Maneuvers--Should non-Fighters get them?

I wanted to make this a poll, but I can't find the option. If anyone knows how, please immediately convert this to a poll and post a link in the thread. Thanks.


Poll: Maneuvers--Should non-Fighters get them?


Should the system of expertise dice and maneuvers be expanded to classes beyond fighter (rogue and monk currently) or should they be an exclusive class feature of fighters?



  1. Yes. Every class (martially-oriented or not) should use expertise dice in some form.

  2. Yes. All martially oriented classes should use expertise dice.

  3. Maybe. Perhaps some other classes should have it, but not every martially-oriented class.

  4. No. Perhaps other classes can have a similar system, but expertise and maneuvers are meant for fighters alone.

  5. No. The entire concept is what makes the fighter distinctive and unique and shouldn’t be shared with any other class.

Expertise Dice as the defacto Martial gimmick is fine.
If non-fighters get them, then fighters need something else to make them distinctive instead of just being the "newbie class".  It's like they dropped in this cool mechanic, and then looked back at it later and totally forgot why they had put it in.
Yes every class martial or not.

An example of maneuvers from a wizard tradition that has less martial skills than the ones in the playtest package 

 

Maneuvers




Hat over head


On a successful touch attack the Mage places a conduit hat onto an enemie's head. The hat will wrap around the face of the enemy and remain there until a (DC 12 str) check is made. Target fights at a disadvantage while the hat is over their head 







Catch Magic 


The mage can spend a reaction to use a conduit hat perform a + 3 Dexterity check against any attack of Eldritch or magic energy. If the check is passed the mage takes no damage. The spell is cought. The mage can launch the energy at any target for the same damage as a ranged attack with their next action or add +3 to a conjuration roll in the next few rounds.

If non-fighters get them, then fighters need something else to make them distinctive instead of just being the "newbie class".  It's like they dropped in this cool mechanic, and then looked back at it later and totally forgot why they had put it in.

The differentiation will be in the maneuvers themselves, much like how the differentiation in spell lists between Cleric and Wizard.

Some tweaks in the exact implantation of ExD would also be nice to differentiate the classes.
If non-fighters get them, then fighters need something else to make them distinctive instead of just being the "newbie class".  It's like they dropped in this cool mechanic, and then looked back at it later and totally forgot why they had put it in.

The differentiation will be in the maneuvers themselves, much like how the differentiation in spell lists between Cleric and Wizard.

Some tweaks in the exact implantation of ExD would also be nice to differentiate the classes.



They still need their own unique mechanics and features. I believe that is what they were saying.
They still need their own unique mechanics and features.

All weapons and armor.
To "special" the fighter past that, make "all weapons and armor" mean exactly that - no need for a fighter to invest in "exotic" feats.

I think the ED mechanic should be kept with martial classes. 

However, I think some combat actions need to be added to the game to give all characters options in combat.  As an example, Parry remains with the martial classes.  However, a reaction action (block maybe) should allow a character a chance to mitigate damage from an attack.  Off the top of my head, I would recommend that a character make an opposing basic melee attack against the initial hit.  If the character's attempt exceeds the initial attack, the damage is reduced by a standard damage amount of the weapon (1dx+attribute).  

The ED maneuvers are still superior to the special combat maneuvers; however, it opens up options to everyone.    
However, a reaction action (block maybe) should allow a character a chance to mitigate damage from an attack.

That's what AC does.

5 with a bit of 3.  Fighters and maybe a gish and Jack of all Trades class should be the only classes with ED and Maneuvers, and the Fighter should have the best progression.

Of course, a significant number of Maneuvers should be Feats in my book, allowing every class to have them and making room for a more distinctive and unique Fighter as opposed to taking away powers from other classes.
2

Danny

2.5-3

After thinking about it, I prefer only martial classes get maneuvers.
Fighters
Monks
Barbarians
Rangers
Rogues

But only fighters get Expertise Dice, every otherclass gets and uses maneuvers differenly.

But if that is too complicated.
Fighters, monks, barbarian, rangers, and paladins only with a very shortened total manueer list at release.

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!

However, a reaction action (block maybe) should allow a character a chance to mitigate damage from an attack.

That's what AC does.




It's a tool to give players more options.  I don't see a problem of including something like this in an optional module.  What would the issue be?
I think it's great for martials to have a unifying concept, but only if each class uses them in different ways. A fighter should be able to explain the basic concept of XD to a rogue, but should be a bit confused by how they specifically apply to rogues.

Doing that right, well and fair... well, that's not my job. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Only fighters should gain expertise dice, where a "fighter" is defined as a member of a class which possesses a bonus to weapon attacks or proficiency with one or more weapons.

