Why (IMO) fighter maneuvers have gotten worse each packet.

First, a disclaimer: I really like Next so far. Even if WOTC ignored everything I suggest in this thread, I still expect Next to be my favorite edition of D&D. That said, I worry it's falling short of its potential in certain ways.

The biggest problem I see is the way martial classes have been homogenized over the last few packets. When martial damage dice were introduced (as Combat Superiority), it was an awesome idea because it gave fighters something unique. More specifically, it gave them their own "resource" to manage, which recharged every round but forced the player to choose to focus his attention offensively (Deadly Strike), defensively (Parry), or in some other way via maneuvers. The fact that this dice pool was a limited resource meant that it was okay if a fighter putting all his dice in Parry was incredibly hard to kill, because it meant he wasn't putting out much damage; it was also okay if he dished out the pain, because doing so meant that he was more vulnerable to attack. And the maneuver system meant that he could gain real, powerful options to use in conjunction with, or in place of, those basics.

Unfortunately, Combat Superiority was a quick victim of its own popularity. They tried to expand the whole system to rogues, and when that seemed a bit too "samey," they took away maneuvers from rogues but kept the damage dice in place. And then, the biggest change of all, in this latest packet they made it so dice recharge every TURN - so in other words, you can use all your dice on bonus damage AND on Parry, since you parry as a reaction on someone else's turn.

This basically ruins the "resource management" aspect of these dice. Now there's no tradeoff between offense and defense. And it sounds like they're considering making things even worse next packet by basically making maneuvers work like skill tricks, so they take your whole action. (This would probably mean that you can't combine multiple maneuvers in one action.) At that point, maneuvers are basically just combat feats, and we're in essence back to 3e fighter design.

So I've complained about fighters a bit - let me shift the focus to other martial classes. See, the other downside of "martial damage dice" is that by giving all weapon-focused classes (at this point, that's fighters, rogues, monks, and barbarians) the same "base" damage, it becomes a lot tougher to differentiate them in combat. That's why Sneak Attack is now wimpy: as Mearls pointed out, bonus damage + advantage + MDD is way too powerful. It's probably also why the new barbarian has lots of abilities that let him throw caution to the wind to strike more accurately: if he just did a bunch of extra damage with Rage and/or Heedless Strike rather than gaining advantage, it'd throw their numbers out of whack. And hey, it's why the only maneuver in the game that does more damage than just adding all your dice to the attack, the monk's Flurry of Blows, is enough to make that class way more offensively powerful than any other. 

Moreover, this model flattens out tactical options to an alarming extend. The rogue has always been a class that could put out impressive damage in just the right circumstances: backstabbing, sneak attacking, etc. But now, the highest-damage strategy for rogues is simply to walk up to a guy and stab him in the face with a basic attack every round. Fighters? Walk up to a guy and stab him in the face. Monks? Walk up to a guy and Flurry of Blows him in the face. Barbarians? Rage if you've got it, then walk up to a guy and... yeah. (Okay, this one kind of fits.)

My suggestion: first, they should make MDD refresh once per round, at the beginning of your turn, again. That brings back the basic resource-management aspect of them.

Second, they should scale them back for every class that's not a fighter. That way, a fighter going "all-out offense" does more damage than any other class does by walking up to people and stabbing them in the face - but at the same time, a fighter saving a die or two for Parry or Protect still does damage on par with other martial classes, ASSUMING those classes aren't Sneak Attacking or spending Ki points or raging or whatever. Now, this step may require some thinking. My personal preference would be just getting rid of MDD for non-fighter classes altogether, and instead just doing what 4e did and making ALL weapon attacks do 2W or 3W damage at a certain level if the math requires it. That way, non-fighters don't have to keep track of a halfass pile of damage dice that they can't even use for maneuvers. Fighter MDD would be on top of that. But even if they just give other classes a slower progression like they did clerics, that'd be an improvement.

Third, give those other classes their own ways to do more damage. Make it worth a rogue's while to scramble for advantage so they can get in a Sneak Attack (or whatever Sneak Attack alternatives they may have chosen). If we're going to have the entire basis of the Barbarian class be the "rage" ability (not my favorite idea), then give them a bonus to friggin' damage instead of a bonus to accuracy. Give monks enough Ki points to make them worth paying attention to, and let them use it for more powerful attacks. This way, those classes feel different in combat and have stronger incentives to make use of their own class-specific advantages.
KISS

That's why MDD's propagated; we've already got those, magic, and psionics, no more please!

