Combat Superiority is too plot couponish

 I'm merely pointing out the issue to the devs.

The fighter class is rife with them. 

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.  

I admit I've been asleep at the wheel.  I've actually played them non-plot couponish.  I would at least recommend an optional rule to avoid this issue.





My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

This isn't to argue the point about the value of plot coupons, metagame dissonance, or dissociative mechanics (all names for the same thing).   I'm merely pointing out the issue to the devs.

The fighter class is rife with them. 

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.  

I admit I've been asleep at the wheel.  I've actually played them non-plot couponish.  I would at least recommend an optional rule to avoid this issue.


I think that fact this even happened is evidence they may not give a hoot about those of us with this issue.  Perhaps we should just give up and depart.

 




Do you have similar objections to mechanics like Sneak Attack in other classes?

Carl

Are you saying you'd rather force the player to decide whether and how to allocate CS dice prior to the roll, and screw them if they miss?  So... house rule it.  Problem (was there one?) solved.

Do you have similar objections to mechanics like Sneak Attack in other classes?

Carl


That it's once per round sure.  The case where it could happen two times per round is so rare that in most instances if I said it's at-will the same result would occur.  

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Are you saying you'd rather force the player to decide whether and how to allocate CS dice prior to the roll, and screw them if they miss?  So... house rule it.  Problem (was there one?) solved.



Other than the math is messed up.  I'm not saying I can't come up with a houserule that works.  I'm suggesting they provide one if they don't change the existing rule.


 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Are you saying you'd rather force the player to decide whether and how to allocate CS dice prior to the roll, and screw them if they miss?  So... house rule it.  Problem (was there one?) solved.



Give em twice the dice (ok probably only 1/3 more) if you do that. 

at first level make it d6 and d4. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Are you saying you'd rather force the player to decide whether and how to allocate CS dice prior to the roll, and screw them if they miss?  So... house rule it.  Problem (was there one?) solved.



Give em twice the dice (ok probably only 1/3 more) if you do that. 

at first level make it d6 and d4. 



Yes a houserule would have to be something akin to yours.  It all depends on how often you hit versus miss but you seem to be in the right ballpark with that suggestion.   I'm hoping they will increase the dice and make it non-plot couponish.  It seems arbitrary to go that way in this case anyway since it is so easily fixed.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I thought it was a feature to be honest.

Something that allows it to be used based on triggers makes it better, if you miss, you still have your dice for defense later making them just a bit better. It seperates them from spells that are expended no matter the outcome.
Are you saying you'd rather force the player to decide whether and how to allocate CS dice prior to the roll, and screw them if they miss?  So... house rule it.  Problem (was there one?) solved.



Give em twice the dice (ok probably only 1/3 more) if you do that. 

at first level make it d6 and d4. 



Yes a houserule would have to be something akin to yours.  It all depends on how often you hit versus miss but you seem to be in the right ballpark with that suggestion.   I'm hoping they will increase the dice and make it non-plot couponish.  It seems arbitrary to go that way in this case anyway since it is so easily fixed.

 



Some people find making choices that just end up being of zero impact is frustrating. (Heck thats kind of the same argument I have heard for having all attacks causing damage on a miss ie the enemy had to put real definite effort in to evasion if I attacked them for 6 seconds unless I am incompetant)


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Some people find making choices that just end up being of zero impact is frustrating. (Heck thats kind of the same argument I have heard for having all attacks causing damage on a miss ie the enemy had to put real definite effort in to evasion if I attacked them for 6 seconds unless I am incompetant)


Well depends on who you attacked of course.  I agree D&D and many games in general are trending that way.  I hate that trend and already see myself houseruling a lot.   But at some point, you just write your own game that is informed by past editions of D&D.  I'm not in love with any edition of the past to just use it as is.  If I had play off the shelf I'd play Pathfinder core book only.  

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.

Bolded for emphasis.
This is the problem.  You look at the mechanic, and then decide to fluff it in such a way as to make it impossible for it to work the way you want.  And then you complain that it doesn't work the way you want.

Why can't you say that the fighter is skilled enough to know if an attack will connect as soon as he begins to execute it?  In other words, it isn't like 3rd edition power attack, where the "fighter" decides to make a powerful swing at the cost of accuracy.  With CS used for damage, the fighter begins an attack and can tell whether or not it will hit even before it gets close.  In that split second, the "fighter" decides whether or not to expend a little (or a lot, depending on level) of extra effort to turn the regular attack into a big attack.

