Community

In this week's D&D Next Q&A, Rodney answers questions on racial stat bonuses, meaningful choices with maneuvers and expertise dice, and skills.

1. Ok, I don't have too much of a problem with races. Only I'd like to see more.

2. Interesting take on maneuvers vs deadly strike. However, with this understanding in mind, I'd like more maneuvers overall and for my fighter to acquire them faster. I'd want, say, a 50/50 chance of choosing a maneuver over deadly strike - so I believe I'd need more (& compelling) maneuvers to choose from.

3. Sounds great, actually!

1. Stats are the least of the problem with races right now, aside from humans being overpowered
2. Dealing simple damage every turn because nothing else is necessary is boring boring boring.
3. Meh

 Glad to hear that overall races consistently receive the most positive feedback! I think races are on the right track and like the subtypes system.

 I am okay with maneuvers being more situational in their best use than expertise dice for damage but i would like if there was more maneuvers that could automatically deliver status effect upon hitting. (prone, restrained etc..)

 I am good with the name skill for those bonus and prefer it over the name areas of expertise personally. Saying one has Stealth Skills is sounded and rolls better :P

Q&A Haiku Time!

Racial stats changing?
They might change, but then again
You like the races. 

Deadly strike rules!
True.  Use maneuvers on a
Case by case basis.
 
"Skills" confuses me.
"Areas of Expertise"
May replace that term. 

I don't have an issue with the races at all, although I'd like for humans to have something that's a bit more....I dunno, I guess fluff-related than just stat bumps. That's somewhat bland to me - I'd like something else for them, although that may be something that's culturally based (read: based on campaign settings, like the old " of the Realms" books in 2nd Edition).

I have no problem with maneuvers at present, either - several were used during the playtest I ran last week and they worked just fine.

Honestly, I'd rather they just leave the word "Skill" alone. It's simpler to use than "areas of expertise" - having to say that every time just seems clumsy. It's similar to when they changed from "Theme" to "Speciality," as I didn't care for that either.

In general, nothing really upsetting here, just little nitpicky stuff I guess. 

Really, the only difference between "I'm skilled at ..." and "I'm an expert in ..." is that "expert" should be better than "skilled." Leave them as skills. When simple says pretty much the same thing as complicated, use simple -- "Skills" vs "Areas of Expertise." The latter could cause confusion with Expertise Dice if they don't change that name.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 8:06AM, wrecan wrote:

Q&A Haiku Time!

Racial stats changing?
They might change, but then again
You like the races.

Deadly strike rules!
True.  Use maneuvers on a
Case by case basis.
 
"Skills" confuses me.
"Areas of Expertise"
May replace that term.

Limericks!



Are racial stat bonuses "locked in" at this point?

There is nothing that is locked in
Even mechanics full of win
Positive feedback
Shows we are on track
Instead of in the loony bin


What incentive is there to spend Expertise Dice performing a fancy maneuver if a direct damage maneuver like Deadly Strike ends the battle more quickly?

Some are for opportunities
Not every combat always sees
Dealing more HP
Against high AC
Happens when they are on their knees


If "Skills" in D&D Next are actually a bonus to an ability check, what other names could they have that wouldn't have the confusing prior-edition connotations that the word "skill" has?

Hopefully everyone agrees
The phrase "areas of expertise"
Is better than skill
But not everyone will
Agree with our terminologies

Races have a bit bigger problem then what they suggest, but they are not hugely out of line either. I would like a better balanced stat mechanism and more options for racial powers but they are liveable right now.

The bit about expertise dice is correct in the sense that they need the game to keep moving and making straight damage the usual choice is the way to do that. However, they need to be careful to avoid making straight damage always the optimal choice and they are close to that edge already.

As for the word "Skill", I would rather just leave it skill. That is the sort of thing there needs to be a good shorthand way of describing it. The new system makes skills more general then they where in the past and you could have radically different skills but I can't think of another equally descriptive word.

I'm not in agreement with races looking "good" at the moment. Still too much integration between racial features and cultural features. I'd like to see a module to define races without using flat ability modifiers, as well as providing simple and complex versions of each race.

I'm still hoping the ED progression becomes die-independant, with the die size being part of the maneuver. Maneuvers might also limit the maximum number of dice allocatable as well, to improve balance.

Skill or Training works for me.

I am curious about humans in races. Did they actually receive as much positive feedback as the other races? According to some threads I've participated in on the forums, I am one of many who really likes the directions the races are moving except human, which I can't stand. Personally, it's the one thing about D&D Next that I've extremely disliked. I dislike it so much I want to ban humans from my games, or change them, but I can't really justify that in a playtest. Also, if humans stay as they are, I will go from a player who's never played a single human character into a player who will be tempted to play humans for every character, forever. And I've played since AD&D 1e.

Did humans really get as much positive feedback from the surveys as a whole? If so, I would be surprised, but I'm also kind of surprised nothing was said about humans specifically, good or bad, in the answer.   