Also?  You've got it backwards.  Fighters need to get more technical.  Barbarians should be about the all-out attack.
KISS

That's why MDD's propagated; we've already got those, magic, and psionics, no more please!



I've seen a lot of people (including devs) say stuff like this and for the life of me I can't understand it. I haven't recommended a single NEW ability or system in this post. I've recommended that classes like rogues and monks that already have a combination of MDD and class abilities rely more on those abilities and less on MDD. (I also mention replacing MDD with added base weapon damage, but that's because I think that'd be SIMPLER than tracking MDD for classes that don't even get maneuvers.)
I agree, Clockwork. Though I'd prefer "no MDD" for everyone that's not fighters, but it's probably far too late for that.
MDD is close to being a deal breaker just on principle.

Maybe I'm way off in a simple impression that it MDD is just patched failure. The chief responsibility of a RPG system is to define characters. How does uniform damage define anything? Its just there to make the math right. If arbitrary uniform damage is what you need to make the math work then that is an indication that something is still broken.

MDD is close to being a deal breaker just on principle.

Maybe I'm way off in a simple impression that it MDD is just patched failure. The chief responsibility of a RPG system is to define characters. How does uniform damage define anything? Its just there to make the math right. If arbitrary uniform damage is what you need to make the math work then that is an indication that something is still broken.





First, just to be fair I like MDD, but I think it needs work. I agree uniform damage is a no no, but it could morph over the next year into something great.


I would love to see all the warriors (Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, paliden, swordmage) have the extra W's mike talked about before.


At level 3 all of there attacks can do 2 damage dice (so longsword is 2d8, short sword is 2d6) at level 6 it becomes 3W and level 9 4W at level 12 5W at level 15 6W, and level 18 7W. you can reduce the Ws to make addtional attacks, but not against the same target.
So a level 9 fighter before feats or manevers every turn can choose to attack 1 target for 4d8+Str and magic, or attack 2 targets for 2d8+str and magic each or 4 targets for 1d8+str and magic each.


Then give rogues, clerics, and other 2nd teir combatants a lesser chart, something like at 5th 2W, at 10th 3W at 15th 4W at 20th 5W.


Then you can have sneak attack add extra D6's and the old x2 back stab each as diffrent choices for te theif.


                

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

MDD is close to being a deal breaker just on principle.

Maybe I'm way off in a simple impression that it MDD is just patched failure. The chief responsibility of a RPG system is to define characters. How does uniform damage define anything? Its just there to make the math right. If arbitrary uniform damage is what you need to make the math work then that is an indication that something is still broken.





First, just to be fair I like MDD, but I think it needs work. I agree uniform damage is a no no, but it could morph over the next year into something great.


I would love to see all the warriors (Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, paliden, swordmage) have the extra W's mike talked about before.


At level 3 all of there attacks can do 2 damage dice (so longsword is 2d8, short sword is 2d6) at level 6 it becomes 3W and level 9 4W at level 12 5W at level 15 6W, and level 18 7W. you can reduce the Ws to make addtional attacks, but not against the same target.
So a level 9 fighter before feats or manevers every turn can choose to attack 1 target for 4d8+Str and magic, or attack 2 targets for 2d8+str and magic each or 4 targets for 1d8+str and magic each.


Then give rogues, clerics, and other 2nd teir combatants a lesser chart, something like at 5th 2W, at 10th 3W at 15th 4W at 20th 5W.


Then you can have sneak attack add extra D6's and the old x2 back stab each as diffrent choices for te theif.


                





Maybe I need a 2nd grade explanation. W= weapon damage right? Why would anyone use anything but the best weapon for their ability score? Im sure you could balance this with weapon maneuvers and weapon traits though I have a pretty strong preference for handling it closer to the core with weapon speed, crit range and multiple attacks. I would rather maneuvers serve as learned abilities that are independent of system math. To put it simple I don’t want daggers to have special maneuvers just to make up for their lack of damage.


 


Why should it scale so high? 7W?? And why again is it uniform and arbitrary? I don’t mind if its slightly arbitrary like bounded accuracy. Maybe every ftr should get 2W by 10th level. After that shouldn’t it be left up to character development?