Now, you might read the above description and say, "I think that is dumb."  But at that point you have two options.  You could try to come up with a new description on your own, or you could continue to insist that there is only one interpretation of how the power works and dislike it as a result.

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.

Bolded for emphasis.
This is the problem.  You look at the mechanic, and then decide to fluff it in such a way as to make it impossible for it to work the way you want.  And then you complain that it doesn't work the way you want.

Why can't you say that the fighter is skilled enough to know if an attack will connect as soon as he begins to execute it?  In other words, it isn't like 3rd edition power attack, where the "fighter" decides to make a powerful swing at the cost of accuracy.  With CS used for damage, the fighter begins an attack and can tell whether or not it will hit even before it gets close.  In that split second, the "fighter" decides whether or not to expend a little (or a lot, depending on level) of extra effort to turn the regular attack into a big attack.

Now, you might read the above description and say, "I think that is dumb."  But at that point you have two options.  You could try to come up with a new description on your own, or you could continue to insist that there is only one interpretation of how the power works and dislike it as a result.




First lets address the defense.  The player is obviously not going to use a die to negate one hit point of damage.   He will negate something bigger.  So defensive your suggestion wouldn't make sense.

For the attack, the problem I see is the point you are putting the characters mind is a point where a character would always choose more damage.   In power attack you made the conscious decision to be more reckless in an attempt to do more damage.  Thats something you could decide before you even moved towards the enemy.  If I am trying to kill an enemy I want the best damage I can get.  There really is no resource not even stamina that reflects this well.   Whereas if you have to choose to use the dice ahead of time, it could be reflected by you focusing on damage versus something else.  I mean moving through enemy territory is distracting so it is believable that you could give up some attacking effectiveness to do that.   






My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

What did you do with 4e Power Strike encounter power?

By pushing youself beyond your normal limits, you unleash your full wrath against a foe.
 
As written the enemy you hit takes weapon die extra dmg from the triggering attack.   You can't use it if the attack missed because it says the target is the enemy you hit.

I personally interpret it as D&D combat is an abstraction, that classic view that HPs are your reserves before you fall down, that your round is not necessarily a swing that caused a wound that did some dmg.    As written it implies that either you knew you were going to hit so you put everything into it or that you took a second swing after the hit.   Either way I am not about to waste the power by spending it before I hit, because the rule is it triggers on a hit.

Since combat die are just a mechanic I think the player houseruling how you use them is the point. Whereas the 4e martial powers had flavour and specific rules for each move if they did that then the 4e hater will be whining about 5e fighters having magic powers, even though the combat die provide essentially the same capability.  Some of us think it is better to have flavour and specific rules for each move, so just have the player write down each move for future use after DM approval, in other words have them make a 4e power card for their CS die.

I say consider the CS die triggered on a hit then it behaves the same as PowerStrike.   They have the opportunity cost of saving it for the hit so if they do miss, they ended up not getting used earlier in the turn where they could have helped.

Do you also anguish about your PC stopping combat while his player rolls the die to determine if he hits or miss?  That he gets weapon die extra on crits?


Some people find making choices that just end up being of zero impact is frustrating. (Heck thats kind of the same argument I have heard for having all attacks causing damage on a miss ie the enemy had to put real definite effort in to evasion if I attacked them for 6 seconds unless I am incompetant)


Well depends on who you attacked of course.  


Sure if you are outclassed and not really a threat to them that is a separate issue. There is a habit of thinking that because you made one die roll that one thing is being done.  In fencing I have heard there is a 2 second timing paradigm which says it takes an average person that long to decide and follow through on creating an attack volley (which might itself include a feint, beat and a strike). A man can flat out sprint 180 feet in 6 seconds. 

In other words missing means the character in game world terms made several significant attempts and failed to have any impact whatsoever.


I agree D&D and many games in general are trending that way.  I hate that trend and already see myself houseruling a lot.   But at some point, you just write your own game that is informed by past editions of D&D.  I'm not in love with any edition of the past to just use it as is.  If I had play off the shelf I'd play Pathfinder core book only.  




I very much can see the not wanting to feel the character is incompetant and I also get the point about frustation. Life can be futile and frustrating enough I dont need my games to be too. 

 Oh and I would definitely double the dice if you require they choose to allocate towards a parry or protect before having an idea its needed.

The character making desparate last second choices also feels just fine to me to.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.

