D&D Next Q&A: Lines, Finding Spells & Fighter Identity

In this week's D&D Next Q&A, Rodney gives us some quick answers on line effects and finding spells, then goes into a bit more depth on defining the fighter's identity.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager



Decent answer.  We'll see how it goes.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"Outside of the battlefield, the warrior expresses these principles through attitude and decisions, two things that fall firmly into the camp of roleplaying and background. We’re taking a lot of steps in the game to make sure that everyone has access to all of the major pillars of the game in some capacity; for example, we’ve standardized the number of skills most people get, and, though some classes give out bonus skills, even that is something we’re constantly evaluating."

So this looks to me like fighters will not be getting much in the way of codified rules outside of combat, but rather they're leaving it up to roleplaying and background.

Oh well.

One day maybe they'll be able to make a fighter that's just as appealing out of combat as he is in combat. Doesn't look like this one will be the one, though.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Q&A Haiku Time!  Quotation edition!

How wide is a line?
"Unless stated otherwise"
It is five feet wide

Spells as treasure?
New spells are like magic swords.
"Treasure is treasure" 

Will Fighters only fight?
"The Way of the Warrior"
Unlocks all Pillars!
That definition of what it means to be a fighter should almost be copied and pasted word for word into the Player's Handbook (with a few minor tweaks for context). I think every class in the PHB should have a blurb about what the identity of the class is and give examples from history and fiction, and this one works very well for the fighter.
I'm not clear on how you think "in some capacity" means "fighters will suck at it." 

How, exactly, are "attitude and decisions" for other classes "codified rules" ?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I ahve to agree with Brightmantle.  It does appear from the last paragraph that they think Backgrounds are sufficient to allow the fighters to participate meaningfully in Interaction and I think that is simply a poor choice.

I like their reference to the "Way of the Warrior" and I'd like that incorporated into a fighter's style.  Each fighting style could come with an appropriate bonus skill (if the designers are still into that sort of thing) or a mechanical bonus to Interaction.  

A duelist might be able to spar verbally to put foes on edge
A marksman might use his keen eye to discern deception
A protector might be able to protect allies from persuasion
A slayer may be more facile at intimidation
A veteran may be stoic and implacable, resisting temptation better than others.

And if you customize your own fighting style, you may choose any of this Interaction benefits at 1st level, or make your own with the DM's help. 

But just leaving it to Backgrounds?  That's disappointing. 
I think every class in the PHB should have a blurb about what the identity of the class is and give examples from history and fiction ...

Agreed. Examples almost always clarify an explanation, and stating what the designers had in mind when they designed the class helps those new to the game.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I'm not clear on how you think "in some capacity" means "fighters will suck at it." 

How, exactly, are "attitude and decisions" for other classes "codified rules" ?


Heres' what the Q&A says:

Outside of the battlefield, the warrior expresses these principles through attitude and decisions, two things that fall firmly into the camp of roleplaying and background. We’re taking a lot of steps in the game to make sure that everyone has access to all of the major pillars of the game in some capacity; for example, we’ve standardized the number of skills most people get, and, though some classes give out bonus skills, even that is something we’re constantly evaluating. Likewise, we don’t take steps to restrict certain backgrounds to certain classes, allowing the playeras [sic] to choose how they express the archetype. That way, even if you’ve chosen the mythic archetype of the warrior—typified by the fighter—you have the tools you need to build his or her story, personality, and destiny in a way that lets you put your own spin on it.

From this paragraph the only examples given as to how fighters get to participate in Interaction are:

  1. Roleplaying (which every can do already)

  2. Standardized skills (i.e., Backgrounds)

  3. Not preventing fighters from taking an Interaction-related Background 


But these are all things that every other class (except the barbarian and monk) already gets.  And the other classes also have the opportunity to take spells and skill tricks that give them additional benefits.  Moreover, this analysis fails to take into account that fighters and barbarians have the worst Abilities when it comes to Interaction.  