The metagame is not the game.

If non-fighters get them, then fighters need something else to make them distinctive instead of just being the "newbie class".  It's like they dropped in this cool mechanic, and then looked back at it later and totally forgot why they had put it in.



I agree. Something along Fighting styles would work great. Where they pick a style and then get bonuses based on that style. Two-Handed Weapon Style: Increase ED by 1 size (basically a +1.5 per die). Two-Weapon Style: +1 to AC and opportunity attacks. One-Handed Weapon and Shield: Knock down and bull rush bonus. One-Handed Weapon: Grab and Disarm bonus.

These features could upgrade over levels...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
However, a reaction action (block maybe) should allow a character a chance to mitigate damage from an attack.

That's what AC does.




It's a tool to give players more options.  I don't see a problem of including something like this in an optional module.  What would the issue be?



They have dodge already its a +4 to AC. If you have a decent AC already that makes it nearly impossible to hit you with the monsters we currently have...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I could see a module allowing ED/Maneuvers to be used for every class, martial or magical. At the end of the day, it is just a mechanic, devoid of purpose until a class gives it one. I'd love to see a magical class using ED/maneuvers, but I wouldn't feel that "casters get all the good stuff", as long as the classes are balanced. Perhaps with some creativity, martial classes could have alternate mechanics as well, besides ED/maneuvers.

Perhaps defining every class into ED/maneuvers would be a great way to give a nod to those of us that liked the homogenousness of 4e's class structure.
ED/maneuvers can be a repackaging of 4e that perhaps is more palatable to those that didn't care for the 4e design.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Every class should get their unique maneuver and ED.

that will make multiclassing easier.

#3. If there is a better method for a martial class, don't throw ED on it just cuz that's what martial peeps are supposed to get. However, if multiple classes like fighter/monk/rogue do all have it, there should be differences that exist in the basic setup. Like different die progression or something.

Contrast should exist in both general class mechanics and the details. 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer has different general mechanics (spell slots) but the same details (spells), people complained. Most classes in 4e has the same general mechanic (AEDU) but different details (power selection), people complained about that too. People complain when you make things "same-y" so they should avoid it. It can be inconvenient, yes, but it's kind of necessary.

PS: Is there a decent reason why some people are using XD instead of ED? If ED is already an acronym for some RPG thing then I'll also use XD, but if some of you just like how XD looks or something then forget that.

I'm leaning more and more to 1.  As an example wizards would have XD (call them spell power dice) and spells would be basic templates that could be modified by XD expidenture.  Different caster classes would have access to different basic spell templates and maneuvers would modify the usage of spells, either metamagic type maneuvers or whatever.  And everyone uses the same progression thus making multiclassing a dream and multiclass power level would remain on par with mono-classes.  
I could see a module allowing ED/Maneuvers to be used for every class, martial or magical. At the end of the day, it is just a mechanic, devoid of purpose until a class gives it one. I'd love to see a magical class using ED/maneuvers, but I wouldn't feel that "casters get all the good stuff", as long as the classes are balanced. Perhaps with some creativity, martial classes could have alternate mechanics as well, besides ED/maneuvers.

Perhaps defining every class into ED/maneuvers would be a great way to give a nod to those of us that liked the homogenousness of 4e's class structure.
ED/maneuvers can be a repackaging of 4e that perhaps is more palatable to those that didn't care for the 4e design.



Woot!  For a moment I thought I was the only one out there.

I'm leaning more and more to 1.  As an example wizards would have XD (call them spell power dice) and spells would be basic templates that could be modified by XD expidenture.  Different caster classes would have access to different basic spell templates and maneuvers would modify the usage of spells, either metamagic type maneuvers or whatever.  And everyone uses the same progression thus making multiclassing a dream and multiclass power level would remain on par with mono-classes.  



yes.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Yes.  It's a good mechanic, with lots of depth.  Simple at its core, yet expandably complex.  In short, it does everything Next is trying to do.

This question is like asking whether non-Wizards should get spells.  The answer is yes, of course, but tuned to their own particular classes.

Yes, Fighters should get their own class distinctiveness.  But they can do it in the same way that Wizards get their class distinctiveness, despite the fact that other classes also cast spells.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think the question has merit.  The more we bounce the idea around, perhaps the more we can push back emotional barriers and come up with a logical reason why it should only be limited to x class(es).

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Searching for logical reasons to limit things seems like not the point...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Its kinda the point if you choose 2,3,4, or 5 with no more reasoning than "its they way my D&D should be."

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Searching for logical reasons to limit things seems like not the point...