Bolded for emphasis.
This is the problem.  You look at the mechanic, and then decide to fluff it in such a way as to make it impossible for it to work the way you want.  And then you complain that it doesn't work the way you want.

Why can't you say that the fighter is skilled enough to know if an attack will connect as soon as he begins to execute it?  In other words, it isn't like 3rd edition power attack, where the "fighter" decides to make a powerful swing at the cost of accuracy.  With CS used for damage, the fighter begins an attack and can tell whether or not it will hit even before it gets close.  In that split second, the "fighter" decides whether or not to expend a little (or a lot, depending on level) of extra effort to turn the regular attack into a big attack.

Now, you might read the above description and say, "I think that is dumb."  But at that point you have two options.  You could try to come up with a new description on your own, or you could continue to insist that there is only one interpretation of how the power works and dislike it as a result.




First lets address the defense.  The player is obviously not going to use a die to negate one hit point of damage.   He will negate something bigger.  So defensive your suggestion wouldn't make sense.

For the attack, the problem I see is the point you are putting the characters mind is a point where a character would always choose more damage.   In power attack you made the conscious decision to be more reckless in an attempt to do more damage.  Thats something you could decide before you even moved towards the enemy.  If I am trying to kill an enemy I want the best damage I can get.  There really is no resource not even stamina that reflects this well.   Whereas if you have to choose to use the dice ahead of time, it could be reflected by you focusing on damage versus something else.  I mean moving through enemy territory is distracting so it is believable that you could give up some attacking effectiveness to do that.  

Bolded again for emphasis.  Once again, this shows the problem.

You have decided that every character will always choose more damage.  You have decided that damage is always the most important, and that there is no way to reflect this well, not even stamina.  In other words, you have set up conditions that make it impossible, and then complain that it is impossible!

Why must all characters always chose damage?  Is that a way of saying that you feel the damage option is too strong compared to the other options?  Because I can see many cases to pick something else.  If you knock the ogre down, the rogue gets combat advantage.  If you save your die for defense, you take less damage (and you know from experience that you weren't going to kill the ogre in one hit anyway).  Etc, etc, etc.

You (dropped the quotes, all these "you"s refer to the character) know that if you expend your energy/stamina to do more damage, you won't have any left for defense until you get a few seconds to catch your breath (the next round).

Essentially, I view the Fighter as a major league quarterback.  He is making complex split second decisions in a momment of extreme stress.  An ogre is charging in, but there are also some orcs coming in for a flank.  In that split second between initiating his attack and connecting with the ogre, the fighter must decide: should I put everything I've got into this attack, try to knock the brute down by hitting him just below his knee, or save some effort to parry the innevitable counterattack?

Now, I can go at this all day.  If you can too, then it is clear that you really aren't interested in finding a solution.  The only thing that will make you happy is to rewrite the mechanics to fit your own set in stone way of explaining them.

What did you do with 4e Power Strike encounter power?

By pushing youself beyond your normal limits, you unleash your full wrath against a foe.
 
As written the enemy you hit takes weapon die extra dmg from the triggering attack.   You can't use it if the attack missed because it says the target is the enemy you hit.

I personally interpret it as D&D combat is an abstraction, that classic view that HPs are your reserves before you fall down, that your round is not necessarily a swing that caused a wound that did some dmg.    As written it implies that either you knew you were going to hit so you put everything into it or that you took a second swing after the hit.   Either way I am not about to waste the power by spending it before I hit, because the rule is it triggers on a hit.

Since combat die are just a mechanic I think the player houseruling how you use them is the point. Whereas the 4e martial powers had flavour and specific rules for each move if they did that then the 4e hater will be whining about 5e fighters having magic powers, even though the combat die provide essentially the same capability.  Some of us think it is better to have flavour and specific rules for each move, so just have the player write down each move for future use after DM approval, in other words have them make a 4e power card for their CS die.

I say consider the CS die triggered on a hit then it behaves the same as PowerStrike.   They have the opportunity cost of saving it for the hit so if they do miss, they ended up not getting used earlier in the turn where they could have helped.

Do you also anguish about your PC stopping combat while his player rolls the die to determine if he hits or miss?  That he gets weapon die extra on crits?




Yeah I'm not of your school of thought.  I recognize a good number of people are.  I really feel that 4e is so far gone in this regard that I don't even try to save it.  Not saying individual power could or couldn't work but overall many couldn't.