 


Maybe Im in the wool here. To me it seems obvious that we are using 3e/4e hp scales with single attacks which why you need big damage. This damage doesn’t add anything to the game. All it is, is a big number used to take down big hp. I look at it like this. If a high lvl monster has 120 hp you need ftrs that hit for 30+. If the same monster has 60 you are ok with basic weapon ranges and mods for ftrs that have exceptional base damage, exceptional crit damage, a high hit rate, multiple attacks, or even defenses that tie up the monsters attacks for an couple extra rounds.






MDD -> Weapon Damage Dice.  Same thing, except it's based on your weapon instead of a flat d6.

Then rebalance weapons, making sure lower damage ones come with a good property.

Like spiked chain would have...
finess for 1 die size (1d12->1d10) 
reach for 1/2 a die size (1d10->2d4).

Some manuvers need to be rewritten as well, to use a flat d6.  But that's not hard.

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.

The biggest problem I see is the way martial classes have been homogenized over the last few packets....



The problem is not limited to the martial classes.  All the classes have been growing steadily similar in structure, capabilities and effects.  You may blame the Balance Brigade, which whines like a cat in a tornado about how "overpowered" mages are and demand that fighters get magic-like dice to deal damage apparently out of the ether, and then whine about how rogues need to do as much damage-per-combat as fighters in order to prove they're contributing, and then want even mega-uber-spells like Wish to be watered down to the point that the very mightiest mage on the planet can do no more damage with it than could a reasonably well-equipped tenth level fighter...

And then they complain that the classes are too bland and homogenized.

Why not simply grant aditional attacks instead? it seems like the next logical step
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I would like to see additional attacks on the Fighter.

Some, not many (no more than 3-4 even at 20th level) but AS WELL as MDD, not instead.   
I think your points are great: I have one MDD related suggestion to add:

Have MDD once per round and recharge at the END of your turn, not at the start.  This will prevent dice from being 'wasted' by not being used.  You can use dice for defense and know that any you don't used can be used for offense.  if they recharge at the start of your turn you have to guess if you will be able to use them for defense, and if you save some, and aren't attacked, they are wasted.  I think this will make players use them for offense 95% of the time, to guarantee they are used. 
MDD -> Weapon Damage Dice.  Same thing, except it's based on your weapon instead of a flat d6.



Actually, a personally better suggestion was that certain weapon types (like two handed) would get a bump in MDD, so a D8 instead of D6.

The issue with [W] dice is that the higher diced weapons are superiour, no matter the size.  D4 is inferior to D6, which is inferior to D8s...  Yadda yadda.

You might be able to use MDD each turn, but you only get one reaction per round.  So its really only used on your turn and possibly one other during the round.
MDD -> Weapon Damage Dice.  Same thing, except it's based on your weapon instead of a flat d6.



Actually, a personally better suggestion was that certain weapon types (like two handed) would get a bump in MDD, so a D8 instead of D6.

The issue with [W] dice is that the higher diced weapons are superiour, no matter the size.  D4 is inferior to D6, which is inferior to D8s...  Yadda yadda.




A good way to fix this is have only d6, d8, and d10 damage weapons (some classes may have a weapon talent to bump damage up one step).

Then using a 2H weapon for 1 extra damage per W comes at the cost of defense. Using a light 1H weapon vs a regular 1H weapon is a trade off for using the superstat Dex as your primary attack attribute. The trade-offs become much more manageable if we remove the d4 and d12 weapon.
The biggest problem I see is the way martial classes have been homogenized over the last few packets....



The problem is not limited to the martial classes.  All the classes have been growing steadily similar in structure, capabilities and effects. You may blame the Balance Brigade, which whines like a cat in a tornado about how "overpowered" mages are and demand that fighters get magic-like dice to deal damage apparently out of the ether, and then whine about how rogues need to do as much damage-per-combat as fighters in order to prove they're contributing, and then want even mega-uber-spells like Wish to be watered down to the point that the very mightiest mage on the planet can do no more damage with it than could a reasonably well-equipped tenth level fighter...

And then they complain that the classes are too bland and homogenized.


LOLZ on the bolded part.

Balance for me does not require homogenization.  Balance for me involves keeping resources on a relatively appropriate scale across-the-board.  So a level 9 spell that's usable 1/day should be equivalent to a level 9 martial maneuver that's usable 1/day (if such a martial maneuver existed).  If the assumption is that a daily is more powerful than an encounter and an encounter is more powerful than an at-will, then the question becomes, "by how much?"