Not to start a fight, but i playtested with 3 groups, 1 a min/max group (a) 1 a very laid back casual set (b) and one that mixed 1 player from each with 3 new players(c).
Group A  felt humans where so good that they eaither all would or no one would play one to be fair.
Group B didn't mind at all and felt it was cool that humans where as they called it "survivors"
Group C had our power gamer from A try to convince everyone to play humans and got realy mad when no one agreed they were better... personal fav moment was when my 5 year old nephew told him "elves are just cooler"

1) I like races overall, but as others have said, humans need work.  The fact that they are nothing but a stat boost is crazy talk, when looking at the other races.  They are better at everything than everyone else combined - AS strong as a dwarf, AS quick as an elf, AS charistmatic as a halfling, PLUS even more on one of those.  But then thats it - there's nothing else interesting about them at all.  No cool features, no unique characteristics - the only thing that defines "human" is "better at everything than everyone."  Our group likes the idea of maybe giving them the CHOICE of which stat to boost (only a +1 like the other races), and then give them some 4e-style human things similar to Heroic Effort or Extra Effort, or a bonus skill or something.  Anything to make them something other than a one-time stat boost.

2) The explanation makes sense.  I'd love to see other maneuvers as equal options to pure damage, but frankly, I'm not sure that's possible.  What would be an example of something AS GOOD AS extra damage, every time?  Applying conditions or other effects is situationally great, but I can't personally think of anything as universally useful as just killing the guy faster.  So I think I'm ok with "do extra damage by default, and other cool things if the situation warrants".

3) Just call them Skills and don't overthink it.  "Areas of Expertise" is too close to Exp Dice, and its too much of a mouthful to say regularly.  If you HAVE to change the name, at least use something with precedence like "Non-Weapon Proficiency".  Skills gets the point across just fine though.

I am okay with the way they have done races.  The trade offs seem fair. 

I have experimented enough with XD to realize that I don't need them. 

Call Skills...Specialties, then give us back Themes.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:54AM, GMforPowergamers wrote:

Not to start a fight, but i playtested with 3 groups, 1 a min/max group (a) 1 a very laid back casual set (b) and one that mixed 1 player from each with 3 new players(c). Group A felt humans where so good that they eaither all would or no one would play one to be fair. Group B didn't mind at all and felt it was cool that humans where as they called it "survivors" Group C had our power gamer from A try to convince everyone to play humans and got realy mad when no one agreed they were better... personal fav moment was when my 5 year old nephew told him "elves are just cooler"

That is great playtest feedback IMHO. I really like the different mindsets of the different groups. That's awesome

I have almost always played some type of elf, even when min/maxing. In fact, all of my serious characters as well as all of my min/maxed characters all were elven, even though most of the time humans were a better choice. Elves ARE just cooler, to players such as myself. Your 5 year old nephew is wise indeed!

The main thing that bothers me about humans currently is that even when humans were a better choice, I wasn't tempted. Elves were cooler to me. I'm an elf. End of story. I shouldn't be tempted to play a human because they are so much better now. I'm used to them usually being a superior choice even if only slightly superior choice. It just feels now they are far too superior.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:54AM, GMforPowergamers wrote:

personal fav moment was when my 5 year old nephew told him "elves are just cooler"

Thumbs up to your nephew

I'm really disappointed in the community for not knowing good racial design if it bit them in the face. The fact that people are rating what we have now as good is a travesty, and I think that it's even more of a travesty that the developers seem not to know better.

I also don't know what in the world they're talking about with skills. Why do people think that they're confusing? Just call them skills. That's what they are. There is no reason to complicate this. Skills just being a bonus to ability checks is nothing new. That is what they have always been.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

I'm really disappointed in the community for not knowing good racial design if it bit them in the face.

It's not just the "community", but the entire playtesting group.  From our last conversation about race I didn't think this was going to go well for you.  You fundamentally want a much more complex (albeit egalitarian) system than most players give two figs about.  I'm not saying your preferences are wrong. They're not.  But they are an outlier.

 I'd still like to see your proposal or something like that eventually afforded as an option.  But I don't really think it's something that a large proportion of the consumership is going to want to adopt.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:17AM, wrecan wrote:

You fundamentally want a much more complex system than most players give two figs about.

Nothing about what I want is complex. It would not at all be difficult to build some very simple racial trait sets that fit under some basic criteria.

I'd still like to see your proposal or something like that eventually afforded as an option. But I don't really think it's something that a large proportion of the consumership is going to want to adopt.

Those are also the people who don't care. Give them good design, give them bad design, they don't care because race just isn't a priority for them. Give them good design and they won't know the difference, while those of us who do will, so everybody wins.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Nothing about what I want is complex.

I disagree.  This was your proposal.  I find it significantly more complex than whet currently exists.  I do not believe that the consumership would prefer yours, however well-designed it is, to what they have now in the playtest.  I'm pretty sure Is aid it at the time.  Sorry.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:41AM, wrecan wrote:

This was your proposal. I find it significantly more complex than whet currently exists.

I disagree. No, that proposal was made in conformance to the current complexity. It's really not hard to come up with something simpler. The only additional complexity is the addition of more varied options, and varied options are, like, the best form of complexity there is.

I do not believe that the consumership would prefer yours...

I don't think that the majority of the consumership knows better. I don't care how egotistical that sounds.

I know my feedback on races has been "positive" in the sense that it hasn't been negative.  I think I've almost universally taken the approach of "Well, they're not bad (except human)- but they sure are extremely boring."

Races have, thus far, felt more like an afterthought of play than anything else.  No one in our playtests has really cared about the race of their character beyond roleplaying - they could all have identical mechanics, and nobody would really even notice a change from what we have now.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:52AM, greatfrito wrote:

Races have, thus far, felt more like an afterthought of play than anything else.  No one in our playtests has really cared about the race of their character beyond roleplaying - they could all have identical mechanics, and nobody would really even notice a change from what we have now.