My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I understand your in character complaints. However I as a player WANT decisions. I refuse to accept basic attack spamming fighters anymore.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

I understand your in character complaints.  



Personally I really dont, I think the ability to make last second desparate choices how much do I focus on defending myself interacts with the moment by moment need to do so... there is a trade off that is interesting. Focus and emphasis shifting quickly is what I want from a fight.  I prefer the choices actually having an impact every time. The GAMBLER brain is hoping for a big score its different style.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Have to say, this doesn't really bother me. I'm happy to just see it as extending a bit more effort to drive a blow home once you realize you've gotten past your opponent's guard.
The fencing example is much better than the given quarterback example, because in reality I think they do the same thing.   In reality the quarterback is going to make a move, realize it did not work, and go to his backup move, and if there is no-one to catch he may just have to run with it.   Many split second decisions within that 6 second window of attack, with the final outcome having nothing to do with what was said in the huddle.

So if you are a realist you would go for that last second decision, if you are a gamist you say mark your card before you make your moves.  Entirely suitable for a DM houserule, though players may complain since the CS die is a player mechanic supposed to give them flexibility.
The Combat Superiority mechanics work amazingly well at the table.

As others have already pointed out, this is a case of "This doesn't make sense (because I decided it can't make sense)".

Moreover, I think you've reached the point where your absolute focus on your handful of pet concepts/terms is getting in the way of your understanding and implementation of the game.


In summary:
I) There are ways to read this as being "not a plot coupon" - you're choosing to ignore/reject those, for... reasons, I guess?
II) Your complaint would have us throw out or significantly gut one of the only aspects of Next, thus far, to receive near universal praise, for the reason of "I don't like it."

(A not-very-related III - I'm extremely tired of seeing - mostly on the Fighter - "complaints" that amount to "X must work this way for other people, just because I disapprove of the alternative".  It's ridiculous with folks who want vancian casting gone [as opposed to wanting alternatives], and it's ridiculous here.)
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I feel like it can only be seen as plot coupon only if you look at the attack roll as making contact with your weapon. I always looked at it as finding/creating an opening. The damage roll is how well you are able to exploit the opening. Abilities like parry show the fighters prowess by defecting a blow even when greatly exposed to an attack. Abilities like deadly strike demonstrate over extend yourself at the cost of leaving yourself more open to attack. I think this is common in duels and other combat situations.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

I don't understand the in character complaints.  The fighter is the best at fighting. 

He can put extra effort into each round of combat.  He can decide what that extra something is with incredible timing.

He can decide how to apply this effort on the fly dynamically as a result of his training and skillset.  To increase damage he decides to take time and effor to twist a blade, to stomp on a foot, drop a knee or elbow, a bash with a shield.  He can also do other things.  He can hold back on offense to have better defenses.   With the right training he can protect an ally or any of another number of things. 

The fighter can do what other classes cannot because he is the best at fighting.  He can manage his decisionmaking on a finer level than other classes due to his training and aptitude and awareness.
So, the fighter getting cool things that aren't mechanically deficient means that it's full of "plot coupons" ?

You're kidding, right?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This isn't to argue the point about the value of plot coupons, metagame dissonance, or dissociative mechanics (all names for the same thing).   I'm merely pointing out the issue to the devs.

The fighter class is rife with them. 

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.  

I admit I've been asleep at the wheel.  I've actually played them non-plot couponish.  I would at least recommend an optional rule to avoid this issue.


I think that fact this even happened is evidence they may not give a hoot about those of us with this issue.  Perhaps we should just give up and depart.

 

Or perhaps you need to unbend and stop being so utterly adamant. You're simply not going to always get your way, so get over it! lol.

Edit: but to put it all in a more useful way I think Greatfrito is right, you've boxed yourself into a corner that simply is too small and not viable by being so adamant about interpreting things in a certain way.

I think you need to think more about how the game PLAYS AT THE TABLE and less about some sort of theorycraft idealized game that doesn't really exist. I find this problem IMHO exists with a lot of people that constantly harp on how 'bad' AEDU is too. They're fixated on some sort of hypothetical concept of how play goes, but they seem to fail to actually take into account how real games play at real tables and how much flexibility there is within any given set of mechanics, and how there are always other interacting mechanics. For instance just because an AEDU fighter as a Daily doesn't mean that daily is his one big shot, or that it is even the biggest thing he does on a given day by a long shot. The at-will crit + AP plus encounter power he pulls off that cripples the BBEG is just as likely his big thing of the day. In play things are a lot less clear-cut than they are on paper. Objections that seem cogent on paper are often meaningless at the table.

