Maneuvers and skill tricks gone. Urge to kill rising.

I was having fun looking through the new packet, and it actually took me a few minutes to realize something was missing...

Maneuvers and skill tricks are just gone. Fighters to choose from a few class abilities that use their expertise dice, but other than that it's all 3e-style "martial feats." Rogues are even weirder - their schemes now give them THREE bonus feats, apparently all at first level, but skill tricks have all been converted to "expert" feats.

So to recap:

1. Fighters (and now rogues!) had their nice things turned into bonus feats.

2. Fighters at least get to choose class abilities or extra feats at every level from 2-9 you don't get a feat (2, 4, 5, 7, and 8). Rogues apparently - and I feel like I must be missing something here - don't get ANY choices past first level, except choosing their Multiattack at 9? I mean, barbarians don't either (which I hope is just a limitation of the playtest), and all the other classes are distinguished primarily by spell selection past level 1, which I'm fine with for the most part... but seriously, they need to spread out those extra rogue feats or something.
They completely ruined the Rogue, no question about it. I imagine we will see another packet relatively quickly, because this is excrement.
read a bit more, kids. check out the expert and martial feats that fighters and rogues get...
just sayin' 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

read a bit more, kids. check out the expert and martial feats that fighters and rogues get...
just sayin' 



So first off, read my post, kid. I specifically mention maneuvers getting moved to the feats section. The problem is that, as any 3e player can attest, giving the fighter extra feats as his primary class benefit doesn't work well, because it just means that fighters don't really get anything special.

Second, I just read through all the feats, and the maneuvers they DID convert to feats just seem odd. I mean, if I took the Trip feat, would there be any reason for me NOT to make a trip attempt every single attack?  
How are maneuvers gone?  They're right there.  Some of them are even carbon copies of maneuvers from previous packets.

You may not like the maneuvers, but they're not gone.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Not only they are there, they are more accessible than ever!

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

My complaint has been that the 5E Fighter is lame and mundane compared to the Warblade and 4E Fighter. They've now gone out and made it worse.
...whatever
How are maneuvers gone?  They're right there.  Some of them are even carbon copies of maneuvers from previous packets.

You may not like the maneuvers, but they're not gone.



Many of the individual abilities have been retained, but the concept of the "maneuver" as a type of fighter power is gone. The term "maneuver" does not exist in this packet, AFAIK.

Why this is a Bad Thing, IMHO:

1. They're not fighter-exclusive, which IN ITSELF isn't terrible - but as we've seen in 3e, relying on extra non-class-specific feats to help define a class can have negative repercussions for both that class and the feat system in general (thus the huge feat chains and "feat taxes" in 3e). 

2. This also makes the presentation a lot messier. Before, a new player could pick a Style and a Specialty and not have to dive into a 73-page chapter of feats. Now, there is actually no way to create a fighter without digging into that list. (They don't even have recommended builds anymore!) For all the early talk about wanting a "simple fighter" option, they're really moving away from that.

3. You can't combine two feat-derived attacks like you can maneuvers. No more Trip+Shove Away to knock someone away from you and on their butt; the Trip feat and the Shove Away feat are mutually exclusive.

4. Making those fighter maneuvers into general feats meant that they couldn't be tied to fighter class abilities. Specifically, in the podcast and L&L articles they flirted with the idea of having "maneuvers" that let you optionally improve them with expertise dice. I was really looking forward to unique fighter powers that required XD. Spend a die to make an AOE "hail of arrows" attack! Woo! But for obvious reasons, none of the feats derived from maneuvers require or even take advantage of expertise dice.

5. The former maneuvers that got shifted into expertise-based class abilities (glancing blow, parry, etc) are doled out rigidly at particular levels. Each fighter MUST have one damage-buffing ability, one defense-boosting ability, and one accuracy-boosting ability. Want to play a defensive fighter who will never use Deep Wounds but would love to have access to both Parry and Block Missiles? Sucks to be you! 
Not only they are there, they are more accessible than ever!