Just slapping together stuff -- even if it's slapping together stuff in a homogenized fashion -- is lazy design, if you can call it system design at all.

Example: If, in terms of damage alone, a basic attack is anywhere between 1d4 (2.5) and 1d12 (6.5), or an average of 4.5 damage per hit -- assuming martial characters are the baseline, with MDD that's an average of 8 dpr at level 1 -- how do we ensure that a spell like Ray of Frost or Burning Hands is roughly within the same range as a martial basic attack?  Should it be doing roughly 10% ~ 20% less (1d6+INT mod) for being ranged, or should it be doing even less damage because it adds an effect?  Would Sleep be 4x more powerful (affecting enemies whose total HP is 32), by virtue of being a daily? Should it actually be a higher level spell due to the condition it inflicts (unconscious)?

Just saying "screw it, it's magic, let it do whatever feels appropriate for something magical" is easily a slippery slope towards the godcasters in 3E, which not everyone is willing to play.  And of course, implying that high level play is caster-only -- so much so that you cannot meaningfully participate if you lack magical items, divine blessings or spells boosting you -- is a very limited perception on how high level play should work, considering how, as far as I can recall, high level play is supposed to be of the world-changing variety (not necessarily the high-magic variety).

EDIT: Before I forget, no I don't want DBZ martial characters that can use Ki to fly through the air and throw energy balls at each other.  Let the wizards handle the kamehame wave-ing and flight and go sparkly light pew pew.  However, I do want martial characters to be able to train their muscles to godhood -- the Atlas Superpower so to speak -- so by the time Wizards are raining meteors and summoning demons, the martial characters aren't cowering behind their magically superior companions just because they didn't get any magical blades or what not; instead, I want them to go at demons, dragons and even gods and be able to hack at them.

- - - - -
Personally I think the problem with this whole MDD thing (among other stuff) involves the devs trying to stretch themselves way too much.  In particular, why do we *have* to stick to 20 levels?  Why not just have everyone at 12 levels, or 15 levels?**  It's easier to balance out stuff without nerfing anyone if the game isn't stretched out over so many levels after all.  I mean, Men and Magic at least appeared to be balanced if you kept the game up to level 10 since the most powerful spells of the game weren't available 'till level 11, which means everything was scaled more or less appropriately in spite of the lack of rules and relative deadliness of the campaigns.

EDIT: Perhaps another problem with D&D and TRPGs in general is that sometimes we set story first before game.  It's kinda difficult pulling off a Wrath of the Titans scene where this mortal man is fighting giants and even gods while having dice and game rules running side by side.  Not that having a great story is a bad thing -- narrative and drama *is* a central aspect of TRPGs after all -- but it's not exactly easy to create a story that's flexible enough to take into consideration the fact that you're not just running a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure living pocketbook session. www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/how-to...

** stretching spells over 10 levels, with players getting level 1 spells at level 1, level 2 spells at level 2, etc., then limiting spell slots to maybe 1 per level (and maybe three spells at level 1) so that a caster would have only 12 spell slots to worry about, then adjusting martial characters to make them just as compelling, is much easier (and removes the need to separate spell level from class/character level) than what every edition has done prior to 4E regarding spells (I mean outside of D&D, how does getting a level 3 spell at level 5 make sense?).  Everything past level 10 would then be in a module: maybe one module grants more spell slots at higher levels, maybe gives epic wizards metamagic abilities, or what not.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
With the introduction of bounded accuracy scaling damage/HP is the only thing left to show improvement.  In the past, your AC would have outclassed a creature to the point where they were no longer a threat.  Now, that creature can still hit you, but in order to show how much more bad-assery you have you can only get you for 10% of your HP and you can drop him with one or two hits.

I'm ok with MDD becoming [W] damage dice.  I feel that the 2h weapon weilder should be more lethal.  The 2h weapon weilder is trading sheild AC for more damage.  And with bounded accuracy that sheild AC is big advantage.  On average a 2h weapon weilder will be doing 2 more points of damage per [W] than a sword and board weilder.  1d8 vs 1d12.  At higher levels it scales proportionately.