So rogues, clerics, and wizards can choose to contribute meaningfully in Interaction thanks to mental Ability (Int, Wis, Cha) scores that will be higher than the fighter's plus their class features and then use their Background to get even better at other things they're already competent at, which Fighters and Barbarians, lakcing either Abilities or class features, will require to spend their Background if they only want to be as competent as the other classes.

Monks sit in the middle, with Wisdom as their primary or secondary Ability being of use in Interaction, but, unlike rogues, clerics, and wizards, having no class abilities that help them there.

It's just a very disappointing Q&A as far as I'm concerned.
I ahve to agree with Brightmantle.  It does appear from the last paragraph that they think Backgrounds are sufficient to allow the fighters to participate meaningfully in Interaction and I think that is simply a poor choice.

I like their reference to the "Way of the Warrior" and I'd like that incorporated into a fighter's style.  Each fighting style could come with an appropriate bonus skill (if the designers are still into that sort of thing) or a mechanical bonus to Interaction.  

A duelist might be able to spar verbally to put foes on edge
A marksman might use his keen eye to discern deception
A protector might be able to protect allies from persuasion
A slayer may be more facile at intimidation
A veteran may be stoic and implacable, resisting temptation better than others.

And if you customize your own fighting style, you may choose any of this Interaction benefits at 1st level, or make your own with the DM's help. 

But just leaving it to Backgrounds?  That's disappointing. 


While I love this idea and think it's awesome, let me challenge it a bit.

What part of other classes does this?  How does choice of domain, for example, turn into a mechanical bonus to Interaction?  If not choice of domain, which is the closest parallel to choice of "Way", what other aspects of the cleric class have mechanical influence on interaction?

Edit:  You mention ability scores - ability score balance is something else entirely, and I do think it's bad that str/dex/con are "bad" for the interaction pillar.  Interaction is about more than just int/wis/cha, or should be.  I don't consider ability score preferences as part of what the class is contributing to the interaction pillar. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What part of other classes does this?


This would be unique to the fighter.  However, other classes have similar mechanics that they can schoose, without using their Background, to improve their roleplaying.

A rogue gets Ace in the Hole as well as a number of SKill Tricks if they want to improve their Interaction.

A wizard can select spells like Minor Illusion, Charm Person, Disguise Self, and Phantasmal Force, which can be used to participate in Interaction.

A cleric can use spells like Guidance, Resistance, Augury, Zone of Truth, and other divinations to improve their Interaction.  The cleric may also choose the Trickster deity to get access to the minor illusion cantrip and free skill benefits related to Interaction.

Now, I'm not saying every combat style needs to have an Interactive component.  But fighters, barbarians, and monks should be allowed to choose class features to improve their Interaction in the same way other classes can.  There could be barbarian-, fighter- and monk-specific Maneuvers, for instance, that might improve Interaction.  Things like "Size Up and Enemy" or "Stare Down" or "Always Ready" and similar martial-themed maneuvers that allow a barbarian, fighter, and monk to participate in a meaningful mechanical manner in a similar way to the way rogues, clerics, and wizards currently, if they so choose.

Right now, a wizard can choose to ignore those spells that asist in Interaction. A rogue can choose not to take those Skill Tricks.  A cleric can opt never to prepare those spells and can opt not to worship a Trickster.  But a fighter, monk, and barbarian never get the choice to use class features to improve Interaction.
It kind of sounds like they want Backgrounds to handle out of combat. But that creates a mechanically forced standard I do not like. It feels like

You are a fighter!
Choose one or more:

Have Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma above 15
Choose/Create a Background with Skill X or Skill Y
Choose/Create a Specialty with Skill Training in Skill X or Skill Y
Ask you DM to use a module that is not single check based
Twiddle thumbs when the fights end

It is rather disappointing and almost guarantees the warping of background choices for fighters. It's a bit too much false choice for my liking.

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!