 
This I believe being the suggested problem. The fighter (and rogue) becomes less unique if everyone has access to their manuvers as feats.

Theoretically you could modularise the entire game in such a manner. For example making spells 'magic feats' giving everyone access to them and giving wizards extra 'magic feat' slots.
Noone is considering doing this of course but it's a rather extreme example of how and why this makes fighters less defined and unique as a class. Everyone wants to be able to do something that others can't.

I feel a lot of this playpacket is a step backwards in terms of simplicity and elegance.




They should remake the maneuvers list, create a feat that lets you get a maneuver, and auto-grant that feat to fighters at multiple levels.

1. Fixes presentation problems a lot - you can list the maneuvers in the class write-up or at least have them in a specific place rather than jumpled with all of the other feats.

2. If you can only take the feat once (aside from the fighter auto-gaining it multiple times) then it means other classes have access to maneuvers but not as much as the fighter.

The difference is you had layers of complexity where maneuvers are one level of power, then feats could further define things. Consider the same thing for spells with casters, and then feats. And the martial characters bowed down in submission to their caster overlords. Maybe not that bad, but the pendulum has started to swing.

IMO, there should be a separate maneuver list like there was before, and a feat that gives you one maneuver off the list. Mechanically identical to the current packet, but much better presentation-wise. I have to admit, I found the feats/specialties pdf absolutely daunting when I first opened it.

 
somthing else i don't like about the fighter.

you can use your action to regain a single expertise die, provided you have expended all of your expertise dice.

So in a round where you can't realy do anything usefull, you can't just use your action to reagin a dice.
In longer fights wou will probebly be reduced to actiong once every 2 rounds.
Well...  I hate the change to sneak attack... it is still this wierd gamble skill that is going to frustrate rogues endlessly.  And now there is no way to opt out of it.  I was enjoying artful dodger as an alternative to the previously terrible sneak attack.  I just don't know why are they so attached to making it this inaccurate power swing?

The mechanics feel like they would fit much better with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.  The best comparison I could make to a previous edition would be power-attack, which wasn't usually a rogue-style feat.  I mean, I am not a simulationist, but why is it more likely that the rogue will miss his attack if he is aiming for the kidneys?

I ran the numbers.... and the math seems to work if the rogue haas advantage to begin with, but I just don't like the implementation.  More than that, though, is that I don't like the lack of an option.  In the last packet, a rogue could keep up with a fighter without using sneak attack.  I would be okay with the rogue being slightly worse, but currently, without sneak attack, they are just flat out bad.

I also really hate that something as mundane as pick-pocket has to be turned into a feat... I mean seriously.  Rogues don't come with trapfinding anymore?  They cut the bonus skills in half, skill mastery is effectively gone.  (and the changes to skill training are not good) 

I dunno, I mean I can see how they thought the rogue may have been too good in the previous packet, but the goal should have been to raise other classes up rather than step on the rogue's face. 
I feel a lot of this playpacket is a step backwards in terms of simplicity and elegance.


This I can absolutely agree with.

The Fighter alone has gone from "Pretty Straightforward (Even if not my favorte PT version of the class)" to "I had to read the entry multiple times before I could "get it" - "it" being a hybrid of things I didn't prefer out of both 3e and 4e.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
HELL YEAH! My Encounters DM says we are just going to completely ignore this new packet until the season is over! Thank god, my Rogue won't have to use the terrible new rules! I wouldn't play the new Rogue if you paid me, its garbage.

PS-Sneak Attack looks like someone with a traumatic brain injury came up with it.
I'm definitely not a fan of Sneak Attack as a lower-accuracy power attack. Part of the whole idea, I always thought, was that rogues had to work themselves into an advantageous position to get in a good strike, but it was really powerful when they did.
Maneuvers and skill tricks are just gone. Fighters to choose from a few class abilities that use their expertise dice, but other than that it's all 3e-style "martial feats." Rogues are even weirder - their schemes now give them THREE bonus feats, apparently all at first level, but skill tricks have all been converted to "expert" feats.


