aren't different, there's no reason to have them at all instead of using a skill system. The mechanics represent the differences in story. They're how you translate the story into functioning mechanics, to use during actual game-play... which is necessary, since it's a game, and games are defined by their rules.

So long as the Story for Wizards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers are all different... they all have their own reason for coming into being, for how a PC acquires the ability to use the spellcasting, from whom or what they receive the magical power from... then it doesn't really matter what mechanics any particular player wants to use to illustrate it.

I can't necessarily disagree with this. I'm all for reflavoring things in order to fit what a player or DM wants out of it.

Paladins ARE NOT Fighter/Clerics. Their Story is different. Even if both the Paladin and Fighter/Cleric end up with Expertise Dice when the game is released. So please stop telling us we should just get rid of one of them altogether, because we're not playing one over the other because of its mechanics. We're playing one of the other because we want to play THAT class (or multiclass).

What if their story isn't different? What if two players want to play twins, who both grew up studying under famous warrior priests at the temple in their nation's capitol, and one player decides to be a Fighter/Cleric, and one decides to be a paladin? Flavor-wise, what's the difference between a Fighter/Cleric who's totally LG, and a Paladin, both worshiping the same deity?

Classes are not fluff, classes are mechanics designed to fit in with the fluff. If classes were fluff, then why would you call military leaders by their rank instead of their class? If class is fluff, then why is the wise man in the woods called a shaman instead of a Druid? And then when the new PHB comes out and introduces Shamans as a class, does he switch classes just because people have traditionally labeled him something? Or, rather, do Shamans and Druids simply both fit into a particular sort of nich, their titles in game not necessarily being written in stone? While classes tend to have role-playing tie-ins, is it wrong of an NPC to call both of those twins "Paladin"? Perhaps the clergy does have a slot in their hierarchy somewhere which is labeled "Paladin", but does that mean people who are not in that slot cannot be Paladins, or that people cannot fill that role who are not Paladins? And in those cases, do they adopt or lose the class due to gaining or losing the position?