D&D Next Q&A: Weapon Dice, Sorcerer, Warlock & Feats

This week Rodney answers questions about weapon dice, what's going on with the sorcerer and warlock, and where to draw the line between what a feat can grant and what a person can accomplish with roleplay at the table.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    
Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    



Ok now I am confused? Everyone can do X, everyone can do Y, if you take this feat you can do BOTH x and y. How is that a tax

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

They will have to define the action space for characters based on skills, martial ability, spells, and improvised actions. This will need further refinement in reference to what everyone may do, versus a specific class, and what a feat may add to that mix that can not be gained by multi-classing. The trick is to not to dilute what everyone can do, so a caster can do physical based maneuvers on equal grounds with a martial character. On the opposite end, feats or mulit-classing must be developed so you can not easily take class niche abilties without the appropriate level, ability, or class feature.
Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    



Ok now I am confused? Everyone can do X, everyone can do Y, if you take this feat you can do BOTH x and y. How is that a tax



Because it lets you do both with a single action. It's so good it becomes almost mandatory for a melee class.
 
Q1)

So the Core 3 fighting styles are:
Two handed weapon
Weapon and Shield
Two weapons

Therefore they have to make shields and second weapons stronger. A lot stronger.

Q2)
Warlocks Yay!
Warrior-Mages Yay!

Q3)

The key to this is defining what requires special class/maneuver/feat/skill/trick training and what doesn't.

Then put the "everyone can do it" stuff in the standard rules.

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!


1 Will lower damage weapons have more maneuver options than weapons like greataxes and greatswords?

One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish with an upcoming iteration of the rules is to make fighting with two weapons, fighting with a single two-handed weapon, or fighting with sword-and-shield relatively equivalent options across most of the game, with simple reasons to choose each option. For example, we might say that the main reason to wield two one-handed weapons is to be able to attack multiple, weaker foes, while the main reason to wield a two-handed weapon is to get better critical hits, while wielding a one-handed weapon and a shield allows you to increase your defensive ability while sacrificing some offense. Ideally, this means that maneuvers work with any weapon you want to use, so if you want to trip people you don’t have to worry about what kind of weapon you are wielding. Plus, we know that weapon choice is also an aesthetic choice, which is one of the reasons we’re aiming to make all three of those major options something that works right out of the gate with no need for feat buy-ins to get up to competency.


Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that. What we are seeing is horrible mechanics that show the developers don't know how to do basic probability math, and that they use their one off play testing anecdotal evidence as if it means anything of value. I mean "Well we did this one time and it 'felt' fun, so it must be good right.". Yeah, one time in college I went to a restaurant while drunk and the food tasted awesome. I went back several times later when I wasn't drunk, and the food was aweful, very salty and tasted burned most of the time. Please go back and do real testing to make sure these things work. Other posters on this forum have pointed out quite clearly where you guys are horrible at math, take their advice and run the numbers.


Some quick suggestions for balancing the different fighting styles:


Two-Handed weapons deal slightly more damage (1d10 instead of 1d8, maybe brutal 1 or 2 or something like that). Get +0 to attack for being proficient. Require Strength of 12+.


One handed weapons deal lower damage (1d4-1d8). Get a +3 to +5 to attack for being proficient. Require Dexterity of 12+ in order to dual wield.


Shield grants +3 to AC (someone else did the math in another thread and +1 means the two-handed weapons are a better defense option because they cut the battle time in half).


2 Will the sorcerer and warlock from an earlier playtest packet return at some point?

Yes. We haven’t forgotten about those classes at all, and continue to work on them even now, though (as Mike has mentioned before in Legends & Lore) it’s likely that the sorcerer design you saw before will become its own, new class focused more on being the “warrior mage” archetype, as opposed to trying to reskin the sorcerer to fit that archetype.


In other words, sure they'll be in there but we have no idea what we are going to do.



 
Holy jumping to stupid conlcusions that fit your bias Batman!
My two copper.
patiently waiting for the haiku...

∴ "Virtus junxit, mors non separabit." 

1. Sounds ok, hopefully it is actually balanced.
2. That just repeats what we heard before. It doesn't even provide a bread crumb of what they are doing with sorcerrer or when we will see them again.
3. Sounds about right, but some options for Charge should be a basic option. Charge with a penalty to hit as a universal option and charge with no penalty or a bonus as a feat would be better.

