Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6079540" data-attributes="member: 1465">That just cannot be true, it must be just bad use of the word "turn" in the document that sounds like anybody's turn while it probably means "round" or your turn anyway. You still have you allotment of MDD once per round, otherwise it's just going to create a nightmare when someone take an OA or has an ability that allows an attack as a reaction, and then on this attack decides to spend MDD to activate another maneuver or special ability... too much room for exploitation IMHO, to be intended to work this way. In the text of Parry, there is a mention that you may spend MDD "if you have any", but if it would refresh at someone else's turn then you would probably always have any.What doesn't refresh but is always usable for Parry seems to be the skill die instead. That sounds more reasonable, since it's much smaller than MDD, and then this makes Parry effectively work every round once (or more if you have an ability that allows you to take more than 1 reaction) even if you have already used MDD, but in that case it won't have an exorbitant effect.Anyway, I generally agree on your post, that MDD would be much better if it was limited to Fighters only.I understand that they are doing this because (a) a lot of people like the mechanic, and (b) it has potential for synergy in multiclassing.But honestly I think that people who like the mechanic should just play a Fighter... not want the Fighter's schtik without being one, otherwise we're always in the same old "the Fighter isn't attractive as a single-class" camp.And at the moment how well it supports multiclassing is still to be seen. First it doesn't support 4e-style multiclassing directly because other classes can only use MDD for damage. It is said that feats can grant maneuvers, but I don't think that feats can grant Fighter's maneuvers specifically, so you may still need to take levels of Fighters to get his maneuvers (which maybe is a good thing). At that point, if your main class has MDD already, you probably can stack the levels of those 2 classes to determine MDD. But IMO this is unnecessary, since most (maybe even all maneuver) will already work with 1 MDD, and many of them don't even care how large the MDD is because you give the MDD up, not roll it. Also, you could just have a feat that grants you a maneuver AND one MDD based on your character level if you don't have one ( so that you can use the maneuver itself).The other main bad side of MDD for all classes except arcane casters, is damage bloat.Finally, MDD is clearly one complication to ALL PCs except the Wizard. Can this be part of D&D Basic at all? If it's Fighter-only, yes it can be part of Basic, because the Fighter doesn't have many other things to worry about, basically only MDD and Parry. It's still low-complexity enough to be in Basic as-is.If it's for everybody, then MDD doesn't belong to Basic D&D IMHO, because the Cleric and the Rogue (maybe other classes beyond the first 4 aren't even in Basic at all) have other stuff to keep track of, spells & channeling, skill tricks... so MDD would have to be removed from the Basic game, but that means it would need to be replaced with something else in order to keep both Basic and Standard classes at the same table.All that said, my humble opinion is that if MDD goes back to be Fighter-only, then it spares us from a lot of problem, and I don't see any problem from not making MDD available to everyone.</blockquote>

Verification