If every other class gets a bonus skill training, what is the fighter getting in lieu of that? Rogues get 4 bonus skills, clerics and wizards each get one. I am sensing a great disturbance in the forces at be that can't seem to realize that fighters need one also. IMO, a "warfare" skill seems perfect, and possibly have it an exclusive skill that has multiple applications, such as affecting surprise/initiative, evaluating opponent's martial capabilities, et al. Heck, call the feature "Way of the Warrior: Gain training in Warfare."

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.
Quite frankly, I don't really care what the other classes can and can't do in or out of combat. We're discussing the fighter, and the steps taken to ensure he can mechanically contribute to all pillars in a meaningful way (something he's been woefully unable to do in most editions). Restricting him to RP and backgrounds is not addressing this problem...it's blowing it off, much like several other editions have done.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I ahve to agree with Brightmantle.  It does appear from the last paragraph that they think Backgrounds are sufficient to allow the fighters to participate meaningfully in Interaction and I think that is simply a poor choice.

I like their reference to the "Way of the Warrior" and I'd like that incorporated into a fighter's style.  Each fighting style could come with an appropriate bonus skill (if the designers are still into that sort of thing) or a mechanical bonus to Interaction.  

A duelist might be able to spar verbally to put foes on edge
A marksman might use his keen eye to discern deception
A protector might be able to protect allies from persuasion
A slayer may be more facile at intimidation
A veteran may be stoic and implacable, resisting temptation better than others.

And if you customize your own fighting style, you may choose any of this Interaction benefits at 1st level, or make your own with the DM's help. 

But just leaving it to Backgrounds?  That's disappointing. 



I think that's because Backgrounds are lacking right now. Basically they account for some blurb and a bunch of skills. I'd see a couple of ways to improve on this:

a) Confer them a larger scope
b) Apply more distinctive mechanics to them 

Ideally I'd like Backgrounds to act as 'out of combat classes'. So you could be a Fighter/bg: Diplomat. When out of combat the 'Diplomat' bg kicks in as a framework to handle interactions. If 'diplomacy' fails then the 'Fighter' steps forward.
Quite frankly, I don't really care what the other classes can and can't do in or out of combat. We're discussing the fighter, and the steps taken to ensure he can mechanically contribute to all pillars in a meaningful way (something he's been woefully unable to do in most editions). Restricting him to RP and backgrounds is not addressing this problem...it's blowing it off, much like several other editions have done.


It matters what other classes can or can't do, because I'm still of the opinion that class is a poor vehicle for delivering on the non-combat pillars.  I'm totally in agreement that the non-class mechanical structures need to be on par with class as far as defining the total character.  Race, class, background, specialty - these should all be significant contributors.  The burden of a complete character can't just rest solely on the shoulders of class.  Lighten the load, improve the outcome.

"A character, who is also a fighter, should be able to meaningfully contribute" and "Fighters should be able to meaningfully contribute" are two different things. 

Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Quite frankly, I don't really care what the other classes can and can't do in or out of combat. We're discussing the fighter, and the steps taken to ensure he can mechanically contribute to all pillars in a meaningful way (something he's been woefully unable to do in most editions). Restricting him to RP and backgrounds is not addressing this problem...it's blowing it off, much like several other editions have done.


It matters what other classes can or can't do, because I'm still of the opinion that class is a poor vehicle for delivering on the non-combat pillars. 

"A character, who is also a fighter, should be able to meaningfully contribute" and "Fighters should be able to meaningfully contribute" are two different things.

Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.




I could go either way.


Either stop loading other classes with interaction and exploration pillar mechanics (leaving that to background or other extra-class options) - or give fighters the tools to contribute mechanically (not just through roleplaying or unassisted ability checks) to those pillars.

I'm good either way.  Just so long as they are consistant about it and aren't just leaving fighers out 'just because tradition'.

Carl
But just leaving it to Backgrounds?  That's disappointing. 



I think that's because Backgrounds are lacking right now.


That would make no difference to me.  Because barbarians, fighters, and monks must use Backgrounds to improve Interaction and rogues, clerics, and wizards can do so through class features, the former three classes are subject to an opportunity cost.