The changes to weapons looks promising. The changes to the sorcerer is worrying. I loved this option for the sorcerer. This also means that we will not see the warriormage for a very long time since it's not one of the basic classes. Which makes me quite sad since I've been playing the sorcerer for a few months now.
Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that. What we are seeing is horrible mechanics that show the developers don't know how to do basic probability math, and that they use their one off play testing anecdotal evidence as if it means anything of value.

Have we seen anything yet?  (beyond the current packed, which was more of a manuver test then anything else).

I know we've speculated alot.  But i've seen anything about weapon damage dice.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

By the way, Charge (the feat) isn't that good to worry about.

It is just Hustle + Attack. That is just double move then attack with no bonuses. You don't even get bonuses.

How often will it be relevant? How often do you need to move 35ft+ while attacking that spending a feat for it feels mandatory?

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!

Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.

And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    

Ok now I am confused? Everyone can do X, everyone can do Y, if you take this feat you can do BOTH x and y. How is that a tax

Because it lets you do both with a single action. It's so good it becomes almost mandatory for a melee class. 

Is there a melee only class?

Cause it's not a tax for a fighter/rogue/monk who can pull out a bow/x-bow/sling and do nearly as much damage.
Or the wizard who has cantrips.
Mabey the cleric?  Though the one in my group has a ranged attack, but i'm not sure about the other builds.
Now the barbarian... well it's not out yet.


Not that i think "you get to attack at range 35-65" is neccicaraly that big of a deal.  It may have helped once in the entire time we've been playing, but again, the fighter just used his bow.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

patiently waiting for the haiku...


Wait no longer. It's Q&A Haiku time!!

Weapon style balance?
Style choice should be aesthetic
Not optimizing.

Warlocks/sorcerers? 
They are still works in progress
Along with a gish! 

What are feats required?
Feats should give you more options
And less taxes. 
By the way, Charge (the feat) isn't that good to worry about. It is just Hustle + Attack. That is just double move then attack with no bonuses. You don't even get bonuses. How often will it be relevant? How often do you need to move 35ft+ while attacking that spending a feat for it feels mandatory?



It's not just a matter of how good it is (which anyway I believe this to be pretty good specifically). It's that I find this design philosophy conerning: feats shouldn't allow bending core rules, they should just allow being a bit better at doing something. Either Charge and Shift are in as core or they are not. And if they are a feat should just allow to be a bit more effective at them.  
It's not just a matter of how good it is (which anyway I believe this to be pretty good specifically). It's that I find this design philosophy conerning: feats shouldn't allow bending core rules, they should just allow being a bit better at doing something. Either Charge and Shift are in as core or they are not. And if they are a feat should just allow to be a bit more effective at them.  

Except that WotC has stated that feats are for adding more options, not for making a character "better" at something. That was one of the big issues in 3e and 4e, where the feats that gave static bonuses became "must haves" because they were consistantly a better choice than the ones that provided situational benefits. Removing the former means the latter are able to focus on broadening options instead of narrowing them (by over specializing). Granted, calling the category "Specialty" seems a misnomer in light of that goal.

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.
Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that. What we are seeing is horrible mechanics that show the developers don't know how to do basic probability math

Yeah, I know, it's almost as if this is a work in progress, and they have priorities on what to work on and Q&A sessions like this tend to talk more about the future than the current state of the packet.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's not just a matter of how good it is (which anyway I believe this to be pretty good specifically). It's that I find this design philosophy conerning: feats shouldn't allow bending core rules, they should just allow being a bit better at doing something. Either Charge and Shift are in as core or they are not. And if they are a feat should just allow to be a bit more effective at them.  

Except that WotC has stated that feats are for adding more options, not for making a character "better" at something. That was one of the big issues in 3e and 4e, where the feats that gave static bonuses became "must haves" because they were consistantly a better choice than the ones that provided situational benefits. Removing the former means the latter are able to focus on broadening options instead of narrowing them (by over specializing). Granted, calling the category "Specialty" seems a misnomer in light of that goal.




I'm not advocating for 3e/4e feats! Quite the opposite.

To me feats impact on the game should be both situational AND narrow. 