That's the correct answer: races as purely cosmetic.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:54AM, Qmark wrote:

Dec 6, 2012 -- 11:52AM, greatfrito wrote:

Races have, thus far, felt more like an afterthought of play than anything else.  No one in our playtests has really cared about the race of their character beyond roleplaying - they could all have identical mechanics, and nobody would really even notice a change from what we have now.

That's the correct answer: races as purely cosmetic.

I always prefer the "Races are purely cosmetic (but if you want mechanics, here's a theme; also, you get two themes, because themes are were an awesome idea)" approach. 

But yeah, I still actually prefer the "purely cosmetic" approach over the "not cosmetic, but largely forgettable" approach they have going right now.

I like it, keeping en eye on combat moving quickly, with the odd special move, when appropriate, I really like the races (though I do think they could throw us a few more), glad to hear they are not keen to tamper, and skills keep getting better and better (less granular); I still like the table in the 1st Ed DMG.

There is an odd tension between wanting combat to flow smoothly (which I certainly like) and the Fighter being able to make interesting decisions, especially with the current rate of gaining maneuvers, which is the only class ability Fighters have currently.

It is entirely possible that with a set of conditional maneuvers, a Fighter could go many fights without needing to do anything but attack with Deadly Strike over and over again. This definitely keeps the game flowing, but it is not necessarily exciting, especially compared to other classes that might be making different active decisions every turn. Sure, the Fighter is on the look-out for the conditions when his maneuvers will do stuff, but until then, they aren't doing much.

To complicate matters, the maneuvers are the only thing the Fighter has and even if they add some kind of Parry class ability for self-protection, that should trigger at least once per combat, unless the Fighter happens to be an archer that tries to stay away from the front-lines (assuming some other character is up there instead).

I'm with CC on this one.

I wouldn't call the playtest races BAD, but they sure are boring and aren't learning from previous design. And while CC's are "more complex" (in that they have a few more options), they are miles more interesting (and less restrictive).

I'm betting consumership would definitely prefer the race that would let them not feel bad about wasting a racial feature, if they even knew it was a thing. As is, the races aren't terrible, and people are more focused on bigger issues like class mechanics.

(And you just know that eventually WotC will put out race feature swap outs like 4e eventually did, giving you a final result very similar to CC's). 

Right now, we’re looking at “areas of expertise” for this mechanic.

Or you could just call skills "skills" and people whose (a) imagination and (b) experience of other RPGs are both so narrow as to actually be confused by this for more than two seconds can suck it up. I hope those people don't make up very much of your audience anyway. And if they do, you have bigger problems than terminology.

 The races are a little blah, but I am gratified to see humans being a tad over-powered.  OK, it smacks of balancing across /editions/, but what the heck.

 While core uses TotM, there's really not a lot to be done with cooler maneuvers, and using maneuvers means giving up the all-important damage which gives the fighter his claim to fame (or, at least, relevance) as "best" at fighting.  The fighter seems to be in a catch-22:  he can try to do something interesting, and be ineffective at the one and only thing he's allowed to be good at, or, he can embrace his big-damage "best at combat" place in the game, and end the fight faster.  Seriously, if I had to play a 5e fighter at this point, I would bring a good book to the game so I'd have something to do.
 
 Skill is a perfectly good term.  Changing terminology isn't going to make them work any better in a class/level game like D&D.  Skills work in skill-based games.  If you're going to have a class & level, that, not some arbitrary skill list, should be the prime determinant for task resolution.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 6:28PM, jeff-heikkinen wrote:

Right now, we’re looking at “areas of expertise” for this mechanic.

Or you could just call skills "skills" and people whose (a) imagination and (b) experience of other RPGs are both so narrow as to actually be confused by this for more than two seconds can suck it up. I hope those people don't make up very much of your audience anyway. And if they do, you have bigger problems than terminology.

They have bigger problems than terminology.  Terminology is just easier to change...

It’s true that some maneuvers are situational in their best use, and using expertise dice for damage is often the best way to win a fight. We think that’s OK, because combats are moving along quickly and that’s one of the big goals of the game.

That basically means making manouvers into trap options.

With not way to differtiate on frequency, since everything is at-will for the fighter in DDN, we have pretty much this situation:

Accuracy > Damage > Conditions      

None is willing to trade accuracy for damage and none is willing to trade straight damage for conditions if they can help that. Unless conditions are very strong, which they cannot be on an at-will frequency.  
And even in the narrow cases where a condition would outshine damage, the figher wil be unhappy about losing damage output.
It seems to me the old damage+rider paradigm would make more sense for an at-wills only structure. 

Dec 7, 2012 -- 3:08AM, Uskglass wrote:

It’s true that some maneuvers are situational in their best use, and using expertise dice for damage is often the best way to win a fight. We think that’s OK, because combats are moving along quickly and that’s one of the big goals of the game.

That basically means making manouvers into trap options.

With not way to differtiate on frequency, since everything is at-will for the fighter in DDN, we have pretty much this situation:

Accuracy > Damage > Conditions      

None is willing to trade accuracy for damage and none is willing to trade straight damage for conditions if they can help that. Unless conditions are very strong, which they cannot be on an at-will frequency.  
And even in the narrow cases where a condition would outshine damage, the figher wil be unhappy about losing damage output.
It seems to me the old damage+rider paradigm would make more sense for an at-wills only structure. 