Now, if wizards could not cast illusions and charms unless they took the Enchanter Background, and clerics could not cast divinations without the Oracle Background, and rogues could not take the Skill Tricks Charming Presence, Gilden Tongue, Master Linguist, Mimic, Read Lips, or Unflappable without the Con Artist Background, then things would be much closer.

But it doesn't work that way.  The barbarian, fighter, and monk should get class features they can use to improve Interaction if they so desire, or take them away from the other classes.  (I'd prefer the former.)  The status quo, as described in the Q&A, however, is really disappointing.
Glad to see answer number 3 is basically everything I've been saying for weeks.  So pumped to see they even used the Lan Mandragoran reference.
Quite frankly, I don't really care what the other classes can and can't do in or out of combat. We're discussing the fighter, and the steps taken to ensure he can mechanically contribute to all pillars in a meaningful way (something he's been woefully unable to do in most editions). Restricting him to RP and backgrounds is not addressing this problem...it's blowing it off, much like several other editions have done.


It matters what other classes can or can't do, because I'm still of the opinion that class is a poor vehicle for delivering on the non-combat pillars. 

"A character, who is also a fighter, should be able to meaningfully contribute" and "Fighters should be able to meaningfully contribute" are two different things.



Class is, indeed, a poor vehicle for delivering OOC options.
Unfortunately, they are still that vehicle.
I agree 100% with Uskglass that backgrounds should be much broader and apply more benefits for OOC encounters than they do right now. It would solve many problems.
Unfortunately, they don't.

Wizards get spells that are useful OOC, rogues get skill tricks and Ace in the Hole, clerics get their own spells that are useful OOC, and fighters get....backgrounds. Shafted again is all I can think of.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.


But I didn't talk about skills.  I talked about the Ability checks typically used in Interaction -- which are the mental Abilities.  I don't care that you can somehow convince your DM to add your Diplomacy bonus to a Strength check.  We're entering that really bizarre corner of D&D where, apparently, it's customary to impress the local nobility by flexing your muscles and the low-like informant is more than happy to reveal his secrets after he watches someone perform a standing double-flip.

How do you convince the constabulary to let your friends go with just a warning?  Dance-Off!
Class is, indeed, a poor vehicle for delivering OOC options.
Unfortunately, they are still that vehicle.


So?  Things can change.  We've done tons of things.  Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.


But I didn't talk about skills.  I talked about the Ability checks typically used in Interaction -- which are the mental Abilities.  I don't care that you can somehow convince your DM to add your Diplomacy bonus to a Strength check.  We're entering that really bizarre corner of D&D where, apparently, it's customary to impress the local nobility by flexing your muscles and the low-like informant is more than happy to reveal his secrets after he watches someone perform a standing double-flip.

How do you convince the constabulary to let your friends go without a warning?  Dance-Off! 


Because it'd be impossible to provide new guidance in the DMG to encourage DMs to take a different approach than prior editions have on what types of checks to use in interaction?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?


I believe the words you are looking for are "Answer to question 3 in today's Q&A"
Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.


But I didn't talk about skills.  I talked about the Ability checks typically used in Interaction -- which are the mental Abilities.  I don't care that you can somehow convince your DM to add your Diplomacy bonus to a Strength check.  We're entering that really bizarre corner of D&D where, apparently, it's customary to impress the local nobility by flexing your muscles and the low-like informant is more than happy to reveal his secrets after he watches someone perform a standing double-flip.

How do you convince the constabulary to let your friends go without a warning?  Dance-Off! 


Because it'd be impossible to provide new guidance in the DMG to encourage DMs to take a different approach than prior editions have on what types of checks to use in interaction?


Please explain how what you wrote is in response to what I wrote.  
But it doesn't work that way.


But it could work that way.  And the only way it ever might is if we agitate for it.