 +1.  Yeah I can't find a non-emotional reason to limit XD as a single class or a 'martial' class mechanic.  Some have claimed it would run the danger of homogenizing (is that spelled right?) the classes but I really don't think it would if the maneuvers and other class abilities were present.  I think the monk and fighter have really showcased the potential for XD.   
Neither have I.

I am trying to put some XD classes together for a game group.  I am looking for ways to make them less homogenous.

We are even pushing XD into Themes to allow for cross mechanic use.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

For anyone interested, I posted the same topic as a poll over at ENWorld. I was suprised by the results.

I expected to be in the minority (I favor #5), but the percentage of people who are voting 4 or 5 is roughly equal to the percentage voting 1 or 2.

I'll continue the campaign for keeping it to a fighter only mechanic until (and if) the point is reached where I'm certain they won't go back on the current direction (we haven't passed that point yet).

Anyone else who wants to vote is welcome to run over there, the poll is still open.
I'll continue the campaign for keeping it to a fighter only mechanic until (and if) the point is reached where I'm certain they won't go back on the current direction (we haven't passed that point yet).

Out of curiosity, what would you give to the rogue and monk and paladin and ranger and barbarian to allow them to deal comparable damage, if they can't just decide to add +3d10 every round?

The metagame is not the game.

I'll continue the campaign for keeping it to a fighter only mechanic until (and if) the point is reached where I'm certain they won't go back on the current direction (we haven't passed that point yet).

Out of curiosity, what would you give to the rogue and monk and paladin and ranger and barbarian to allow them to deal comparable damage, if they can't just decide to add +3d10 every round?



First, I'd really prefer if the expertised dice were reduced a bit. I'd also like to see better non-rolled maneuvers for fighters. I prefered the maneuvers from packet 2 like Push, Knockdown, Shift, and Tumble, where it was "I spend a die, I do cool." I think some of the maneuvers should require more than one die, but I really don't like the attempt to focus on the die roll result. It works for Parry and Deadly Strike, and things like Protect and extra attacks. No problem there. But maneuvers that work better (or are more exciting!) by spending dice (rather than rolling dice) should just be spending dice. Speeds up the game as well as letting you do things that feel more interesting.

So the fighter isn't just about adding extra damage, he's all about having flexibility and battlefield control. None of the other classes would be able to control the field like the fighter. So yeah, I advocate he be a "martial controller" at least as an option. Striker and defender pretty much come stock with the class, so you just customize how much you'd like of those parts of the class and choose in what way you want to be a controller.

Bringing the damage down means other classes don't need to dish out as much to keep up. But they would still need something. That's fine. Barbarians would have a rage mechanic, classes like paladin and ranger are most likely to apply damage bonuses against specific types of foes, and the rogue probably shouldn't be able to add damage to his attack more than once every other round (allowing him to make devastating attacks while feeling very different from the fighter). Monk is one example that actually works fairly well with the expertise and maneuver system, but I think it can still be done better with its own system.

Just throwing out random ideas:
Rage: More damage than the fighter for a period of time, but limited daily uses.
Ranger: More damage against favored enemies, in favored environments, or other specialized situations.
Paladin: More damage against evil creatures (embedded smite evil in all attacks).
Rogue: Ability to prepare a special trick (including sneak attack) while performing a basic attack, and then on the next round activate the trick.


Expertise Dice as the defacto Martial gimmick is fine.




I would prefer less gimmicky in D&D.
Expertise Dice as the defacto Martial gimmick is fine.




I would prefer less gimmicky in D&D.



......damn, we agree on something.


Short answer to the OP: No.

Medium-sized answer to the OP: No, because I felt the ED was pretty cool as a fighter only gimmick and giving it to other classes makes the Fighter less.......unique.

The longer answer to the OP: Ok, one of the major complaints I continually fought against with 4E was that everyone claimed the classes played "The same". Well, what the heck is this now?? Isn't making ED across most martial classes pretty much identical to each other? Just because they get some different stuff doesn't mean doing it at the table is any less different. If they want classes to be unique and flavorfully different and fun doing different stuff, they're going to need to come out with multiple sub-systems to facilitate this. Not just one mechanic with different bells and whistles to claim any sort of identity. They need to get more creative. They've taken some decent steps, but they need to delve further.    
Expertise Dice as the defacto Martial gimmick is fine.




I would prefer less gimmicky in D&D.



......damn, we agree on something.


Short answer to the OP: No.

Medium-sized answer to the OP: No, because I felt the ED was pretty cool as a fighter only gimmick and giving it to other classes makes the Fighter less.......unique.