Concur.  If the fighter's thing is damage, then make him able to do big damage normally, without using his XD.  Then, let him use the XD exclusively for things like conditions and maneuvers.  Because given a choice between damage and conditions, most people will choose the damage most of the time.  it doesn't mean that the conditions won't ever get used, it's just going to make them a lot less attractive, for no particular reason.

Essentially, instead of a deadly strike maneuver, assume that all strikes will be as effective in terms of HP depletion as the fighter can make them, and let him choose to make them more interesting AS WELL.

In short, give the fighter nice things.  Then, AVOID GIVING THEM TO ANYONE ELSE!

Perhaps split Deadly Strike and Parry away from the other maneuvers.

At the end of the fighter's turn he can decide to be Offensive or Defensive.  If he chooses Offensive, his next attack deal extra damage equal to his full ED, if he chooses Defensive, the next attack that hits him take damage reduction equal to his Full ED.

All them stances.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 4:26AM, Orzel wrote:

Perhaps split Deadly Strike and Parry away from the other maneuvers. At the end of the fighter's turn he can decide to be Offensive or Defensive. If he chooses Offensive, his next attack deal extra damage equal to his full ED, if he chooses Defensive, the next attack that hits him take damage reduction equal to his Full ED. All them stances.

This may work.

Basically if at the end of his turn the figher has not expended XDs he can keep them as damage reduction buffer till the start of his next turn.

Manouvers he may decide to use are unrelated to this.    

 I'm generally pleased with the races so far. I acknowledge that they may seem to be 'lacking' a bit in the options department, but I fully anticipate seeing various alternatives and replacement capabilities making an appearance in setting books (as a way to flavor each race beyond the vanilla core).

I think that maneuvers are working exactly as planned, and I'm generally pleased with how they're shaping up.

I vote for the term 'skills'.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 4:54AM, Uskglass wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 4:26AM, Orzel wrote:

Perhaps split Deadly Strike and Parry away from the other maneuvers. At the end of the fighter's turn he can decide to be Offensive or Defensive. If he chooses Offensive, his next attack deal extra damage equal to his full ED, if he chooses Defensive, the next attack that hits him take damage reduction equal to his Full ED. All them stances.

This may work.

Basically if at the end of his turn the figher has not expended XDs he can keep them as damage reduction buffer till the start of his next turn.

Manouvers he may decide to use are unrelated to this.    

I too like this thing.

More generally:

1. Races need work, and they've confirmed that races need work.. not very enlightening here, to be fair.
2. I don't see any of his examples of situations where maneuvers might be better than damage as expecially compelling. The only time a conditional maneuver will be better is if for some reason you can't do damage. Sorta like in 3e how you could grapple or whatever but most often you just wanted to do more damage.
3. Let's call a skill a skill regardless of how they treat them in game, please.

Some maneuvers really begin to shine when presented with more, weaker opponents. A high-level fighter, facing a horde of orcs, can Cleave or Whirlwind Attack with great effectiveness. But he won't need/use those maneuvers against a really tough monster.

Or when a particular foe is already very close to dead and you don't feel all your bonus damage is needed. So you use a die or two of your XD for something else before or after polishing off the baddie.

But yes, in the midst of your battle against, say, a tough dragon, you focus on doing as much damage as possible. Of course. That doesn't mean maneuvers are a trap over the course of a campaign. Hardly.

SO is a sklil specialist going to become a expertise specialist?

Dec 7, 2012 -- 9:57AM, zago wrote:

So is a skill specialist going to become a expertise specialist?

Hehe. Clearly not...

They will become an Area of Expertise Specialist.

Duh!

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:42AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Some maneuvers really begin to shine when presented with more, weaker opponents. A high-level fighter, facing a horde of orcs, can Cleave or Whirlwind Attack with great effectiveness. But he won't need/use those maneuvers against a really tough monster.

Nothing new there.   The 1e Fighter got 1 attack/round/level vs less-than-1-HD monsters, like goblins (one thing that made orcs the classic monster was that, at exactly 1 HD, they were immune to that feature).  The 3.5 fighter could Whirlwind Attack (4 feats) or Great Cleave (3 feats) to clear an area within his reach (which, with the right weapon and an Enlarge or Polymorph Spell, could be huge) of enemies he could one-shot.  The 4e Fighter could also Cleave, doing a little damage to a second target & helping him chew through 1-hit-kill minions, or Whirlwind Attack (or several other Close burst /1/ powers) to hit all adjacent - no feat trees required, just power choices.

So the 5e fighter can still Cleave or WWA vs trivial enemies?  Well, I suppose we should be thankful that ability wasn't taken away - like his dailies, encounters, utilities, marking, combat superiority, self-healing, bonus feats, fighter-exclusive feats, full BAB, weapon specializaton, extra attacks/round, % STR, higher hp bonus for CON over 16, superior THAC0 and arguably-best high-level saving throws.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

So the 5e fighter can once again Cleave or WWA vs trivial enemies unlike 4e where it was taken away except under rare circumstances.

Fixed it for you (in bold).