That is not dead which may eternal lie
There are dissociated mechanics and there are dissociated mechanics.


This particular dissociated mechanic bothes me no more than the long list of such mechanics that have always been in D&D.

In contrast - 4E took the dissociated part a bit too far (I was just listening to some of the novel writers from a panel at GenCon and one of them commented that they had real problems trying to describe 4E combat in their books because it was very difficult to imagine what was happeneing to explain the mechanics of the game).

The thought that the fighter can decide to twist the blade a bit after he connects and maybe do a bit more damage doesn't bother me in the slightest.   Perhaps doing so puts him a bit off-balance, and thus he cannot recover in time to cleave or parry - but when he wants the extra damage its worth giving up the ability to do either of those.


Carl
I don't see the confusion or plot coupon aspect. Mostly because I am a fan of fighting and fighting games.

Where the rogue and cleric LP, the fighter cMK DP+P QCF QCF+P. You don't finish your combo if the enemy blocks it. But if if hits, you know you have the opportunity to pour on the power.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

This isn't to argue the point about the value of plot coupons, metagame dissonance, or dissociative mechanics (all names for the same thing).   I'm merely pointing out the issue to the devs.

The fighter class is rife with them. 

Applying an extra die of damage after you've hit.  So if you miss nothing happens?  You don't lose the die?  My character could never decide after the fact if he damaged someone or not.  Only my player could determine that.  

I admit I've been asleep at the wheel.  I've actually played them non-plot couponish.  I would at least recommend an optional rule to avoid this issue.


I think that fact this even happened is evidence they may not give a hoot about those of us with this issue.  Perhaps we should just give up and depart.

 




Do you have similar objections to mechanics like Sneak Attack in other classes?

Carl




At least in 3e, sneak attack was not optional.  It happened when certain conditions were met, so there was no decision to deal extra damage after the fact. 

To the Op.- I actually like the cs dice mechanic for the fighter and it plays very smooth and quick in combat. The fighter is very deadly in a fight and this feature illistrates that fact very well. I agree with the other posters who have written " It makes no sense because your perception will not allow it to". Plot coupon? No not at all. Seems to be a imaginative disconnect.
An easy fix would be requiring the character to decide in advance to use CS dice or not.  That eliminates all the problems and only probably requires a few more dice being added to balance things.  Not a world ending change.   

There is not a warrior in this world that having driven the blade into his enemy wouldn't twist it every single time.  If he only twists it when he has CS dice then why?  It's pretty much bending the game out of shape to try to say that fatigue actually affects things at this level.

The fix would be pretty easy.  Why deliberately put in a mechanic that is off putting to a lot of people when they can so easily modify it very slightly.  If they added more dice to compensate for when you missed what is the problem for the other side.

@Abdul
When it comes to plot coupons, I just don't want to play a game with them.  I'm not adamant about a lot of things but on this subject it is a deal breaker.  I suppose if they give me a module that explains how to add dice to compensate then I'll be fine.  I'm just raising this as an issue.  They need to provide a module.  Because if I have to rewrite their game myself, I'm just going to write my own.  




 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

How can you play dnd without plot coupons? I mean without the ability to affect the plot why would anyone bother playing? What makes CS dice more or less plot coupons than the PCs having the option to attack or not attack?

When it comes to plot coupons, I just don't want to play a game with them.  I'm not adamant about a lot of things but on this subject it is a deal breaker.  



Ditto. 

I was actually having issues with combat superiority myself, but I couldn't put my finger on why, exactly it wasn't working for me. 

Thanks, Emerikol you've hit the nail on the head. 

An easy fix would be requiring the character to decide in advance to use CS dice or not.  That eliminates all the problems and only probably requires a few more dice being added to balance things.  Not a world ending change.   


"eliminates all problems"

You mean except for the one about having a mechanically gimped mechanic, where you're gambling rather than deciding how to play your character?

Put it all on seven!

I don't care how many dice you add to supposedly make up for the effectiveness loss, what you're describing is bad gameplay.  And no, it should not be implemented just because you've decided on a particularly narrow viewpoint of how things work.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There are dissociated mechanics and there are dissociated mechanics.


This particular dissociated mechanic bothes me no more than the long list of such mechanics that have always been in D&D.