Any class with MDD could get manuvers by spending a feat in the previous package. So they were already equal to feats. This just skips the middle man, making them more accessible to everyone and less unique powers. It's pretty much just a name change.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

somthing else i don't like about the fighter.

you can use your action to regain a single expertise die, provided you have expended all of your expertise dice.

So in a round where you can't realy do anything usefull, you can't just use your action to reagin a dice.
In longer fights wou will probebly be reduced to actiong once every 2 rounds.


Is it unreasonable that your long-term sustained output would be lower than your peak output?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm definitely not a fan of Sneak Attack as a lower-accuracy power attack. Part of the whole idea, I always thought, was that rogues had to work themselves into an advantageous position to get in a good strike, but it was really powerful when they did.


It was a little odd that while trying to hit a very small precise target, such as a vulnerable area, they had better odds of hitting. Advantage is its own reward and people should seek it out anyway; dealing extra damage with advantage made it too tempting not to get.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

somthing else i don't like about the fighter.

you can use your action to regain a single expertise die, provided you have expended all of your expertise dice.

So in a round where you can't realy do anything usefull, you can't just use your action to reagin a dice.
In longer fights wou will probebly be reduced to actiong once every 2 rounds.


Is it unreasonable that your long-term sustained output would be lower than your peak output?



Sustained output would still be lower, but would be nice that you could use the action to regain a dice even if you did not expand them all.

Maneuvers and skill tricks are just gone. Fighters to choose from a few class abilities that use their expertise dice, but other than that it's all 3e-style "martial feats." Rogues are even weirder - their schemes now give them THREE bonus feats, apparently all at first level, but skill tricks have all been converted to "expert" feats.


Any class with MDD could get manuvers by spending a feat in the previous package. So they were already equal to feats. This just skips the middle man, making them more accessible to everyone and less unique powers. It's pretty much just a name change.


With maneuvers they had an opportunity to make them on par with spells, and feats more generic. Now feats have to cover more ground.

I always liked - Class Abilities > Maneuvers or Spells > Specialties or Feats > Backgrounds or Skills 

Maneuvers are not supposed to be = spells on the power scale for balance reasons.
Maneuvers are not supposed to be = spells on the power scale for balance reasons.


I understand that, but now feats have more ground to cover. At least maneuvers could dabble in the supernatural and feats can be more mundane.
So is the monk suposed to use 2 weapon fighting now ?
as i don't see a feat to replace it.
Maneuvers and skill tricks are just gone. Fighters to choose from a few class abilities that use their expertise dice, but other than that it's all 3e-style "martial feats." Rogues are even weirder - their schemes now give them THREE bonus feats, apparently all at first level, but skill tricks have all been converted to "expert" feats.


Any class with MDD could get manuvers by spending a feat in the previous package. So they were already equal to feats. This just skips the middle man, making them more accessible to everyone and less unique powers. It's pretty much just a name change.


With maneuvers they had an opportunity to make them on par with spells, and feats more generic. Now feats have to cover more ground.

I always liked - Class Abilities > Maneuvers or Spells > Specialties or Feats > Backgrounds or Skills 


I liked them too, but Manuvers became problematic. 
Too many were class specific in the last package, being less a generic list and more specialized class powers. Unless there's overlap between classes they don't need to be seperate from the class. If only rogues can ever sneak attack it should just be a class feature. 

And as I said before, if they're something you can trade a feat for, they're pretty much equal to feats. They can't be more powerful than feats or the manuver feat becomes overpowered. And anyone should be able to learn to bull rush or trip. And there was some competition between feats and manuvers, where some weapon-based actions were feats and some were manuvers. To be a good archer you have to take a mix of feats and manuvers, which was very weird last package.