I don't get it.  You've clearly stated that you disagree with the current state, but you appear to be telling me it's not worth trying to fix.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
(I'm posting here what I posted a few minutes ago below the column)

Why the heck not? Backgrounds being purely optional, and all other classes having abilities that translate well to exploration challenges or to interaction utility, why doesn't the fighter deserve better? Being good at fighting is clearly the most distinct characteristic the fighter class should embody, but I don't think it's so hard to come up with things for the class that could be useful both within and outside of combat. A low level ability could be a sense for danger, whether it's the attitude of a crowd shifting towards unwelcoming or hostile, or to understand who's really in charge of the merchant cabal. A higher level ability could be to spot weakness- be it a fault in the slave master's armor, the best place to infiltrate the cloud giant's castle, or the king's inability to control the men of his court. An epic fighter could play a massive-scale battle between two armies in his head and predict who will win before the first sword is unsheathed, and who to pierce with an arrow to turn the tides.

These are all abilities befitting of a true fighter, that do not fall under the jurisdiction of background, at all.

-Ashtoret
Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?


I believe the words you are looking for are "Answer to question 3 in today's Q&A"



It sounded to me like:  If you complain enough they might take some skills away from other classes - but the fighter's aint gettin nothin.


Carl
Oh, and on ability scores again:  skills are now detatched from ability scores.  The predominance of int/wish/cha may no longer be nearly as valid as it once was.


But I didn't talk about skills.  I talked about the Ability checks typically used in Interaction -- which are the mental Abilities.  I don't care that you can somehow convince your DM to add your Diplomacy bonus to a Strength check.  We're entering that really bizarre corner of D&D where, apparently, it's customary to impress the local nobility by flexing your muscles and the low-like informant is more than happy to reveal his secrets after he watches someone perform a standing double-flip.

How do you convince the constabulary to let your friends go without a warning?  Dance-Off! 


Because it'd be impossible to provide new guidance in the DMG to encourage DMs to take a different approach than prior editions have on what types of checks to use in interaction?


Please explain how what you wrote is in response to what I wrote.  


By making that corner a little less "bizarre."
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

That would make no difference to me.  Because barbarians, fighters, and monks must use Backgrounds to improve Interaction and rogues, clerics, and wizards can do so through class features, the former three classes are subject to an opportunity cost.

Now, if wizards could not cast illusions and charms unless they took the Enchanter Background, and clerics could not cast divinations without the Oracle Background, and rogues could not take the Skill Tricks Charming Presence, Gilden Tongue, Master Linguist, Mimic, Read Lips, or Unflappable without the Con Artist Background, then things would be much closer.

But it doesn't work that way.  The barbarian, fighter, and monk should get class features they can use to improve Interaction if they so desire, or take them away from the other classes.  (I'd prefer the former.)  The status quo, as described in the Q&A, however, is really disappointing.



That's the flip side of my argument, same as Carl pointed out above as well. 
I think classes should just determine the way a character handles combat situations, as a mechanical construct. For other kind of interactions we need different tools, like Background and possibly Specilities (I'd much rather those to return to being Themes). 
That would give us greater flexibility, overall balance and multi-dimensional characters (as opposed to: "I'm a rogue, so I'm supposed to steal. Right?"). 
Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?


I believe the words you are looking for are "Answer to question 3 in today's Q&A"



It sounded to me like:  If you complain enough they might take some skills away from other classes - but the fighter's aint gettin nothin.


Carl


They should take interaction away from other classes.  The counterargument is "Your idea is bad because they won't ever do it."  They've done a lot of things that a lot of people have said they'd never do.  Sorry, I don't buy it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?


I believe the words you are looking for are "Answer to question 3 in today's Q&A"



It sounded to me like:  If you complain enough they might take some skills away from other classes - but the fighter's aint gettin nothin.


Carl


They should take interaction away from other classes.



And how do you do that for the casters??

Carl
Spell lists.

There's this notion that Charm Person absolutely must without question and without challenge exist in the way it has in prior editions, and that's just not the case. 

I say it's time for a new approach.  Who's with me?! 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I've already decided that next is not for me.  The answer to 3 makes me sad for the game and the future games it will continue to fail to serve adequately. 