I don't recall claiming the maneuvers were somehow groundbreaking. Only that they are useful as presented in the framework of D&DN. That they were not always a backseat/corner-case choice to "just doing big damage". Did I not just show that with my examples? 'Cuz I kinda thought I did.

So don't get all huffy because martial characters have cool things again...

Dec 7, 2012 -- 6:57PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Nothing new there.   The 1e Fighter got 1 attack/round/level vs less-than-1-HD monsters, like goblins (one thing that made orcs the classic monster was that, at exactly 1 HD, they were immune to that feature).  The 3.5 fighter could Whirlwind Attack (4 feats) or Great Cleave (3 feats) to clear an area within his reach (which, with the right weapon and an Enlarge or Polymorph Spell, could be huge) of enemies he could one-shot.  The 4e Fighter could also Cleave, doing a little damage to a second target & helping him chew through 1-hit-kill minions, or Whirlwind Attack (or several other Close burst /1/ powers) to hit all adjacent - no feat trees required, just power choices.

So the 5e fighter can still Cleave or WWA vs trivial enemies?  Well, I suppose we should be thankful that ability wasn't taken away - like his dailies, encounters, utilities, marking, combat superiority, self-healing, bonus feats, fighter-exclusive feats, full BAB, weapon specializaton, extra attacks/round, % STR, higher hp bonus for CON over 16, superior THAC0 and arguably-best high-level saving throws.

So the 5e fighter can once again Cleave or WWA vs trivial enemies unlike 4e where it was taken away except under rare circumstances.

Rare circumstances?  Like taking the "Cleave" at-will exploit at 1st level, vs taking Power Attack & Cleave at first level?  Really?  Taking the WWA exploit vs building with a DEX and INT of 13 and taking the Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack and WWA feats in order, over 6 levels is a "rare circumstance?"  Really?

I don't recall claiming the maneuvers were somehow groundbreaking. Only that they are useful as presented in the framework of D&DN.

You didn't exactly have to give up damage to Cleave (certainly not to cleave) or WWA, either.  Well, you gave up some single-target damage to WWA because it was a Full Round Action in 3.5 and simply a fewer-[W] exploit in 4e.  

That they were not always a backseat/corner-case choice to "just doing big damage". Did I not just show that with my examples? 'Cuz I kinda thought I did.

You do have to give up damage to use any maneuver, and, within the framework of D&DN, in which combats are fast and a full-damage fighter attack will contribute to bringing monsters down faster, anything other than Deadly Strike probably is a 'corner case' or 'trap options,' at the moment.  Maybe they'll fix monsters, later, and make other maneuvers more viable choices.  Maybe.

So don't get all huffy because martial characters have cool things again...

Now you're just being rediculous.  Every 'cool thing' martial characters ever got from 1974 through 2012 was taken away from the 5e fighter, then they gave him back /some/ of what he got in 3.5, and that's supposed to be a good thing?  

Sure, to be fair, 5e isn't going to be the first edition to take away what little the fighter had going for him in a prior ed.  4e took away 3e bonus feats and the distinction of full BAB.  3e took away the riotously overpowered double-specialization+TWFing combo, and percentile strength, and better saves, and better hps for high CON, and multiple attacks vs less-than-1-HD monsters.  They each gave some of that functionality back, and then some, which 5e hasn't exactly done, yet, though.

They kind of missed the point on maneuvers.  First of all, knock down isn't a maneuver, and in fact none of the actual maneuvers are trading damage for "fancy" except for hurricane strike.  But putting the terminology aside, the big thing is that the problem of non-damage alternatives being situational isn't that this makes them useless or a waste of rules space or character resources.  The problem is that things other than high damage being situational means that most of the time, the fighter is just doing high damage round after round after round.  Even cleave/WWA are things that you tend to use for an entire encounter against hordes of orcs, followed by an entire encounter where you spam DS against a troll, followed by an entire encounter where you're back to WWA against goblins.  Rarely does he have an actual choice in a given situation between two equally effective ways of attacking a monster.  Even more rarely does he have a non-trap choice that isn't "do lots of damage," whether that damage be concentrated on one target or spread among many.  And when he does have such a choice, it's typically disarm, which has always bugged me as an unbalanceable option.  The defense/offense decision is an interesting one, I'll grant, but it would be nice if parry wasn't massively better for the smart party in most situations while simultaneously egregiously boring for the fighter as a playstyle.  It's the same problem the E-ssassin had.  Lots of at-will options, but nine times out of ten he was just making basic attacks because none of his situations were in play.   If the fighter does the same thing  two rounds in a row, it's a wasted opportunity.  If he does the same thing for 4/5 rounds of every encounter, it's a bad system.  

Unless of course you're ok with fights being boring so long as they're fast, and you can enjoy it in the same way you might enjoy a game of craps before moving on with the story.  Which is a perfectly legitimate playstyle, but if that's really what you want then the level of complexity they have now is totally unnecessary.  We could just throw hit points and attack bonuses and maneuvers out the window, reduce the whole encounter or at least round to a die roll that determines the outcome (with degrees of success, and some kind of formula based on level and situational modifiers determining thresholds and daily resources letting you bump the result up), and spin it into a narrative explanation.  It would be much faster and simpler than even the current system, better balanced, and honestly you'd lose very little from the current system in terms of meaningful tactical choice.    

