D&D Next or just D&D 3.75

At first, Next felt like something new with specialties and backgrounds. It felt like a new direction.  Each character would have a class, a specialty, and a background which could progress. I was hoping racial abilities would progress as well.
Now that it has shifted back towards skills and feats being more independent, it feels just like a reboot of 3rd edition.
Seems the minds at Wizard are lacking imagination at this point.  Anyone agree. Was anyone hoping to see something relatively inspiring and not just a remix of old songs with a new cover. 
Was anyone hoping to see something relatively inspiring...


I was hoping for this.

and not just a remix of old songs with a new cover. 


I was expecting this.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

I didn't expect something new and original. From the start the idea seemed to be "getting back to D&D's roots". From that I was expecting something that would remind me of AD&D or BECM.

That what they're making seems like another version of 3e is therefore rather a surprise. 

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

I feel combat expertise dice, rogue skill tricks, advantage/disadvantage, skill dice, and at will magic is all great...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I feel combat expertise dice, rogue skill tricks, advantage/disadvantage, skill dice, and at will magic is all great...


+1

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I called it from the start. Sadly I'm correct more often than I like...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 like 3.x so it it might be a better system than 3.x when they are finished. 3.x has an advantage (or disadvantage) in sheer volume of materials. I am guessing they'll bloat this new edition as well.

it doesn't feel new or inspiring though.  Why bother play testing this newest iteration? Haven't we been playing 3.x for a decade or more?

i only want to play test something original. 
I feel combat expertise dice, rogue skill tricks, advantage/disadvantage, skill dice, and at will magic is all great...


+1

I don't disagree but those are all relatively minor changes to the system.
I feel combat expertise dice, rogue skill tricks, advantage/disadvantage, skill dice, and at will magic is all great...


+1

I don't disagree but those are all relatively minor changes to the system.



I disagree, those mechanics plus a handful of others made 5e interesting in ways that 4e/3.5 weren't for me...

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I feel combat expertise dice, rogue skill tricks, advantage/disadvantage, skill dice, and at will magic is all great...


+1

I don't disagree but those are all relatively minor changes to the system.



Minor Changes?!

Rogue) Went from 3.5 "d20 Attack" to all these interesting Skill Tricks and options.

Fighter) Went from 3.5 "d20 Attack" to all these interesting maneuvers.

Cleric) Still looks like a huge work in progress, but seems to be shaping up so that everyone can play the type of cleric they want, with Domain/God choice actually meaning a great deal, as it affects your Channel Divinity (a major class feature) and your "Free-to-memorize" Domain Spells.

Wizard) We haven't seen many options yet, but Traditions seem like a good idea, though I'll reserve full judgement until I see a few.

Spells) The addition of 4e at-will spells, to give casters options once they run out of better spells, as well as fixing many broken aspects of spellcasting.

Math) Fixing broken game math by adding interesting mechanics (see Advantage) instead of just flat bonuses. I've been calling for a bounded-accuracy system for years.

Sorcerer/Warlock) Come on... These looked amazing.

I'm not saying D&DN is perfect by ANY MEANS, and it has a long way to go if they actually want me to play this full-time, but this is in NO WAY just another 3.5. 
I have to ask, how is D&D Next appreciably like 3e, 3.5e, or PF? I just don't see it reflected in the mechanics other than a few instances (d20 system, fixed DCs, some skills), and a lot of the stuff that I see people cite also existed in pre-3e D&D.
Tim Eagon My DDI Articles Follow me on Twitter @Tim_Eagon
Considering neophilia is what has eventually ruined every previous edition of D&D, it would be nice if they got off that treadmill and stuck to a simple product.
It's making many of the same mistakes as 3E

1. Assuming that per day based characters can be balanced against at will based characters
2. Saving throw DCs scale faster than saves
3. Weapon using classes don't scale compared to magic as levels progress
4. Higher levels an afterthought
...whatever
The classes, skills, feats, spells, 20 level progressions, races, ability scores, etc. feel exactly like 3rd edition to me. They have made some improvements but it does not feel remarkably different.
 
That is my opinion so it is neither right or wrong. 

I don't feel a need to test play this edition. I can play it but I don't quite understand what I am really testing.  It seems rather straightforward and nothing is remarkably new or unusual.
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Fighter) Went from 3.5 "d20 Attack" to all these interesting maneuvers.



What interesting maneuvers? All of the Fighter maneuvers are pretty boring, and are pretty similar to feats that the 3.5 fighter had available. The only difference is the 3.5 Fighter got access to more of them, and could make them synergize by using them together in ways the DDN fighter cannot due to the limitations of MDD.