Light weapon weilders are probably the ones who will suffer the most under this.  But they're Dex classes to begin with.  They already have several benefits over Str classes.  I'm ok with them getting some other benefits, like improved MDD for special moves and such to help ease the gap.

And as for the racial weapon mastery junk.  It can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.  I think it's one of the worst ideas of DDN.
Two-handed weapons need to deal more damage than one-handed weapons, martial damage dice included, lest the percentage of their difference change as levels go up. 1d8+3+1d6 vs. 1d12+3+1d6 at first level feels like a lot (+2 damage on average, +4 max), but that +2/+4 difference at higher levels when the damage is 1d8+5+5d6 vs. 1d12+5+5d6 is nothing ... if it was 11 damage vs 13 damage on average at 1st level, then it should be more like 27 vs 32.

If we're dealing with weapon dice, then we're looking at 2d8+3 vs. 2d12+3 at some point; 12 vs 16 average.  Going up to 5d8+5 vs. 5d12+5 has averages of 27.5 vs 37.5 (very close to the scaling damage of 36.66 a simple proportion gives).

Remember, for a fighter, a shield is kind of an HP boost. If an enemy has a 40% chance to hit a Fighter with 100 hp, then +2 AC is equivalent to a +33% hp boost (this number depends on what the average chance of a monster hitting a Fighter would be). If we want a Fighter with a greatsword vs. a Fighter with a large shield and a longsword to be on equal footing with each other, the greatsword needs to deal more damage than the longsword.

But then again, I am Captain of the Balance Brigade, so ... 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

With the introduction of bounded accuracy scaling damage/HP is the only thing left to show improvement.  In the past, your AC would have outclassed a creature to the point where they were no longer a threat.  Now, that creature can still hit you, but in order to show how much more bad-assery you have you can only get you for 10% of your HP and you can drop him with one or two hits.




 


Its amazing the developers could stare at all that potential only to pick at that one benefit especially when going with one bounded stat undermines the benefit of a bounded stat. 

I recommend that anyone who has not seen the last Google+ hangout with Mike Mearls to find it and watch it.


He discusses a probable revamping of how these things work and they will be a) unlike they are now and b) similar to some of the suggestions in this thread.

Specifically:  Replacing MDD with an increase in damage (2[W], 3[W]. etc.) as the character goes up in level.  Additionally, he proposed that a fighter who was able to do 2[W] damage (due to his level) would be able to choose between doing 2[W] to one target or making two attacks at 1[W] each to two different targets (splitting attacks would be mandatory).    The cost for maneuvers would be a reduction in damage (pay a "[W]") to add some additional effect onto the attack.




Carl

My suggestion: first, they should make MDD refresh once per round, at the beginning of your turn, again. That brings back the basic resource-management aspect of them. 

Yes. Even if they don't do this, I will. I'd actually like it to go one step further and make the dice refresh on a short rest
 Second, they should scale them back for every class that's not a fighter. That way, a fighter going "all-out offense" does more damage than any other class does by walking up to people and stabbing them in the face - but at the same time, a fighter saving a die or two for Parry or Protect still does damage on par with other martial classes, ASSUMING those classes aren't Sneak Attacking or spending Ki points or raging or whatever. Now, this step may require some thinking. My personal preference would be just getting rid of MDD for non-fighter classes altogether, and instead just doing what 4e did and making ALL weapon attacks do 2W or 3W damage at a certain level if the math requires it. That way, non-fighters don't have to keep track of a halfass pile of damage dice that they can't even use for maneuvers. Fighter MDD would be on top of that. But even if they just give other classes a slower progression like they did clerics, that'd be an improvement.

I think they've got their eye on multiclassing here, but I'm actually against "fixing" the math in an inconsistent way. If the fix is for them to all have dice then give them all dice.
Third, give those other classes their own ways to do more damage. Make it worth a rogue's while to scramble for advantage so they can get in a Sneak Attack (or whatever Sneak Attack alternatives they may have chosen). If we're going to have the entire basis of the Barbarian class be the "rage" ability (not my favorite idea), then give them a bonus to friggin' damage instead of a bonus to accuracy. Give monks enough Ki points to make them worth paying attention to, and let them use it for more powerful attacks. This way, those classes feel different in combat and have stronger incentives to make use of their own class-specific advantages.

I'd like to see the classes all have their own unique resource that layers onto the core resource and interacts with dice in such a way that they all perfrom in equivalent ways but not equally. As far as rage giving a bonus to accuracy... yeah conceptually it's weak but I think what we're really looking at is the damage is still far too high across the board.