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Rare circumstances?  Like taking the "Cleave" at-will exploit at 1st level, vs taking Power Attack & Cleave at first level?  Really?  Taking the WWA exploit vs building with a DEX and INT of 13 and taking the Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack and WWA feats in order, over 6 levels is a "rare circumstance?"  Really?

Yes. You make a couple interesting assumptions:

Assumption 1, that the fighter took Cleave as one of the 2 at-wills he will ever have. D&DN fighters get multiples more maneuvers than they got at-wills in 4e.

Assumption 2, that "trivial enemies" really existed in 4e. Minions? Sometimes maybe. Depending on the DM. I know I rarely saw melee minions in all the years I've ragularly played 4e with many different DMs. And less often, be in a situation where cleave was the difference maker in dropping one. Usually 4e Cleave is, "Whoopie, I get to do a few token points to the other guy there."

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

You do have to give up damage to use any maneuver

Misleading. You would have to give up overflow damage when using these maneuvers against lesser enemies. That's the thing. There is no real opportunity cost when used in this way.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Now you're just being rediculous.  Every 'cool thing' martial characters ever got from 1974 through 2012 was taken away from the 5e fighter, then they gave him back /some/ of what he got in 3.5, and that's supposed to be a good thing?

This makes zero sense. I have no idea what you mean.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:42PM, powerroleplayer wrote:

The problem is that things other than high damage being situational means that most of the time, the fighter is just doing high damage round after round after round.  Even cleave/WWA are things that you tend to use for an entire encounter against hordes of orcs, followed by an entire encounter where you spam DS against a troll, followed by an entire encounter where you're back to WWA against goblins.  Rarely does he have an actual choice in a given situation between two equally effective ways of attacking a monster.

In the vacuum of a bland example, yes. But you seem to forget combats are not so clean, neat or vanilla. At least not the majority of the ones I've ever seen.

What if he's DSing the ogre one round, then the ogre's orc buddies gang up the next. So he WWS's them the next. Then, the wizard gets pinned down so he Spring Attacks over to help him out next round. Then, he finally gets near enough the orc boss to knock him over and start DSing him.

Don't whitewash every encounter as "WWS orc horde", "DS troll", etc. It's just naive to what D&D actually is, in practice vs. keyboard cowboy simulations.

I would warn you against witewashing every encounter as a mix of elites and mobs, but you'd just ignore me anyway, or completely misunderstand what I said so you can attack some minor side point I wasn't really making rather than dealing with my actual argument.  So let's go ahead and paint the whole fence with your brush instead.  There's still no real choice.  If you're attacking mooks, you use WWA.  If you're fighting elites, you use DS.  There's no, "well I could do extra damage and kill him in two rounds, or I could apply a status effect and kill him in three, either way his average return fire will be the same but in the latter scenario it's got more swing, so what's the better choice?"  No, "I could knock him prone and maybe give the rogue SA, or I could push him over there and maybe the wizard will get him in his AoE, or I could just do more damage myself" (technically, you do have the push and prone options, but they're so prohibitive in terms of the amount of your own damage you give up that they almost never make sense as choices).  There's no judgment call, no weighing of factors or probabilities or contingencies with multiple "right" answers.  Just single stimulus-->response.  The processor in a 4 function calculator could handle the variables.  Even the offense/defense choice is honestly a no brainer.  Maybe if you actually have both the ogre and the orcs within reach right now, there's a touch of uncertainty about which you should be killing, but that's not coming out of your maneuvers.  The truth is that the only choice maneuvers are adding is which maneuver you take, not which of the ones you've taken you should use in a given round.  Not that 4e at-wills were necessarily any better, but then contrary to populat belief people that don't like the direction 5e seems to be heading don't necessarily think 4e was perfect.  The point is that no-brainer choices aren't choices at all.  

So no change to the races even though they're mechanically boring and obviously inferior to the human. Human attribute superiority is both thematically and mechanically problematic, to say the least.

Making situationally marginalized manuevers is poor design. It means that most fighters aren't going to be making meaningful decisions, and thus the manuevers don't actually make fighter a more interesting and tactical play experience. Instead of directing the battle to setup the optimal use of their manuevers, the fighter is instead just hoping the situation will arise where one of his extra manuevers becomes worthwhile. Even occasional improvisation between players and GM is better than this, so no thanks.

Changing the name of the modifier isn't going to make me value it any less or more. The skill list is too long and too many of the skills are passively dependent on the GM's designs while others are in the active influence of the player.

In short, this Q & A seems to indicate the designers are oblivious to the lingering issues in their game.

Dec 8, 2012 -- 9:52AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

So let's go ahead and paint the whole fence with your brush instead.  There's still no real choice.  If you're attacking mooks, you use WWA.  If you're fighting elites, you use DS.

Bzzzt. What about when your down to one mook and want to go take on something bigger next? The point is there usually variable options. Maybe not so much in print on a computer screen while discussing arbitrary, bland or otherwise carefully dumbed-down "scenarios" that float in a vacuum...

Then if you have spring attack, you use it.  If you do not have spring attack, you don't use it.  Still no choice.  Pretending I've never actually played D&D doesn't make my scenarios disappear, nor does inventing your own scenarios where reasonable alternatives do exist (not that you successfully invented such a scenario).  Could you please try actually defending against my argument, instead of calling me a keyboard cowboy and pretending my scenarios don't exist?  I mean, have you really never seen a fight with only big monsters, or with only mooks?  And taking that as your starting point, are you really arguing from that that I'm the one who's lacking real D&D experience?   Seriously?