Honestly DDN feels to me like they are cherry picking the worst aspects of every edition, culminating in a game that is so backwards that I can't convince my group to playtest the current packet even while it's free. And we're a 3.5 group, the edition that this game is trying to emulate the closest. They've simultaneously failed to fix the major problems we had with 3.5, while taking out many of the things that made it great. 
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me

1st and 2nd edition had a core of around 9 to 12 levels although progression was basically unlimited to some degree.  3rd edition went to 20 levels.  4th edition had 30 levels.
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me

1st and 2nd edition had a core of around 9 to 12 levels although progression was basically unlimited to some degree.  3rd edition went to 20 levels.  4th edition had 30 levels.



uhhh all the player's handbook listings went to 20. You stopped rolling HP at 9 but carried on getting stuff until 20.


The level progression was basically unlimited but the classes undoubtedly went to level 20.

People see what they want to see :P
My two copper.
I see dead levels.
For what I see now the reunification of the fan base is not done.
For now Next have a lot of features that will not please 3.5 or 4 fans.
DndN will just split more the fans: 3.5 , 4ed, Next.

To allow some reunification WOTC should aim a fully 3.5 compatibiltity which lead to a 3.75.
And dont tell me that some peoples in WOTC havent think about it.

F



2nd edtion had 20 levels as core, then a later book "high level campaigns" expanded it

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I was positive about D&D Next and as a fan of 3e would have maybe agreed that it was a sort of 3.75e. After the last packet I would consider it an insult to 3e to call it 3.75e. I don’t like any of the classes and I cant name one fault that is native to 3e. My issues with the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are mostly germane to new Next stuff with a slice of 4e with the Rogue's tricks. The Cleric’s faux foundation has always existed. Next just adds a thick layer of gloss to hide it. The laser atwills is from 4e. Same with the Wizard and its 50hp damage cantrips. So yeah none of my issues with the current classes are exclusive to 3e.

It's making many of the same mistakes as 3E 1. Assuming that per day based characters can be balanced against at will based characters 2. Saving throw DCs scale faster than saves 3. Weapon using classes don't scale compared to magic as levels progress 4. Higher levels an afterthought



Its easy to balance the vancian wizard with the fighter. Very very easy. This is not a mistake. A mistake is 40hp cantrip.

2. Considering that spells are reduced so a hold person has multiple saves (last I looked) its all part of the tension.

3. Like hell they don’t. They scale in the most mechanical boring way possible.


4. What?? That was not an issue with 3e. That was a reason to stick with one class. Ok maybe it was an issue compared to 4e however its much worse in Next and it was worse in 2e and 1e.

Personal Opinion: The current playtest suck. I see this game as very close to 3.5 or 3.75 as it stands right now. As a 4E fan It´s just one edition I have no interest in playing at this moment.
I'd call the new playtest packet D&D 4.75 rather than 3.75.
I'd call the new playtest packet D&D 4.75 rather than 3.75.



How and why? The few things that were ripped from 4E's still breathing corpse and sewn onto the Frankenstein corpse of 5E missed the entire point of what they did in 4E and why they were there.

I really don't call 5E anything but a mess right now...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 the manuevers are more intereseting then any abilities provided in 4e and 3.5. We quit previous editions because of the rigidity of the abilities, this feels like the fighter weilds a per round resource. 

Encounter powers are ok, but got boring also. Daily resource powers mainly sucked (for our groups) because of the lack versatility made it so you maxed out on the most versatile options making wizards have the same spells at each level. This packet gives casters greater versatility, less trap options. It's not perfect, but superior to previous editions (and previous packets). I think it could get even better.

Greatest innovation in my opinion is backgrounds, specialty, & class charcter creation. No more vending machine style characters, most problems I have can be worked around, just to have such a nice character creation system.

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I'd call the new playtest packet D&D 4.75 rather than 3.75.



How and why? The few things that were ripped from 4E's still breathing corpse and sewn onto the Frankenstein corpse of 5E missed the entire point of what they did in 4E and why they were there.

I really don't call 5E anything but a mess right now...



A mess might be a better classification. Really anything like 4th edition puts it like 4th edition to me. (Not that this is always a bad thing...somethings really should be taken from 4th because they are awesome)
I'd call the new playtest packet D&D 4.75 rather than 3.75.



How and why? The few things that were ripped from 4E's still breathing corpse and sewn onto the Frankenstein corpse of 5E missed the entire point of what they did in 4E and why they were there.

I really don't call 5E anything but a mess right now...



A mess might be a better classification. Really anything like 4th edition puts it like 4th edition to me. (Not that this is always a bad thing...somethings really should be taken from 4th because they are awesome)



What actually resembles 4e?

People keep saying there are 4e elements in the game, but I have yet to see them.   
I'd call the new playtest packet D&D 4.75 rather than 3.75.

I'd call it (3+1).  It's a divergence from the established line, at that point in its history.

The metagame is not the game.