We've all ready established that lotsa damage is dull in the last packet, they've scaled that back but that means the abilities that conceptually should give more damage at the expense of accuracy actually make your character less effective because damage is too high across the board. The trimming back they've done doesn't even approach what they need to do, which is maybe even take it back by another half without the use of special abilities and the amount folks do without doing anything special currently needs to be the conditional target for when you've got things in your favour and you're using special abilities.


I'd like to see the classes all have their own unique resource that layers onto the core resource and interacts with dice in such a way that they all perfrom in equivalent ways but not equally. As far as rage giving a bonus to accuracy... yeah conceptually it's weak but I think what we're really looking at is the damage is still far too high across the board. 

We've all ready established that lotsa damage is dull in the last packet, they've scaled that back but that means the abilities that conceptually should give more damage at the expense of accuracy actually make your character less effective because damage is too high across the board. The trimming back they've done doesn't even approach what they need to do, which is maybe even take it back by another half without the use of special abilities and the amount folks do without doing anything special currently needs to be the conditional target for when you've got things in your favour and you're using special abilities.



Yeah, this is why I'm saying that everyone other than fighters should get a big cut to damage dice. That way their "base" damage is low enough that they can get bonus damage from Sneak Attack or Rage or whatever without screwing up the system.

The reason I'm saying that fighters should have more damage dice is that they're supposed to be the only class that can trade those dice in for maneuvers. (It sounds like they're taking away monk maneuvers next time around, maybe to focus more on ki abilities?) And if dice recharge per round like we both prefer, they'll need some more dice to keep their damage balanced while still making use of defensive maneuvers.
I'd actually like it to go one step further and make the dice refresh on a short rest.

I, too, plan to make the dice refresh on a short rest, rather than on a per-round basis; at the very worst, I'd have it recharge ala-Warblade (make a basic attack to recover martial damage / weapon dice).  It makes monsters last longer, lowers the complexity of the class significantly -- instead of having to make 10+ decisions per turn, it'd be 10+ decisions per encounter -- and makes the player not spam stuff like crazy, and instead have him think: will I use this now, or later in the fight?

Parry might be the only exception for now, but I'm not really warm to the maneuver-turned-class-feature anyway.

Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Listening to Mearls' google hangout thingy, it sounds like it's going to work like this:


  • Martial-type classes will get weapon dice. Can be spread or stacked across maneuvers.

  • Fighters only get maneuvers. Maneuvers will work by basically giving you an attack that has an effect in addition to normal damage (so that the baseline maneuver doesn't actually cost damage), and you can choose to have that effect be bigger by giving up a die/dice in damage.


That sounds doable. There's still the question of when the weapon dice refresh; personally, I prefer at the end of one's turn, since that way you don't waste anything on your turn but are still making tactical decisions about spending defensive dice on your off-turn versus saving them for offensive uses on your turn. 

However, I don't think it resolves all of the problems, including one which the OP hasn't really dealt with:

  1. The maneuvers aren't that good (yet). Yes, there's the issue that executing a maneuver (the thing that Fighters are built around) costs you damage, but that might not be a bad thing if the maneuvers had important or powerful or interesting enough effects that giving up a [w] is such a bad thing. In fact, shifting from a flat d6 to [w] actually potentially makes this worse, since even sword and board fighters are now giving up more damage per maneuver.

  2. Some of the best maneuvers will need to be replaced. Whirlwind Attack and Volley were some of the few maneuvers that actually felt like they were worth the loss in damage - because each dice invested possibly got you a standard attack's worth of damage. Now that Weapon Dice are fungible, these maneuvers are redundant, and need to be replaced with something equally useful and evocative. 


The first one is I think the problem that the OP didn't really deal with. Quite simply, a lot of the maneuvers just aren't worth their cost in forgone damage. Just for example: Shove Away costs 1MDD to shove someone 5 feet, and 2 MDD to shove something larger than you 5 feet. Given average movement speeds, 1d6 is far more valuable than 5 feet of movement, and 1[W] is much more valuable than 5 feet of movement space. 

Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Listening to Mearls' google hangout thingy, it sounds like it's going to work like this:


  • Martial-type classes will get weapon dice. Can be spread or stacked across maneuvers.