Dec 8, 2012 -- 10:34AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

I mean, have you really never seen a fight with only big monsters, or with only mooks?

How does an encounter designed to limit options prove that options are limited?

Yes, you can screw over a fighter by making sure there is never an opportunity for him to play with his toys. Is that what you are looking for?

Kinda like the DMs who never put minions in their games so the wizard could do something cool. I get it. Same thing.

And?

Dec 8, 2012 -- 8:56AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Assumption 2, that "trivial enemies" really existed in 4e. Minions? Sometimes maybe. Depending on the DM. I know I rarely saw melee minions in all the years I've ragularly played 4e with many different DMs. And less often, be in a situation where cleave was the difference maker in dropping one. Usually 4e Cleave is, "Whoopie, I get to do a few token points to the other guy there."

I'm confused. If we're talking 'minions', shouldn't the 'few token points to the other guy there' drop him? Minions only have 1 HP by definition, no?

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:19PM, mrpopstar wrote:

Dec 8, 2012 -- 8:56AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Assumption 2, that "trivial enemies" really existed in 4e. Minions? Sometimes maybe. Depending on the DM. I know I rarely saw melee minions in all the years I've ragularly played 4e with many different DMs. And less often, be in a situation where cleave was the difference maker in dropping one. Usually 4e Cleave is, "Whoopie, I get to do a few token points to the other guy there."

I'm confused. If we're talking 'minions', shouldn't the 'few token points to the other guy there' drop him? Minions only have 1 HP by definition, no?

Two different points. What cleave is good for? Yes. What it ended up being, usually, is not used on minions.

You're still not engaging my actual point.  But since you never seem to engage anyone's actual points, I give up arguing with you.

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:36PM, powerroleplayer wrote:

You're still not engaging my actual point.  But since you never seem to engage anyone's actual points, I give up arguing with you.

OK.

And when you're done stomping your feet, saying things like "never", and being bombastic, I'll listen to whatever point you're trying to make.

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:26PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Two different points. What cleave is good for? Yes. What it ended up being, usually, is not used on minions.

Ah.

Hmm.

I'm inclined to chalk that up to campaign specifics and DM implementation of minions as combat devices. The cinematic conceit of the 4E game assumes large swaths of meaningless baddies to wade through, and I've seen cleave used with great effect in this reguard. -- Mileage obviously varies.

Dec 8, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mrpopstar wrote:

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:26PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Two different points. What cleave is good for? Yes. What it ended up being, usually, is not used on minions.

Ah.

Hmm.

I'm inclined to chalk that up to campaign specifics and DM implementation of minions as combat devices. The cinematic conceit of the 4E game assumes large swaths of meaningless baddies to wade through, and I've seen cleave used with great effect in this reguard. -- Mileage obviously varies.

As a currently playing a drow tempest fighter dual wielding drow long knifes on 4e...i don't use dual strike...i use cleave =P

Dec 8, 2012 -- 2:02PM, mexrage wrote:

Dec 8, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mrpopstar wrote:

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:26PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Two different points. What cleave is good for? Yes. What it ended up being, usually, is not used on minions.

Ah.

Hmm.

I'm inclined to chalk that up to campaign specifics and DM implementation of minions as combat devices. The cinematic conceit of the 4E game assumes large swaths of meaningless baddies to wade through, and I've seen cleave used with great effect in this reguard. -- Mileage obviously varies.

As a currently playing a drow tempest fighter dual wielding drow long knifes on 4e...i don't use dual strike...i use cleave =P

Nice! 

Are racial stat bonuses "locked in" at this point?

Nothing is “locked in” at this point. Overall, the races consistently receive the most positive feedback, and as a result we’ve seen little need to change them up to this point. When something is working, we like to leave it alone as much as possible. As more and more pieces of content get into the game, we’ll need to continue reviewing the status of the races in the game, but right now it seems that most players are satisfied with how the races are shaping up.

Yeah, I haven't complained about the races yet, because I'm still complaining about all the other stuff that's wrong with the game. You could say I'm less concerned with bad races than I am with the rest of the game being badly done...

What incentive is there to spend Expertise Dice performing a fancy maneuver if a direct damage maneuver like Deadly Strike ends the battle more quickly?

It’s true that some maneuvers are situational in their best use, and using expertise dice for damage is often the best way to win a fight. We think that’s OK, because combats are moving along quickly and that’s one of the big goals of the game. At the same time, we’re always trying to make sure that any effect other than damage has a use and a time to shine. You might ask, “Why would I knock a monster down when I could use that damage die to end the fight faster?” In a straight-up fight, that’s possibly true. But there are other situations in which having the option there to knock someone down is really beneficial. For example, against a heavily armored opponent, I might choose to knock the creature down so that my companion has advantage on his or her next melee attack against it. Or, my companion might need to run away, so I knock the target down so it takes a penalty to any opportunity attacks it makes against my companion. Those are situational, but they aren’t so rare that knocking someone down is pointless.

We’re not looking to artificially limit the use of maneuvers at this time to force players to choose between damage and something other than damage. We think it’s fine for maneuvers to come up only when the opportunity presents itself, so that when it does come up the character using the maneuver feels good for having it.

Now see, why don't you just say "I unno." instead of wasting 2 minutes of my time reading a couple of paragraphs on the subject...