Personal Opinion: The current playtest suck. I see this game as very close to 3.5 or 3.75 as it stands right now.




I don't, I see it as more of a cleaned up pre-3rd Ed, with bits from 3rd and 4th Ed tossed in...

Which is perfect for me; now, what to do about the current classes... 



To me it looks like the overall tone of the edition is based in 3.x, and from this point they are adding stuff from other editions, past and future. Which is not a good idea imo. The next version should always be based on the previous one, even if they are fixing stuff, fix stuff going forward with it.

It would be just honest if the devs just say in the open which edition they are taking as their standard, because otherwise its just a mess, as you don´t have a clear reference when you are just talking about all editions at the same time. At this moment Specialties, backgrounds, schemes, Skills, feats, are all so messed up because the concepts got mixed up, as we are not sure if we are talking about 2E kits or 4E themes, 3E skills or 2E proficiencies.... I even think it would be better if they just take one edition, it´s assumptions and start working from it, be it 4E, 3E or 2E, all editions where build on form the previous one.

4E classes were based upon roles and balanced/designed around the encounter. 5E classes are neither, and in the absence of those two I can't see how you could say they resemble 4E at all.
...whatever

What actually resembles 4e?

People keep saying there are 4e elements in the game, but I have yet to see them.   




Recharge and At-Wills spring to mind.




At-Wills are from late 3.5E and I believe Recharge is also 2E or 3E, can't remember which...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 the manuevers are more intereseting then any abilities provided in 4e and 3.5. We quit previous editions because of the rigidity of the abilities, this feels like the fighter weilds a per round resource.



What maneuvers in DDN are better/more interesting than their 3.5 counterparts? Heck, there's only 11 of them, so I can go through the whole list pretty easily:


Composed Attack-A really weak way of negating disadvantage. This is a more situational and less useful way of gaining a bonus to an attack in older editions. 

Defensive Roll-Reduce damage from an AoE. This is basically Rogue evasion. The only interesting thing here is getting to move if you reduce the damage to 0. On the other hand, it is eating up your reaction where evasion was free. I will give you however that it was not a feat, so the fighter got something new at least.

Disarm-More reliable than 3.5 disarm, but still as situational. Might pick this up just because it is so situational that I doubt the developers would think to build disarm immunity into someone like Orcus, and stealing Gods' signature weapons sounds like it's potentially fun. Still, nothing that you couldn't do in older editions, just more reliable in exchange for taking up 1 of your 5 maneuvers ever.

Glancing Blow-Absolutely useless. No Fighter is going to miss on a 10 or higher, so the ability never does anything.

Lunge-There was a feat for this, possibly several. Except it was always on reach rather than one attack, thus at least letting the fighter control the battlefield. And it didn't cost damage. 3.5 but worse.

Opportunist-Bonus to hit on AoOs, nothing groundbreaking or new here.

Protect-One of the few interesting maneuvers in this packet. It unfortunately does require the Fighter to be sitting right next to the guy he wants to protect (rather than just being within reach), but I can't think of a feat offhand that replicated this, unless you count spending a feat for a ToB maneuver.

Shove Away-Hey look, it's Knockback from 3.5. Except without all the synergies that made knockback awesome.

Spring Attack-This is pretty much worse than 3.5 spring attack. Only saving grace is lack of terrible prereqs. 

Volley/Whirlwind Attack-Oh look, I can give up all my bonus damage to get a small AoE off. Not only are these both possible in 3.5, in 3.5 they were less restricted and got full damage on each attack, not gimped damage.


 

Glancing Blow-Absolutely useless. No Fighter is going to miss on a 10 or higher, so the ability never does anything.
 



Congratulations, you are the thousandth customer to misread this ability.

Seriously, go read it again.  The attack result is 10, not the roll.  I.e. fighter rolled 3, has a +7 to hit, hits an AC of 10, but the monster has AC 17, the fighter can use glancing blow.

Of course, you would have been right if you were talking about the original version of this ability, which worked as you described (i.e. was totally worthless), but its been fixed for many packets now.
Of course, you would have been right if you were talking about the original version of this ability, which worked as you described (i.e. was totally worthless), but its been fixed for many packets now.

Didn't it originally just say that if the fighter missed, he still did his strength bonus in damage?  I liked that version.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.


Glancing Blow-Absolutely useless. No Fighter is going to miss on a 10 or higher, so the ability never does anything.
 



Congratulations, you are the thousandth customer to misread this ability.

Seriously, go read it again.  The attack result is 10, not the roll.  I.e. fighter rolled 3, has a +7 to hit, hits an AC of 10, but the monster has AC 17, the fighter can use glancing blow.

Of course, you would have been right if you were talking about the original version of this ability, which worked as you described (i.e. was totally worthless), but its been fixed for many packets now.