In contrast - 4E took the dissociated part a bit too far (I was just listening to some of the novel writers from a panel at GenCon and one of them commented that they had real problems trying to describe 4E combat in their books because it was very difficult to imagine what was happeneing to explain the mechanics of the game).

The thought that the fighter can decide to twist the blade a bit after he connects and maybe do a bit more damage doesn't bother me in the slightest.   Perhaps doing so puts him a bit off-balance, and thus he cannot recover in time to cleave or parry - but when he wants the extra damage its worth giving up the ability to do either of those.


Carl

I think what people seem to have a hard time with is the idea that results, and time itself, are rather maleable. At least that's the way I've always approached 4e, everything is at least potentially a plot coupon. The warlord doesn't litterally yoink the fighter from over here to over there, instead he simply make sure the fighter goes over there INSTEAD of over here because that's where his tactical savvy says the fighter aught to go. CAGI (at least the original version) wasn't dragging people that were down across the battlefield, that orc just made one last rush at the guy taunting it before it fell, over here instead of over there, etc.

If you don't mind retconning a bit (and remember, turns are a very abstract way of depicting simultaneous action) then you can easily construct a good narrative around anything. You can actually construct a better narrative than you could in past editions in a lot of cases (after all Emerikol's objection to CS applies to almost EVERY SINGLE ability that characters had that weren't spells in previous editions at least some of the time).

I may not be a novel writer, but I've described a lot of combats in 4e and previous editions. I find that observation rather dubious and hard to fathom. My impression was basically R. A. Salvatore liked 2e and he's been crabby about everything that came out since then.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I'm going to respond out-of-order (pray for the forum's quote system to cooperate).
Why deliberately put in a mechanic that is off putting to a lot of people...


I'm going to stop you right there.

I don't see any evidence that CS is "offputting to a lot of people."

Just to you.

Even folks who might otherwise agree with your "plot coupon" stuff disagree with you here.

You are not "a lot of people".  You are you.

An easy fix would be requiring the character to decide in advance to use CS dice or not.


But this is an unecessary change, that severely weakens the entire mechanic.

There is not a warrior in this world that having driven the blade into his enemy wouldn't twist it every single time.  If he only twists it when he has CS dice then why?


He's focused on something else?  Because that is what is actually happeneing, in play - if he's not spending the dice on damage, then he's either already spent them somewhere else, or planning on spending them somewhere else.

It's pretty much bending the game out of shape to try to say that fatigue actually affects things at this level.


It's not fatigue.

If they added more dice to compensate for when you missed what is the problem for the other side.


That you're creating problems just to create problems?

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
An easy fix would be requiring the character to decide in advance to use CS dice or not.  That eliminates all the problems and only probably requires a few more dice being added to balance things.  Not a world ending change.   

There is not a warrior in this world that having driven the blade into his enemy wouldn't twist it every single time.  If he only twists it when he has CS dice then why?  It's pretty much bending the game out of shape to try to say that fatigue actually affects things at this level.

The fix would be pretty easy.  Why deliberately put in a mechanic that is off putting to a lot of people when they can so easily modify it very slightly.  If they added more dice to compensate for when you missed what is the problem for the other side.

@Abdul
When it comes to plot coupons, I just don't want to play a game with them.  I'm not adamant about a lot of things but on this subject it is a deal breaker.  I suppose if they give me a module that explains how to add dice to compensate then I'll be fine.  I'm just raising this as an issue.  They need to provide a module.  Because if I have to rewrite their game myself, I'm just going to write my own.  




 

Again though I think the problem was well identified in that the difficulty is in literalistically interpreting each attack roll as a strike with a weapon and either a hit or a miss. It was never intended to be that literalistic. I mean what do you see Cleave (the 3e/4e version) depicting? Or how about Reaping Strike (auto-damage even on a miss). Clearly combat is more abstract than that. This IMHO is also the root of the issue the novelist people are having, they are taking things too literalistically. This is WHY (at the most basic level) you can't have static fluff for anything in any RPG. This is why the 4e fluff on top of mechanics can work so well, because once you realize that nothing mechanical is a representation of any one specific narrative element then you should have no problems. Narrative is bounded in its options by mechanics, but it isn't just some sort of thin wrapper around them.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
 Again though I think the problem was well identified in that the difficulty is in literalistically interpreting each attack roll as a strike with a weapon and either a hit or a miss. It was never intended to be that literalistic. I mean what do you see Cleave (the 3e/4e version) depicting? Or how about Reaping Strike (auto-damage even on a miss). Clearly combat is more abstract than that. This IMHO is also the root of the issue the novelist people are having, they are taking things too literalistically. This is WHY (at the most basic level) you can't have static fluff for anything in any RPG. This is why the 4e fluff on top of mechanics can work so well, because once you realize that nothing mechanical is a representation of any one specific narrative element then you should have no problems. Narrative is bounded in its options by mechanics, but it isn't just some sort of thin wrapper around them.