Even Find Familiar as a feat seems overboard: that should be a class feature. 
To me feats impact on the game should be both situational AND narrow. 

Even Find Familiar as a feat seems overboard: that should be a class feature. 


They are trying to avoid fiddly feats that give minor benefits.  Feats are now being designed to give large benefits for a specific type of character.

Necessarily, this means that some character archetypes are going to require you to dedicate feats. Wizards with familiars, apparently, are one of those archetypes.
To me feats impact on the game should be both situational AND narrow. 

Even Find Familiar as a feat seems overboard: that should be a class feature. 


They are trying to avoid fiddly feats that give minor benefits.  Feats are now being designed to give large benefits for a specific type of character.

Necessarily, this means that some character archetypes are going to require you to dedicate feats. Wizards with familiars, apparently, are one of those archetypes.


And feats that give strictly numerical bonuses.  The expertise feats weren't taxes because they were good, they were taxes because they were fixing the math.

People are expanding the definition of "tax" way, way beyond what it actually means.  "Good feat" and "feat tax" are not synonyms.  A feat that provides a strong, thematic, playstyle-changing ability to your character that it couldn't have before is not a tax, it's a well-designed feat.  "Concept tax" is another thing that gets thrown around, and that's a more subtle issue.  Things that should have been included in the class feature but are shunted off into feats fall into this category.  This does not, again, mean that every good feat that might have keyed off of a class feature is a concept tax.  A tax is a feat that fixes a hole in the design, not something that adds something extra to the design.  Subjective?  Sure.  But not without support and grounding.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
To me feats impact on the game should be both situational AND narrow. 

Even Find Familiar as a feat seems overboard: that should be a class feature. 


They are trying to avoid fiddly feats that give minor benefits.  Feats are now being designed to give large benefits for a specific type of character.

Necessarily, this means that some character archetypes are going to require you to dedicate feats. Wizards with familiars, apparently, are one of those archetypes.



I get that. Since there is nothing like a powers system anymore most of the bourden of customisation moves back to feats. We've seen that happening in 3e already. Could it end up better this time? Maybe. Does this makes me confortable? Nope, but I'm not dooming it to failure either, yet.
@Uskglass

But you can "move and attack" and "move away without getting attacked" via core. Charge and Shift just give you situational and horizontal.

The point of Question 3 was to discuss having a system where certain basic actions can be performed without having a certain class/feat/spell/skill AND to keep specialization in those fields of play more lateral in effect to remove the "must have to be effective" quality.

DDN is trying to remove the "must have to perform" and "must have to be effective" from the core aspects of the past.

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!


I can't help but totally reject the mechanic for charging.   In previous editions, charge was a default action open to all characters.  Even in 2e you got a bonus to attack at a penalty to AC.      

Limiting that maneuver to a feat is a contrived way to provide "options" to the fighter.    It's a fake option.   

Charge should return to the game as an untrained combat action.   The game should then provide a trained or rather "Improved' charge feat for those who want to specialize.    Hustle + Attack is not good enough since there is no added attack or damage bonus for the momentum gained.

The other thing I don't agree with is the removal of weapon properties.    It makes weapon choice meaningless.   IMO, the halberd should allow you to hook your oponent, a long axe should give you a bonus to trip, the parrying dagger should help you parry, etc.     

As for weapon styles they are missing Single Weapon Style.  I'd add that back into the mix (it was in 2e) and provide a reach or distance bonus against a single target per round.   Even an AC bonus would be acceptable.  


The other thing I don't agree with is the removal of weapon properties.    It makes weapon choice meaningless.   IMO, the halberd should allow you to hook your oponent, a long axe should give you a bonus to trip, the parrying dagger should help you parry, etc.

Removal from core only. It's immensely easier to modularize weapon properties if the core weapons have none. Basic rules weapon choice is mostly cosmetic, but standard rules might add properties such as you suggest.

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.
The other thing I don't agree with is the removal of weapon properties.    It makes weapon choice meaningless.   IMO, the halberd should allow you to hook your oponent, a long axe should give you a bonus to trip, the parrying dagger should help you parry, etc.

Removal from core only. It's immensely easier to modularize weapon properties if the core weapons have none. Basic rules weapon choice is mostly cosmetic, but standard rules might add properties such as you suggest.




