Wait Wait Wait - You Reduced the Number of Starting Maneuvers?

That just... seems like an inexplicable step in the wrong direction.

I do not get it.



Anyone mind helping me to understand what the thought there might be?
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)
That just... seems like an inexplicable step in the wrong direction.

I do not get it.



Anyone mind helping me to understand what the thought there might be?



Fighters were getting nice things. That had to be remedied.
Fighters were probably to good and the parry ability could be used by a greatsword fighter. Still can but you have to select that option now.

 Fighter and Sorcerer were two of the overpowered classes imho with Rogue, Wizard and Suncleric trailing behind. I liked the fighter because it was really really good. YOu do get another maneuver at elvel 2 so it seems they are not trying to frontload the class to much.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I'm just going to point out I called this, and people were telling me I was misinterpreting them.
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".
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)
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



+1

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



+2
This whole thread is reminiscent of a "Don't nerf me bro!" post
My two copper.
 I would recommend trying it out. If its still a major problem ask that fighters get parry back as a universal maneuver. In the prepublished adventures the fighter was semi invulnerable. I'm more peeved that some of the other maneuvers still suck specifically the slayer option.

 The fighter did seem a bit front loaded and parry is really really good. Going from d6 down to d4 kinda fixes the front loading problem.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Woah
Woah
Woah

Where's knockdown?

And the riposte attack that was suggested?

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!

Woah
Woah
Woah

Where's knockdown?

And the riposte attack that was suggested?



Knockdown was too good for Fighters in its previous incarnation. They'll get it back as a 15th level ability. You roll all of your expertise dice, if the total exceeds their max hp, they get knocked down.

In other news, a new Wizard signature spell is being introduced that knocks down all enemies in a 30ft radius once per round for 10 minutes, with no save.
Knockdown was hands down better than the other options. Also made the protecter fighter better than all of the other options. With sneak attack no longer doing 6d6 damage at level 6 might pay to look at it again in a future packet even if its bumped up in levels.

 Higher level fighter maneuvers could knockdown/stun etc. Seerow you got it wrong. 16th level, spend your dice, roll 1 dice if its higher than hit points it gets knocked down.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Fighters were probably to good and the parry ability could be used by a greatsword fighter. Still can but you have to select that option now.

 Fighter and Sorcerer were two of the overpowered classes imho with Rogue, Wizard and Suncleric trailing behind. I liked the fighter because it was really really good. YOu do get another maneuver at elvel 2 so it seems they are not trying to frontload the class to much.


Wat at the bolded part.

EVen without the reduction, the Wizard was better than the Fighter, especially since they could just outright stop a creature from moving, no save with Hold Person(I haven't read the new packet spells yet, will get to that.) among other things, where Fighter's abilities were generally variations of "I hit it harder.", "I hit it and mildly inconvenience it.", or "Someone gets hit less hard."
Fighters were probably to good and the parry ability could be used by a greatsword fighter. Still can but you have to select that option now.

 Fighter and Sorcerer were two of the overpowered classes imho with Rogue, Wizard and Suncleric trailing behind. I liked the fighter because it was really really good. YOu do get another maneuver at elvel 2 so it seems they are not trying to frontload the class to much.


Wat at the bolded part.

EVen without the reduction, the Wizard was better than the Fighter, especially since they could just outright stop a creature from moving, no save with Hold Person(I haven't read the new packet spells yet, will get to that.) among other things, where Fighter's abilities were generally variations of "I hit it harder.", "I hit it and mildly inconvenience it.", or "Someone gets hit less hard."

Hold Person issues have been remedied.

Danny

Fighters were probably to good and the parry ability could be used by a greatsword fighter. Still can but you have to select that option now.

 Fighter and Sorcerer were two of the overpowered classes imho with Rogue, Wizard and Suncleric trailing behind. I liked the fighter because it was really really good. YOu do get another maneuver at elvel 2 so it seems they are not trying to frontload the class to much.


Wat at the bolded part.

EVen without the reduction, the Wizard was better than the Fighter, especially since they could just outright stop a creature from moving, no save with Hold Person(I haven't read the new packet spells yet, will get to that.) among other things, where Fighter's abilities were generally variations of "I hit it harder.", "I hit it and mildly inconvenience it.", or "Someone gets hit less hard."

Hold Person issues have been remedied.



*reads* Well, seems plenty more balanced now. Good for WoTC on that at least.

Wait, I just noticed Divination's back....
This whole thread is reminiscent of a "Don't nerf me bro!" post


To be clear: a lot of the feedback (here, in particular) on Combat Superiority/Expertise expressed a desire for more options - more optional maneuvers at first level (instead of 2 fixed, and 1 choice), more dice earlier (but the same - or even lower - actual maximum bonuses) - that kind of thing.