The longer answer to the OP: Ok, one of the major complaints I continually fought against with 4E was that everyone claimed the classes played "The same". Well, what the heck is this now?? Isn't making ED across most martial classes pretty much identical to each other? Just because they get some different stuff doesn't mean doing it at the table is any less different. If they want classes to be unique and flavorfully different and fun doing different stuff, they're going to need to come out with multiple sub-systems to facilitate this. Not just one mechanic with different bells and whistles to claim any sort of identity. They need to get more creative. They've taken some decent steps, but they need to delve further.    




Totally agree, they have glommed onto the popularity of ED, and are being lazy with it, IMO.



Totally agree, they have glommed onto the popularity of ED, and are being lazy with it, IMO.



That and Adv/Disadv mechanic is being shoe-horned (they still use those??) into every possible thing it seems. Back in my day we had to ADD and SUBTRACT stuff together. On the fly. Witout a calculator! In winter!! 

Is this the appropriate time to tell them to get off my lawn??  Laughing



Totally agree, they have glommed onto the popularity of ED, and are being lazy with it, IMO.



That and Adv/Disadv mechanic is being shoe-horned (they still use those??) into every possible thing it seems. Back in my day we had to ADD and SUBTRACT stuff together. On the fly. Witout a calculator! In winter!! 

Is this the appropriate time to tell them to get off my lawn??  Laughing




I actually dig Advantage, as that's a nice answer to the micro-bonuses, and applies easily to aspects of the game as a whole; but at this rate, it seems even the Wizard will get a little Expertise...
I think giving maneuvers to all martial classes is adding unnessecery complexity to the core game. A friend of mine is already finding it difficult with the rogue and says it feels like a pile of power cards from fourth edition and every round he has to think of which one to use his ED on. 
Expertise Dice as the defacto Martial gimmick is fine.




I would prefer less gimmicky in D&D.



......damn, we agree on something.


Short answer to the OP: No.

Medium-sized answer to the OP: No, because I felt the ED was pretty cool as a fighter only gimmick and giving it to other classes makes the Fighter less.......unique.

The longer answer to the OP: Ok, one of the major complaints I continually fought against with 4E was that everyone claimed the classes played "The same". Well, what the heck is this now?? Isn't making ED across most martial classes pretty much identical to each other? Just because they get some different stuff doesn't mean doing it at the table is any less different. If they want classes to be unique and flavorfully different and fun doing different stuff, they're going to need to come out with multiple sub-systems to facilitate this. Not just one mechanic with different bells and whistles to claim any sort of identity. They need to get more creative. They've taken some decent steps, but they need to delve further.    



As opposed to previous editions where all martial classes had the option to "hit it" or "hit it again"? yeah, that's kind of hypocritical there. They can differentiate each ED class by the maneuvers they get, how they get their ED and how they can spend them..Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.



Totally agree, they have glommed onto the popularity of ED, and are being lazy with it, IMO.



That and Adv/Disadv mechanic is being shoe-horned (they still use those??) into every possible thing it seems. Back in my day we had to ADD and SUBTRACT stuff together. On the fly. Witout a calculator! In winter!! 

Is this the appropriate time to tell them to get off my lawn??  Laughing



While I personally can do some pretty decent math in my head, I've played with people that had trouble adding up a bunch of bonuses and penalties. Should we encourage more people to play or not? Really the best policy is have as much basic math as you want, just not in the middle of playing the game. For instance have a bunch of fiddly bonuses pre-calculated on your sheet from class, race, level, weapon, magic, feats, etc...etc... but don't add a bunch of situational bonuses that people have to add together all the time...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think giving maneuvers to all martial classes is adding unnessecery complexity to the core game. A friend of mine is already finding it difficult with the rogue and says it feels like a pile of power cards from fourth edition and every round he has to think of which one to use his ED on. 



Really? So 5 choices per round at level 10 makes them feel like they are playing 4E? Something wrong with that.

They should allow players to opt out by taking the same Maneuvers over and over but each time they get it they can add a +1 to whatever total they apply from their ED roll. So if it was 3d10 take highest they would roll, take the highest and then add +1. That way they could go Deadly Strike 5 times and have a +4 bonus when doing deadly strike...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yes.  It's a good mechanic, with lots of depth.  Simple at its core, yet expandably complex.  In short, it does everything Next is trying to do.

This question is like asking whether non-Wizards should get spells.  The answer is yes, of course, but tuned to their own particular classes.

Yes, Fighters should get their own class distinctiveness.  But they can do it in the same way that Wizards get their class distinctiveness, despite the fact that other classes also cast spells.



Yep. Other classes than Wizard have always had spells-- these other classes (in older editions of D&D) just had fewer spells, and also had Other Things. Make it the same deal with Fighters and Maneuvers-- Fighters have the most access to Maneuvers, while a Monk has Ki etc, Paladin has Smite etc, and so on.
Sign In to post comments