Yeah I would be fine with them not being in the basic rules.

btw, I just hope we don't end up with a phased release of the rules.  


I highly doubt that PHB won't include what he's calling Basic and Standard.  Maybe even Advanced, though I expect some of the components of Advanced won't show up until supplements.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
@Uskglass But you can "move and attack" and "move away without getting attacked" via core. Charge and Shift just give you situational and horizontal. The point of Question 3 was to discuss having a system where certain basic actions can be performed without having a certain class/feat/spell/skill AND to keep specialization in those fields of play more lateral in effect to remove the "must have to be effective" quality. DDN is trying to remove the "must have to perform" and "must have to be effective" from the core aspects of the past.



Charge and Shift make it possible to do in a single action what would normally require two. They change basic gameplay for some classes. And while this may be a good thing, I think feats are not the best way to achieve the result. I'd rather see a set of few options becoming available to pick from as you level up within a class. 

I almost always agree with the intents stated for 5e, and I believe the dev team genuinely wants to deliver upon those. My concern is on the implementation side.
Yes, but you have to care about doing that action.  Shift is far less useful in Next than it is in 4e due to the way the OA rules work in Next.  It's not the vital component of every character's play like it is in Next.  Some characters that like the mobility will take it, others that don't care will take something else.  Yes, it helps define a playstyle...but that's a good thing.  It's what feats should do.  All of them.  For everyone.

Oh, and as far as being concerned about the implementation, for this and everything else - do not let your own failure of imagination limit what you think the developers should strive for.  I know that sounds harsher than I intend, so I'm putting in a disclaimer that I don't mean to insult you, just that the devs are better than you at thinking of different ways of doing things.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

1 Will lower damage weapons have more maneuver options than weapons like greataxes and greatswords?

One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish with an upcoming iteration of the rules is to make fighting with two weapons, fighting with a single two-handed weapon, or fighting with sword-and-shield relatively equivalent options across most of the game, with simple reasons to choose each option. For example, we might say that the main reason to wield two one-handed weapons is to be able to attack multiple, weaker foes, while the main reason to wield a two-handed weapon is to get better critical hits, while wielding a one-handed weapon and a shield allows you to increase your defensive ability while sacrificing some offense. Ideally, this means that maneuvers work with any weapon you want to use, so if you want to trip people you don’t have to worry about what kind of weapon you are wielding. Plus, we know that weapon choice is also an aesthetic choice, which is one of the reasons we’re aiming to make all three of those major options something that works right out of the gate with no need for feat buy-ins to get up to competency.


Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that.




You aren't reading, either.  I bolded the part that explained everything to you.

Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    



Not even close.  If there is no requirement to take the feat, and there isn't, it cannot be a tax.  There is only one way the Charge feat can be a tax, and that is if every single melee fighter MUST take it in order to function properly, and at this time that just isn't the case.
Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    



Ok now I am confused? Everyone can do X, everyone can do Y, if you take this feat you can do BOTH x and y. How is that a tax



Because it lets you do both with a single action. It's so good it becomes almost mandatory for a melee class.
 



That's your CHOICE, not a tax.
Next's Charge and Shift are so situational that balance is a minor issue.

The real issue people are having now is how Charge is implemented not what it is implemented as. Many want things like Charge to be mechanically "better" than Move+Attack like past editions. But that Old Charge cannot be a feat as it grants too much power too frequently. Old Charge can only be implement as an option written directly in the core.

The power of an option will be directly proportional to where it is printed.

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!

Mechanical Feat Tax: A feat needed to fix glaring mathematical flaws in the main system.

Conceptual Feat Tax: A feat required to play a very common concept within the game system. A mechanical feat tax for a very common concept.

A Really Really Good Feat: A feat that is so good mechanically that it is very difficult to pass up a some point in the game.

That's my definitions.

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!

Mechanical Feat Tax: A feat needed to fix glaring mathematical flaws in the main system. Conceptual Feat Tax: A feat required to play a very common concept within the game system. A mechanical feat tax for a very common concept. A Really Really Good Feat: A feat that is so good mechanically that it is very difficult to pass up a some point in the game. That's my definitions.



Those seem sensible.

I admit I overdid it by calling Charge a feat tax, but I wanted to raise a concern about the potential issues with the proposed approach.