My original post was not intended to have anything to with power, at all.
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)
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      
Everyone has push, grab, and knockdown now.  All are based on strength (so favors some fighter builds), and is resisted with strength or dex.
Everyone has push, grab, and knockdown now.  All are based on strength (so favors some fighter builds), and is resisted with strength or dex.


Also Disarm.

They also require their own actions, independent of attacks.

(Just pointing out a difference - not really bad, just different.)

Though there's some obvious space for a maneuver that lets you attack and [generic tactical action].
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)
Woah
Woah
Woah

Where's knockdown?

And the riposte attack that was suggested?




Knockdown was moved under Actions In Combat for everyone.      Disarm is also open to everyone now.



Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      




It's just a playtest.  I'd expect many more later on.   


Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      




It's just a playtest.  I'd expect many more later on.   




Why would you expect that when they just reduced the number of starting manuevers? 

Don't say you expect them to change based on feedback. They already got feedback saying we want more options and earlier. Their response was to cut options. 
Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.

Danny

Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.



1 more trained skill. But the skill list has multiplied from 20ish including a crapton of lore skills to 27 skills, counting "knowledge" only once. Including bringing back such useless favorites as "use rope" and introducing new and interesting useless crap like "Drive". And I'm pretty sure I only see two strength skills and no con skills, even with this change. 
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      




It's just a playtest.  I'd expect many more later on.   




Why would you expect that when they just reduced the number of starting manuevers? 

Don't say you expect them to change based on feedback. They already got feedback saying we want more options and earlier. Their response was to cut options. 



I think they listened to the feedback I gave them.    They moved knockdown out and made it available to everyone.   All they need to do is design several more manuevers that are worth while.  

I do agree with you that the 3.5e feats like Iron Will suck and I don't want to see them again.  


I'd say "what was Wizards thinking" but I'm becoming increasingly convinced thinking isn't particularly involved here.   Wizards just seems to be reacting to what people on the forums say without evaluating if it makes the least little bit of sense or not. 
Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      




It's just a playtest.  I'd expect many more later on.   




Why would you expect that when they just reduced the number of starting manuevers? 

Don't say you expect them to change based on feedback. They already got feedback saying we want more options and earlier. Their response was to cut options. 



Yes, that's certainly some of the feedback they got.

* But perhaps they also got other feedback?  You know, from people not sharing in the forum hive-mind, not posting here, who've different ideas on what's needed?

* Perhaps they said "OK, we know how that plays out, how about this"?

* Maybe it's an effort to find the balancing point between "Just enough to start with" & having enough held in reserve to sell you extra books later?  

Right now, this whole thing feels like "Missed Potential: The Expertise Story".



It is very disappointing. I was excited to see where they would take the idea. Unfortunately, they took it really far.... in the wrong direction.



Abysmal decision.

Fighters were already underpowered compared to Wizards.

They needed ADDITIONAL maneuvers at first level AND more expertise dice.

Not fewer.

...

Abysmal.      




It's just a playtest.  I'd expect many more later on.   




Why would you expect that when they just reduced the number of starting manuevers? 

Don't say you expect them to change based on feedback. They already got feedback saying we want more options and earlier. Their response was to cut options. 



I think they listened to the feedback I gave them.    They moved knockdown out and made it available to everyone.   All they need to do is design several more manuevers that are worth while. 


I don't think they're talking about the number of maneuvers in the list of options - but the number of maneuvers a character actually gets (originally 3 maneuvers - 2 set, 1 option; now only 2 - 1 set, 1 option).
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)
Where's the "Big Damn Heroes" module? These 5E characters are boring and mundane at all levels. 4E characters have more zazz at level one than these do at 10.
...whatever
Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.

Nod, cutting anything from the wizard bring wails of dispair, so maybe they cut the fighter, too, to soften the blow? 

Notice how the 4e wizard had at-wills, encounters, dailies, and rituals and the 5e wizard has all that, plus more dailies, while the 5e fighter had to cash in everything it ever got in any ed to get CS?

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.

Nod, cutting anything from the wizard bring wails of dispair, so maybe they cut the fighter, too, to soften the blow? 

Notice how the 4e wizard had at-wills, encounters, dailies, and rituals and the 5e wizard has all that, plus more dailies, while the 5e fighter had to cash in everything it ever got in any ed to get CS?

I'm still viewing the current state of affairs as an open conversation. -- Nothing's written in stone. -- So I still see ample time to share insights, opinions and positive criticism to shape this into the experience I desire.

This packet made me smile because there's promise. If we don't like something in particular, we give feedback and bring everything into line.

Danny


Yes, that's certainly some of the feedback they got.

* But perhaps they also got other feedback?  You know, from people not sharing in the forum hive-mind, not posting here, who've different ideas on what's needed?



Frankly, I don't care. 

* Perhaps they said "OK, we know how that plays out, how about this"?



So are you honestly expecting it to go the other way with us seeing a huge increase in maneuvers known later?