Making them feats is the logical step. It's simpler than having every martial class pick manuvers. Plus it's flexible as you can pick maneuver feats that give you extra types of action or simple ones that just make your basic attacks better. And instead of having to look in two places you ony look in one: there won't be pages of 20 manuvers and 30 feats there will just be the single section with 50 feats.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I guess they can make martial based feats more powerful, and then have a second class of feats for general and casters. So feats will vary greatly in their intended use, scope of power, etc. So as long they label them, have guidelines in place it might work. Multiclassing and feat dipping will be fun.
Also it makes it very easy for a DM to say hey this martial feat and this expert feat are both feats...hey fighter feel free to take that expert feat in its place...something I know at least some people were very much asking for.
And as I said before, if they're something you can trade a feat for, they're pretty much equal to feats. They can't be more powerful than feats or the manuver feat becomes overpowered.



The problem with this then is being something you can trade a feat for. I mean seriously, setting the base power level at the same point as a feat and giving feats to compensate for removing maneuvers should be setting off warning bells for everyone who played 3.5.
I just read this thread because of the guild wars 2 title.
And as I said before, if they're something you can trade a feat for, they're pretty much equal to feats. They can't be more powerful than feats or the manuver feat becomes overpowered.



The problem with this then is being something you can trade a feat for. I mean seriously, setting the base power level at the same point as a feat and giving feats to compensate for removing maneuvers should be setting off warning bells for everyone who played 3.5.



warning bells have been going off since the first packet that contained FTR dice pools.

OTOH, Jester is flat out wrong that being able to spend a feat to gain a maneuver makes maneuvers equal to feats. As long as the maneuver chart was listed as a class ability you gained manuevers AND feats and not necessarily at the same rate. Sliding maneuvers into feats locks you into an either/or and a one-for-one, both extremely bad design.
I finally in Next had a Rogue build that worked for me and they totally wrecked it.
Well...  I hate the change to sneak attack... it is still this wierd gamble skill that is going to frustrate rogues endlessly.  And now there is no way to opt out of it.  I was enjoying artful dodger as an alternative to the previously terrible sneak attack.  I just don't know why are they so attached to making it this inaccurate power swing?

The mechanics feel like they would fit much better with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.  The best comparison I could make to a previous edition would be power-attack, which wasn't usually a rogue-style feat.  I mean, I am not a simulationist, but why is it more likely that the rogue will miss his attack if he is aiming for the kidneys?
 



Yeah. Exactly. The rogue has never been about trading accuracy for power, that's a barbarian thing. The rogue is about requiring surprise to deal more damage to an enemy.

And as I said before, if they're something you can trade a feat for, they're pretty much equal to feats. They can't be more powerful than feats or the manuver feat becomes overpowered.



The problem with this then is being something you can trade a feat for. I mean seriously, setting the base power level at the same point as a feat and giving feats to compensate for removing maneuvers should be setting off warning bells for everyone who played 3.5.



warning bells have been going off since the first packet that contained FTR dice pools.

OTOH, Jester is flat out wrong that being able to spend a feat to gain a maneuver makes maneuvers equal to feats. As long as the maneuver chart was listed as a class ability you gained manuevers AND feats and not necessarily at the same rate. Sliding maneuvers into feats locks you into an either/or and a one-for-one, both extremely bad design.


Go through the playtest package and replace 'marital feat" with maneuver. The fighter used to start with one "martial feat". Now, they get one "maneuver". Pull out all the martial feats and put them in a different document, called "maneuvers".

Is that really different? 

It doesn't affect the mechanics. It doesn't affect the play. It doesn't affect the balance. It's entirely 100% a mental change in nomenclature.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

It does affect the play, mechanics and balance (although you are correct about being able to buy a manuver with a feat [limited to your class and general list]) the lack of mix and match is probably putting some people off.
Can you give a more detailed explination dumbing it down so I can understand exactly what the issue is please. I did not get a chance to use the last test packet so I am not up to date with what the changes did between that one and this one that is so bad.

It looks OK to me. Since only fighters and monks have a gained per x level access to martial feets I don't see the differance other than the fact that any class can take some if you use the custom specialties option.

Honestly not trying to insulting but I miss the problem.    
Well...  I hate the change to sneak attack... it is still this wierd gamble skill that is going to frustrate rogues endlessly.  And now there is no way to opt out of it.  I was enjoying artful dodger as an alternative to the previously terrible sneak attack.  I just don't know why are they so attached to making it this inaccurate power swing?