I mean, feats (and specialities) were supposed to be entirely optional initially, on a player by player choice, even within the same group. Now they provide gameplay and class defining options. Hence my perplexity.
Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.



And that's pretty much the definition of feat tax.    



Not even close.  If there is no requirement to take the feat, and there isn't, it cannot be a tax.  There is only one way the Charge feat can be a tax, and that is if every single melee fighter MUST take it in order to function properly, and at this time that just isn't the case.




Even better...no fighter is entirely ranged or melee unless they up and decide not to carry a melee and ranged weapon.  Even a strength based fighter can have a ranged weapon, and be effective with it.
Mechanical Feat Tax: A feat needed to fix glaring mathematical flaws in the main system. Conceptual Feat Tax: A feat required to play a very common concept within the game system. A mechanical feat tax for a very common concept. A Really Really Good Feat: A feat that is so good mechanically that it is very difficult to pass up a some point in the game. That's my definitions.



Those seem sensible.

I admit I overdid it by calling Charge a feat tax, but I wanted to raise a concern about the potential issues with the proposed approach.

I mean, feats (and specialities) were supposed to be entirely optional initially, on a player by player choice, even within the same group. Now they provide gameplay and class defining options. Hence my perplexity.



you can still play without feats and say, "I am charging this guy", (just sticking with the charge motif because it actually is a good example of where there is a feat but you could say your doing it without having the feat) all that means is you move your speed and attack in fact that provides clearer gameplay for the basic game.  

Basically the question was more related to things such as parry.  You don't need to be a fighter to say, "I parry the attack", even if it was a hit a rogue could still say this and say he parried the blow but doing so is taxing and drains him of however much damage he just took that didn't drop him to below 50% HP (the 50% thing is even negotiable since the only attack that truly hits home is the one that drops you below 0 hit points).  You don't need the parry ability of the fighter to say you parried an attack the fighter just gets a bonus when he does it.

Another example would be persuading someone to do something.  You don't need the persuasion skill in order to do it you can do it with just straight skill modifiers.  The skill training just offers a bonus while doing it.  Notice how nothing in the skill list has declared trained only usages.



you can still play without feats and say, "I am charging this guy", (just sticking with the charge motif because it actually is a good example of where there is a feat but you could say your doing it without having the feat) all that means is you move your speed and attack in fact that provides clearer gameplay for the basic game.  



I would worry that the player might expect his momentum to mean something even in a basic game.   I guess it really all depends on how frequently you award Advantage.    If you give it out for simple things like having higher ground, but don't award it for charging then players might not understand.  

 





you can still play without feats and say, "I am charging this guy", (just sticking with the charge motif because it actually is a good example of where there is a feat but you could say your doing it without having the feat) all that means is you move your speed and attack in fact that provides clearer gameplay for the basic game.  



I would worry that the player might expect his momentum to mean something even in a basic game.   I guess it really all depends on how frequently you award Advantage.    If you give it out for simple things like having higher ground, but don't award it for charging then players might not understand.  

 




See us older players might think that...but a new player?  This is one of those areas where you gotta ask the question: do we follow tradition or do we drop the tradition because moving forward and attacking can always be described as a charge: To attack violently, or To rush forward in or as if in a violent attack? I mean giving a static bonus to charging doesn't even seem all that correct as situationally charging can be a terrible idea.
We can make the design decision that we don't want the "charge package" to be so dominantly powerful, as it ended up in 4e.  That decision then informs lesser decisions, like whether or not charging gains a bonus of some kind to the attack inherently.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Charge is a niche option.  You only use it when...
a) You'd get an attack bonus.
b) The target is at a specific distance away AND you don't have a ranged option.


Keeping niche rules out of core/basic reduces the number of rules and helps keep it simple.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Charge is a niche option.  You only use it when...
a) You'd get an attack bonus.
b) The target is at a specific distance away AND you don't have a ranged option.


Keeping niche rules out of core/basic reduces the number of rules and helps keep it simple.



I wonder if we will see initial encounter distance return to D&D.  After all, this is a gridless game and it's one with random encounters.   If that's the case then charge will be a fairly common option.    

In addition, once you add in lance combat you're looking at a few rules on the subject regardless.    Heck even seting your pike or spear to receive the charge is a valid combat option.  


Sign In to post comments