  • Fighters only get maneuvers. Maneuvers will work by basically giving you an attack that has an effect in addition to normal damage (so that the baseline maneuver doesn't actually cost damage), and you can choose to have that effect be bigger by giving up a die/dice in damage.


That sounds doable. There's still the question of when the weapon dice refresh; personally, I prefer at the end of one's turn, since that way you don't waste anything on your turn but are still making tactical decisions about spending defensive dice on your off-turn versus saving them for offensive uses on your turn. 

However, I don't think it resolves all of the problems, including one which the OP hasn't really dealt with:

  1. The maneuvers aren't that good (yet). Yes, there's the issue that executing a maneuver (the thing that Fighters are built around) costs you damage, but that might not be a bad thing if the maneuvers had important or powerful or interesting enough effects that giving up a [w] is such a bad thing. In fact, shifting from a flat d6 to [w] actually potentially makes this worse, since even sword and board fighters are now giving up more damage per maneuver.

  2. Some of the best maneuvers will need to be replaced. Whirlwind Attack and Volley were some of the few maneuvers that actually felt like they were worth the loss in damage - because each dice invested possibly got you a standard attack's worth of damage. Now that Weapon Dice are fungible, these maneuvers are redundant, and need to be replaced with something equally useful and evocative. 


The first one is I think the problem that the OP didn't really deal with. Quite simply, a lot of the maneuvers just aren't worth their cost in forgone damage. Just for example: Shove Away costs 1MDD to shove someone 5 feet, and 2 MDD to shove something larger than you 5 feet. Given average movement speeds, 1d6 is far more valuable than 5 feet of movement, and 1[W] is much more valuable than 5 feet of movement space. 





Its  pretty clear Mearls wants them to refresh at the beginning of each creature's turn.

Whether it remains that way probably depends on feedback.


Carl

Its  pretty clear Mearls wants them to refresh at the beginning of each creature's turn.

Whether it remains that way probably depends on feedback.
Carl



Fair enough; at the end of the day, I don't think the refresh rate is the biggest problem with the class at the moment.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I don't like the idea of having to spend damage dice for effects on a fighter.  It's more math than required, and takes away the oomph of being the guy first in battle, and the last to leave.
Oh, I definitely think lots of individual fighter maneuvers need a revamp, and there are some serious gaps where more could be added. But the system as a whole needs to be set first.

If things work the way VikingKingQ suggests,  that's a big hit to fighter versatility - it would suggest you can only use one maneuver per action/reaction, so no more cool combos.
Oh, I definitely think lots of individual fighter maneuvers need a revamp, and there are some serious gaps where more could be added. But the system as a whole needs to be set first.

If things work the way VikingKingQ suggests,  that's a big hit to fighter versatility - it would suggest you can only use one maneuver per action/reaction, so no more cool combos.



Why would it suggest that? From the way I read Mearls, you essentially have a growing number of actions, as 4 Weapon Dice can be 4 attacks at 1W, or 3 (1 with 2W, 2 with 1), or 2 at 2W, or 1 at 4 W. Maneuvers would essenitally have 2 forms: a costless form with one level of effects, and an enhanced form that costs WD. 

There's no reason to suggest that costless maneuvers will be limited to one per action, and I really hope they won't be.

The enhanced maneuvers do have a cost, but the key limiter on versality will be the distribution of Weapon Dice across the 20 levels. If 4WD can get gotten to fairly easily, you could pull off two enhanced maneuvers and still do 2W in damage - or you could a crazy 3-maneuver attack that doesn't do much damage but really wraps up the target in effects. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I like the W mechanic a lot better than MDD, but I think the progression should be based on class.  So the fighter would have the standard progression with, let's say, 5W at lvl 20.  The barbarian would have a slightly faster progression (6W at 20) and the rogue would have a lower progression (3W at 20); so the rogue can double damage on sneak attack and not out pace the fighter at all.  This would grant a distinct feel for each class.  The difference in damage between die sizes will still increase as more dice are added, but that's the point.  If all weapons deal equal damage, then weapon choice doesn't matter at all.

To incentive one-handed weapons, especially for the fighter, give prerequisites for maneuvers so that the most useful maneuvers can only be done with one-handers or shields.  Granted, the two-hander maneuvers would likely increase damage (power attack, cleave), but the character would be very limited in choices.  If the maneuvers for the smaller weapons provide extra movement, extra attacks, guile, and greater defensive capabilities; people will gravitate toward them more.