The mechanics feel like they would fit much better with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.  The best comparison I could make to a previous edition would be power-attack, which wasn't usually a rogue-style feat.  I mean, I am not a simulationist, but why is it more likely that the rogue will miss his attack if he is aiming for the kidneys?
 



Yeah. Exactly. The rogue has never been about trading accuracy for power, that's a barbarian thing. The rogue is about requiring surprise to deal more damage to an enemy.




I will continue to maintain that Sneak Attack should rread as follows:

Sneak Attack:  Once on each of your turns, when you have Advantage, (but not Disadvantage) on an attack roll you can make a Sneak attack.  If both rolls made for the attack would hit the AC of the target, deal X extra damage in addition to your normal attack damage.  If only one roll results in a hit, deal damage as usual.

Once again, sneak attack would be conditional, but it would always be a beneficial ability rather than a tradeoff or a gamble. And here is the bigger hit.  The damage output would be basically the same!!  Assuming that you only used sneak attack from the current packet when you had advantage (the implied intended usage)... compare that chance of success to the chance of success for my proposed sneak attack and its much higher.  The difference is that the rogue is more likely to still hit regularly with the proposed system in place.   

Here's how:
(level 7 rogue, 4d6 SA dice)
Current Sneak Attack:
Hit chance 50%, Sneak Attack 50%.  Average output = 0.5*weapondmg + 2d6
Proposed system:
Hit chance 75%, Sneak Attack 25%.  Average output = 0.75*weapondmg +1d6

So, assuming that your average weapon damage is not more than 14 at level 7.  My proposal won't increase the rogue's damage output.  But I think that it would be a far more satisfying system.  

(Note:  It probably won't be more than 14 as an average.  By level 9 assuming an ability mod of +4 and a 1d8 weapon, you will have an average deadly strike damage of 14, so the scale is really right on).
Well...  I hate the change to sneak attack... it is still this wierd gamble skill that is going to frustrate rogues endlessly.  And now there is no way to opt out of it.  I was enjoying artful dodger as an alternative to the previously terrible sneak attack.  I just don't know why are they so attached to making it this inaccurate power swing?

The mechanics feel like they would fit much better with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.  The best comparison I could make to a previous edition would be power-attack, which wasn't usually a rogue-style feat.  I mean, I am not a simulationist, but why is it more likely that the rogue will miss his attack if he is aiming for the kidneys?
 



Yeah. Exactly. The rogue has never been about trading accuracy for power, that's a barbarian thing. The rogue is about requiring surprise to deal more damage to an enemy.



well the had to tune down sneak attack in some way else it would be to clear how weap the fighter bonus damage is.
I posted a fairly long explanation of why I think this is a bad change on the first page of this thread... even if you disagree with me that it's bad, I think it's pretty clear that this change DOES impact gameplay.
The problem is that, as any 3e player can attest, giving the fighter extra feats as his primary class benefit doesn't work well, because it just means that fighters don't really get anything special.

Actually, they work phenomenally well, at making the fighter a highly customizeable class that you can do a bewilderingly wide array of builds-to-concept with.  Which is delightful.  The 3.x fighter was a positively inspired class design in that sense, one of the best things to come out of D&D - and I'm not discounting all the awesome in 4e, here, it's right up there with healing surges, AEDU, and the Warlord as a briliant innovation that tackled a long-standing problem.  

Where it fails is simply in being in 3e - the 3e fighter would have been awesome in some other game where every other class was also elegant, customizeable and robustly balanced.  However, it was alone in those things, and 'robustly balanced' in a game full of 'crazy broken' is just another trap choice.

Sadly, 5e is not shaping up to be that elegant, balanced, customizeable game that the 3e fighter might have been at home in.


But, aside from repeating that minor faux pas, it's still a good idea in principle.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

It seams to me this is just trick wording. Becuse people complained about rouges and fighters having things "why cant my mage taunt" well now you can, guy a gets it forfree you can spen done of 4 feats

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