Or we seek a game where we don't have to do that.  I didn't have to do it in 1e,2e, or 3e.  So I don't see it as such a stretch that long time players have an option to play without plot coupons.  The reason the guy who wrote the blog post started a firestorm was because it resonated with so many people. 

edit:  Besides I've heard on other threads people clammoring for more dice earlier.  So my suggestion might make them happy too.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


There is not a warrior in this world that having driven the blade into his enemy wouldn't twist it every single time.  If he only twists it when he has CS dice then why?  It's pretty much bending the game out of shape to try to say that fatigue actually affects things at this level.
 


You can't just say that twisting the blade (or equivalent) requires a little bit of reserve strength, or throws you off balance a bit? Leaves you a bit less prepared to deal with the next thing to come up?

You could also easily say that the fighter has decided ahead of time to twist the blade, but if the enemy blocks he just doesn't get the opportunity, which means he hasn't expended that extra bit of energy or taken himself off balance. So it's not that he's deciding to do it after he hits, it's just that if he doesn't hit, he doesn't pay whatever price it requires.
You could also easily say that the fighter has decided ahead of time to twist the blade, but if the enemy blocks he just doesn't get the opportunity, which means he hasn't expended that extra bit of energy or taken himself off balance. So it's not that he's deciding to do it after he hits, it's just that if he doesn't hit, he doesn't pay whatever price it requires.


Or that he simply has enough skill to quickly recover from a miss, and refocus (attack, miss, cannot use Deadly Strike).

And that he has enough skill to quickly react to how his target defends itself, and decide whether to press the attack or turn his focus elsewhere (attack, hit, choose whether or not to use Deadly Strike).


Unless my brain is completely replacing all of the fluff for the entire Next Fighter, I thought this was how CS/Expertise Dice/Maneuvers were flavored anyways.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
An easy fix would be requiring the character to decide in advance to use CS dice or not.  That eliminates all the problems and only probably requires a few more dice being added to balance things.  Not a world ending change.   


"eliminates all problems"

You mean except for the one about having a mechanically gimped mechanic, where you're gambling rather than deciding how to play your character?

Put it all on seven!

I don't care how many dice you add to supposedly make up for the effectiveness loss, what you're describing is bad gameplay.  And no, it should not be implemented just because you've decided on a particularly narrow viewpoint of how things work.


I agree with Mand12.  This is simply a bad change mechanically because it makes fighters too weak at the thing they were supposed to be best at.

Emerikol, I think what you need to do is simply institute the following houserule:

In the Emerikol campaign, fighters using CS on their action must declare the use of CS before rolling to-hit.  In practice, this means fighters will succeed with their CS less often, and is usually better off not gambling with the CS on his action, but instead use it primarily as reactions in between his turns.  To compensate (slightly), all CS will recharge at the end of the fighter's turn, rather than at the beginning.  This way, if he didn't get an opportunity to use his CS as a reaction, there's no harm in him gambling to use it as part of his action.

This still results in a fighter that is slightly weaker than the one presented in the playtest, but not measurably so.  (I actually think the playtest fighter's CS should always reset at the end of his turn, to encourage using it as a reaction.)

You can't just say that twisting the blade (or equivalent) requires a little bit of reserve strength, or throws you off balance a bit? Leaves you a bit less prepared to deal with the next thing to come up?


I'm not saying that the defense stuff isn't a lot worse.  Removing hit point damage thats already happened is of course far worse.  But it would be so easy to make the decision ahead of time and expend the die either way.  This is perhaps a nit but it still stands out and the fix seems easy.  


You could also easily say that the fighter has decided ahead of time to twist the blade, but if the enemy blocks he just doesn't get the opportunity, which means he hasn't expended that extra bit of energy or taken himself off balance. So it's not that he's deciding to do it after he hits, it's just that if he doesn't hit, he doesn't pay whatever price it requires.


Yeah to me this "energy" would be effort in the attack and thus would get dissipated.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Sign In to post comments