Even with that change it is still an extremely modest DPR gain. Nothing unique or interesting, the same level of damage could be gained through any number of feats. It's basically allowing up to 6 damage on a miss. 
The next version should always be based on the previous one, even if they are fixing stuff, fix stuff going forward with it.




No, no, no, that would be the worst thing they could do at this juncture of the game.



No, i´m being serious here, it´s just logical. No problem with the tone of the game being old school, as long as it is old school revisited you know? It´s like nintendo never stops doing those mario games, I have no idea How many Mario games are out there today, But they are revisiting the old concepts of platform video games reinvented with the newest possible engines. It´s like creating the next Mario video game using flavor, tone and mechanics from the old 8bit nintendo, instead they use old tone and flavor revisited with new engines available today. It´s this kind backwards thinking that is going to ruin DDNext.
I think the manuevers are more intereseting then any abilities provided in 4e and 3.5. We quit previous editions because of the rigidity of the abilities, this feels like the fighter weilds a per round resource.



What maneuvers in DDN are better/more int 



Well, I look at manuevers as a way of customizing abilites per turn. Rather then having choose 'A' or choose 'B,' I can now create ABDDFG, then next turn be AACCCC, then next turn be CCCBBA. the permutations are what makes it interesting. It's not always perfect, some manuevers aren't working yet. But the idea behind creates a fluid fighter, not on that one that is "pull a lever" but "craft an ability"

Level 10 Fighter has 7 manuevers essentially (including parry and deadly strike). With 5 dice, i can create rather extensive combintaions, in those 7 manuevers I can cracreateft potentially hundreds of round options for the fighter. AS the manuevers continue to improve I expect more options to unfold. In a lot of ways, its the first time I've seen them really create a clean system for making narrative combat viable, and not just lets 'skin' abilities with fancy descriptions to make it seem like what I did this combat isn't what I have every single combat since I the ability. Sorry, but I'm really done with that. For me personally that's part of RPGs I'm sick of. I have lots of other games that are better then that I can go play. 

It's the difference between having remote control robot with 10 buttons that perform staid actions, and be able to write the code behind the actions on the fly. I guess.. that's not for everyone, but I love it. Sorry you don't.




My mind is a deal-breaker.

I think the manuevers are more intereseting then any abilities provided in 4e and 3.5. We quit previous editions because of the rigidity of the abilities, this feels like the fighter weilds a per round resource.



What maneuvers in DDN are better/more int 



Well, I look at manuevers as a way of customizing abilites per turn. Rather then having choose 'A' or choose 'B,' I can now create ABDDFG, then next turn be AACCCC, then next turn be CCCBBA. the permutations are what makes it interesting. It's not always perfect, some manuevers aren't working yet. But the idea behind creates a fluid fighter, not on that one that is "pull a lever" but "craft an ability"

Level 10 Fighter has 7 manuevers essentially (including parry and deadly strike). With 5 dice, i can create rather extensive combintaions, in those 7 manuevers I can cracreateft potentially hundreds of round options for the fighter. AS the manuevers continue to improve I expect more options to unfold. In a lot of ways, its the first time I've seen them really create a clean system for making narrative combat viable, and not just lets 'skin' abilities with fancy descriptions to make it seem like what I did this combat isn't what I have every single combat since I the ability. Sorry, but I'm really done with that. For me personally that's part of RPGs I'm sick of. I have lots of other games that are better then that I can go play. 

It's the difference between having remote control robot with 10 buttons that perform staid actions, and be able to write the code behind the actions on the fly. I guess.. that's not for everyone, but I love it. Sorry you don't.




What you're missing is that you could permutate MORE options with the 3.5 fighter, because there was no restriction on how many you could combine. Needing to change focus from round to round is a more interesting mechanic yes, but unless your round to round choices are actually more potent, then it is an overall weaker ability than what was there before.

I like the round to round resource management style. If I dig through my posting history I can show posts with me proposing something very similar months before expertise dice were ever announced.  However, the developers missed the key part of the equation. When you put something on a resource that needs to be managed, what you get out of that resource -needs- to be better than what you had without that resource, or you become just straight up worse.

As an example that is easy for most people to understand, imagine we took a wizard, on his daily resource management schedule, and made each of his spells the equivalent of an at-will ability. People would rightly say the Wizard was gimped. It's the same principle at work here. If we have a class that at its start had a foundation that was weak, then putting in a resource system but not changing the abilities that the resource system accesses doesn't make the class better, it makes it weaker. You balance the abilities to the resource. So for martial dice/combat expertise to work as a subsystem, then the abilities the fighter gets access to NEED to be better and more interesting than feats the Fighter had access to in older editions. Otherwise the entire exercise of giving the fighter a resource was pointless and only serves to make the class as a whole less capable. 
Sign In to post comments