This is going to hang alongside a real understaning of the math behind the game as things the developers and designers don't get in the way that I do.  Their paradigm is simply too far removed from mine to think that I might enjoy next.
Class is, indeed, a poor vehicle for delivering OOC options.
Unfortunately, they are still that vehicle.


So?  Things can change.  We've done tons of things.  Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?



No one is throwing their hands up.
Ease off the caffeine and the emotional responses.
"As it stands now" should be assumed every time someone speaks of DDN, as it is in the playtest phase and always changing. Just like "in my opinion" should be assumed every time someone posts and does not include a direct, provable reference.
I will not begin every post with "as it stands now" or "in my opinion". If people are too dense to use the slightest bit of applied thinking to know that both of those are to be assumed, they should not partake in discussion threads. They are a hindrance to those of us who can, and do nothing but crowd threads with pointless posts that force the person quoted into using one of the two phrases.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Spell lists.

There's this notion that Charm Person absolutely must without question and without challenge exist in the way it has in prior editions, and that's just not the case. 

I say it's time for a new approach.  Who's with me?! 



NO matter what they do with Charm Person - unless it is identical to a simple unassisted ability check - it is still a mechanical aide to interaction.  And thus still superior to what anyone else - especially a fighter - can do.

Carl
But it doesn't work that way.


But it could work that way.  And the only way it ever might is if we agitate for it.

I don't get it.  You've clearly stated that you disagree with the current state, but you appear to be telling me it's not worth trying to fix.


No, mand12.  I described exactly what it would take to fix itin the way you describe.  Wizards would need to take a Background to "unlock" enchantments and illusions.  Clerics would need to take a background to "unlock" Divinations and Ability buffs.  Rogues would have to take a Background to unlock Con Artist Skill Tricks.  And fighters would still have to be given Backgrounds of their own that give benefits commensurate with these new Backgrounds.

Now, if you think that Next is going to make such fundamentally radical departures from every prior edition of D&D (including 4e) because of a few dozen internet agitators, I think you need to wipe the rose coloring from your glasses.  That is a level of departure that would make Next look positively alien to anybody familiar with D&D.

It's akin to the folks who want to eliminate HP, to get rid of the Charisma Ability, or to make AC is DR a default basic rule.  It's not going to happen and any agitation in that direction is agitation misspent.

I do think it could happen that fighters get their own toys -- appropriate to fighters -- that help them in Interaction in the way that rogues now get Skill Tricks.  In my opinion, that's a much more productive use of our agita. 
Class is, indeed, a poor vehicle for delivering OOC options.
Unfortunately, they are still that vehicle.


So?  Things can change.  We've done tons of things.  Throwing our hands up and saying it's not worth changing because that's the way it is now...uh...what?



No one is throwing their hands up.
Ease off the caffeine and the emotional responses.
"As it stands now" should be assumed every time someone speaks of DDN, as it is in the playtest phase and always changing. Just like "in my opinion" should be assumed every time someone posts and does not include a direct, provable reference.
I will not begin every post with "as it stands now" or "in my opinion". If people are too dense to use the slightest bit of applied thinking to know that both of those are to be assumed, they should not partake in discussion threads. They are a hindrance to those of us who can, and do nothing but crowd threads with pointless posts that force the person quoted into using one of the two phrases.

Stating "how things stand now" in response to a post commenting on how things could or should be is not useful.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Stating "how things stand now" in response to a post commenting on how things could or should be is not useful.


It is useful for responding to people who don't actually believe that's "how things stand now".  Folks who think the fighter "as things stand now" is perfectly able to contribute meaningfully to Interaction. Folks, like, apparently, the guys who drafted Answer No. 3 in today's Q&A.
I do think it could happen that fighters get their own toys -- appropriate to fighters -- that help them in Interaction in the way that rogues now get Skill Tricks.

Like what?

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I do think it could happen that fighters get their own toys -- appropriate to fighters -- that help them in Interaction in the way that rogues now get Skill Tricks.

Like what?


See post 7 and 11, where I gave examples.