Should two-handers have an additional penalty of some kind?  Disadvantage (or a -2) on initiative or an AC penalty?
I like the W mechanic a lot better than MDD, but I think the progression should be based on class.  So the fighter would have the standard progression with, let's say, 5W at lvl 20.  The barbarian would have a slightly faster progression (6W at 20) and the rogue would have a lower progression (3W at 20);



Why is the Fighter losing a die, and why does the Barbarian need an additional die? 


To incentive one-handed weapons, especially for the fighter, give prerequisites for maneuvers so that the most useful maneuvers can only be done with one-handers or shields.  Granted, the two-hander maneuvers would likely increase damage (power attack, cleave), but the character would be very limited in choices.  If the maneuvers for the smaller weapons provide extra movement, extra attacks, guile, and greater defensive capabilities; people will gravitate toward them more.

Should two-handers have an additional penalty of some kind?  Disadvantage (or a -2) on initiative or an AC penalty?



That seems to be a really clumsy way to fix a balance problem: either two-handed maneuvers are going to suck, or we're throwing on Ptolemaic epicycles to make it all work.

 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.



Depends. If they will end up dissociating the damage trade-off for manouvers (which would be the sensible thing to do), then yes, we get 4e with at-wills only. 
So the best outcome we can hope for martial classes, looking at what is on the table right now, is a cut-down version of 4e.
The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.



Depends. If they will end up dissociating the damage trade-off for manouvers (which would be the sensible thing to do), then yes, we get 4e with at-wills only. 
So the best outcome we can hope for martial classes, looking at what is on the table right now, is a cut-down version of 4e.



Huh? The AEDU recharge mechanism was the main complaint people had about 4e maneuvers - of course getting rid of the AEDU part will help solve things.
 
And saying that a fighter with only at-will powers is a "cut-down version of 4e" is like saying the same of a wizard with (almost) entirely daily powers.


Huh? The AEDU recharge mechanism was the main complaint people had about 4e maneuvers - of course getting rid of the AEDU part will help solve things.
 
And saying that a fighter with only at-will powers is a "cut-down version of 4e" is like saying the same of a wizard with (almost) entirely daily powers.



Don't thiink I can agree with this. Essentials provied versions of the fighter wihtout AEDU and it's not like it made people embrance 4e which were not playing it already.
In all honesty I think at-wills only is just too shallow. I understand if people don't want dailies for martial classes, but some sort of lower frequency resource is much needed to provide depth, at least as an advanced module option. That can be either encounter-based, (re)chargeable, conditional, or something else entirely.
The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.




Yes, and it's this whole trendy "obfuscating" word.
Don't thiink I can agree with this. Essentials provied versions of the fighter wihtout AEDU and it's not like it made people embrance 4e which were not playing it already.

I suspect that was a failure of marketing rather than a failure of the concept per se.  People who didn't like 4E just didn't look at Essentials.  And there was a whole lot of other weirdness going on - worries that Essentials would be "4.5", the huge format changes.  So I'd be cautious about the lessons I draw from Essentials' performance.
it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.




This wold be exactly the point sir congrats on figuring it out.
The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.



In other words - you end up with 4E fighter powers without the part of the powers that people objected to.


Carl
The thing that really cracks me up about MDD (or WDD if you would rather) is that you're effectively putting in a system that doesn't, on it's surface, look like 4e martial maneuvers, but in reality, does the exact same thing - it's just a bit more flexible and doesn't rely upon encounter powers or a recharge mechanic, per se.



In other words - you end up with 4E fighter powers without the part of the powers that people objected to.


Carl



Well, you end up with the worst, least interesting and least powerful powers.

But you CAN use them every round!

Yay? 
I agree with the OP. Loved MMD when first put up, meaningfull tactical decisions for the fighter to make. Hit harder? Defend more and outlast? Do something tricksy? I sem to remember that some were roll multiple and add, others were roll multiple and pick best (but could be confusing my wishfull thinking with reality). I liked that it gave fighters a resource to manage, and that it was a tactical rather than a strategic resource, so they had meaningfull decisions without being as "long game" as wizards.

I really do not like the mroe recent iterations as much, esp the "refresh on every tick" aspect, takes away from the management aspect.
Sign In to post comments