* Maybe it's an effort to find the balancing point between "Just enough to start with" & having enough held in reserve to sell you extra books later?  




That is irrelevant to the point of "how many maneuvers does the fighter actually know". Yes if the ONLY complaint was that the list of maneuvers is too thin, that argument would be sound (Though if that was the case, I'd ask why we have literally 5x more spells for the same number of classes). However the point of contention in this topic is not the number of maneuvers available in total, but how many any given character has access to. That isn't something they're going to randomly boost in another book down the road. That is something that needs to be right from the start. 
Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.

Nod, cutting anything from the wizard bring wails of dispair, so maybe they cut the fighter, too, to soften the blow? 

Notice how the 4e wizard had at-wills, encounters, dailies, and rituals and the 5e wizard has all that, plus more dailies, while the 5e fighter had to cash in everything it ever got in any ed to get CS?




Yeah- 5e is looking more and more like the "We're sorry we put out 4e" edition because just about everything I personally liked from 4e has gone away.

Ah well- always other systems out there
 
My main issue is with how much they took away from early characters: at least fighter/rogue, at work and can't read more than that right now.

I loved the options I had as a rogue in the last pack, but now I lose every option I had, am weaker almost all the way around (I have to wai to read on how they changed skills, maybe not as painful if they changed them a bit) and have ONE option of all my previous options at level one. Not to mention it takes a lot more to access basic skills I had and some options are just weaker.

I understand bringing some things down...but what's the point of an expertise die if there is no choice? For quite a while fighters and rogues have ONE choice for ED. So much for choosing anything, you just find what's best for your build and spam it? If you pick skill mastery you're pretty much a useless fighter with no defense, offense or life? If you pick sneak attack you do up to 1d4 extra damage and are still paper thin?

Why do I not have an option at level 1 to do something different in combat? Now we are pushing back to 3.5 starting at level 3-5 or more...kinda dumb IMO.
Everyone has push, grab, and knockdown now.  All are based on strength (so favors some fighter builds), and is resisted with strength or dex.


Also Disarm.

They also require their own actions, independent of attacks.

(Just pointing out a difference - not really bad, just different.)

Though there's some obvious space for a maneuver that lets you attack and [generic tactical action].



Knew I was forgetting one, and I liked disarm the best, (1-handed, free off-hand now has a thing)

Glancing blow is still terrible.  When does a fighter miss and still roll a 10?  I even tried to make a fighter who was a knife thrower, (rapid shot, etc) but with a 14 dex.  Glancing blow never came up.  The player either missed, or hit.  (to be fair, it was a terrible build.  But I was testing!)

Extra attack would be a lot better if you could attack, and then push, or disarm, and then attack, etc.  

To address the original comment, we were just talking about this last week.  1 of our ilk suggested that maybe they should not auto give fighters parry and deadly strike to start.  I felt they should always give them those, since those are pretty much bread and butter choices.

Granted, with only a d4 at first level, some of the other choices might have some early merit...excluding cleave, which only does expertise dice in damage.  (maybe useful once you get 3d10)

Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.


Huh, it's almost like they had collected sufficient information on them, and are now giving us new things to look at, to see if they hold their own even in the absence of the other stuff.

This is not the end of the world, folks.  Not every iteration is The New Endstate.  This is a slow, methodical process.  Things will come and go, come back again in modified form.  Don't read too much into this.  Don't try to extrapolate what change X might mean down the road.  Look at the here and now, test the here and now, and give feedback on it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.


Huh, it's almost like they had collected sufficient information on them, and are now giving us new things to look at, to see if they hold their own even in the absence of the other stuff.

This is not the end of the world, folks.  Not every iteration is The New Endstate.  This is a slow, methodical process.  Things will come and go, come back again in modified form.  Don't read too much into this.  Don't try to extrapolate what change X might mean down the road.  Look at the here and now, test the here and now, and give feedback on it.



Danny

I think they cut everything to tone it down as monsters are relaly easy to roll I have noticed. Fighters were semi invulnerable unless swarmed. Its easier to nerf everyone than rework all the monsters.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Their response was a cut to everything across the board. -- Except skills. We got more skills.


Huh, it's almost like they had collected sufficient information on them, and are now giving us new things to look at, to see if they hold their own even in the absence of the other stuff.

This is not the end of the world, folks.  Not every iteration is The New Endstate.  This is a slow, methodical process.  Things will come and go, come back again in modified form.  Don't read too much into this.  Don't try to extrapolate what change X might mean down the road.  Look at the here and now, test the here and now, and give feedback on it.



Ah, Mand, your neverending well of support for whatever dumb move WotC pulls will never fail to amaze me.
I think they're just trying to find that sweet spot for when we all say 'yes, balanced!', at which point they have a point of reference to build from and can address our toolbox desires and outfit classes with the appropriate amount of toys.

First they need to find the ratios of capability. Next comes ratios of things to play with. 

Danny