Also, 4e fans like having choices that are equal except in corner cases. That's part of the fun. Should I use this power that deals damage or this other power that deals slightly less damage, but will prone the target? The choices need to be about equal or you might as well not include them at all...

If "Skills" in D&D Next are actually a bonus to an ability check, what other names could they have that wouldn't have the confusing prior-edition connotations that the word "skill" has?

Right now, we’re looking at “areas of expertise” for this mechanic. So, you can say things like, “Forbidden Lore is one of my areas of expertise.” Or, “I’m an expert in Stealth.” As with everything else, though, we’ll continue looking for the best terminology to express the idea at hand.

Expertise sounds nice. 1 question out of 3 isn't bad. Now how about answering my question about whether swappable casting systems are in or not...

Dec 8, 2012 -- 10:04AM, Reinhart wrote:

So no change to the races even though they're mechanically boring and obviously inferior to the human. Human attribute superiority is both thematically and mechanically problematic, to say the least.

Making situationally marginalized manuevers is poor design. It means that most fighters aren't going to be making meaningful decisions, and thus the manuevers don't actually make fighter a more interesting and tactical play experience. Instead of directing the battle to setup the optimal use of their manuevers, the fighter is instead just hoping the situation will arise where one of his extra manuevers becomes worthwhile. Even occasional improvisation between players and GM is better than this, so no thanks.

Changing the name of the modifier isn't going to make me value it any less or more. The skill list is too long and too many of the skills are passively dependent on the GM's designs while others are in the active influence of the player.

In short, this Q & A seems to indicate the designers are oblivious to the lingering issues in their game.

+1

Dec 8, 2012 -- 12:39PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

OK.

And when you're done stomping your feet, saying things like "never", and being bombastic, I'll listen to whatever point you're trying to make.

Seriously?  Do you even believe what you're saying?  Read my post again, but this time actually pay attention to what it says instead of what you would like it to say.  The only time I say never is when I'm saying you're wrong that my scenario never comes up.  Which, by the way, is a counterpoint that has nothing to do with my argument that regardless of the situation the "choice" is not a meaningful one.  Even if you go back to my original post, I say "tend to" which is very different from never even if you have had a different experience about what commonly occurs.  So you're putting your own words in my mouth, then defeating an argument I never made while quietly ignoring the one I did make, and then taking the moral high ground about it.  Congratulations!

Dec 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

The only time I say never is when I'm saying you're wrong that my scenario never comes up.

Yeah. You're "never" bombastic...

You're still not engaging my actual point.  But since you never seem to engage anyone's actual points, I give up arguing with you.

Looks like another "never" to me.

Dec 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

Which, by the way, is a counterpoint that has nothing to do with my argument that regardless of the situation the "choice" is not a meaningful one.  Even if you go back to my original post, I say "tend to" which is very different from never even if you have had a different experience about what commonly occurs.  So you're putting your own words in my mouth, then defeating an argument I never made while quietly ignoring the one I did make, and then taking the moral high ground about it.

Your argument seems to be that fighters (read: maneuver using classes) do not have real options to use a maneuver that they don't have? Or if they do happen to have it, its either the only good option at that moment or useless?

I just don't see the point of taking you seriously. Your point has little to do with reality.

So a wizard who doesn't have fireball sure wishes he did when they run up against a troll? Or if he does, it's the "only real" choice to use it?

Dec 8, 2012 -- 8:56AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Rare circumstances?  Like taking the "Cleave" at-will exploit at 1st level, vs taking Power Attack & Cleave at first level?  Really?  Taking the WWA exploit vs building with a DEX and INT of 13 and taking the Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack and WWA feats in order, over 6 levels is a "rare circumstance?"  Really?

Yes. You make a couple interesting assumptions:

Assumption 1, that the fighter took Cleave as one of the 2 at-wills he will ever have.

It's a viable choice at 1st level, and is only one of 4 exploit choices he makes at 1st.  A 3.5 fighter at 1st gets two feats (one bonus feat that's actually his class feature) and must devote both to acquiring Cleave, not only devoting his only class feature choice to it, but his major customization choice, as well.    At 10th, the 4e fighter has 8 attack exploits plus 3 utilities and 6 feats, the 3.5 fighter has accumulated enough bonus feats to complete the WWA feat tree in addition to the standard 4 feats, and the playtest fighter has, what, 5 maneuvers to spend his ED on, and the same feat and background choices as everyone else?

On top of that, the 3.5 fighter has only some feats that required he give up BAB to use them, while all the 5e fighter's maneuvers require he sacrifice the damage of Deadly Strike to use them.

Assumption 2, that "trivial enemies" really existed in 4e. Minions? Sometimes maybe. Depending on the DM. I know I rarely saw melee minions in all the years I've ragularly played 4e

Well, they're in the game, there's plenty of them in the books, and they are the sort of monster you'd use if you were looking for 'faster combats...'  

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

martial characters have cool things again...

Now you're just being rediculous.  Every 'cool thing' martial characters ever got from 1974 through 2012 was taken away from the 5e fighter, then they gave him back /some/ of what he got in 3.5, and that's supposed to be a good thing?

This makes zero sense. I have no idea what you mean.

You implied that, at some point prior to 5e, martial characters lost some "cool things."  It's a patently absurd thing to assert, since martial characters got a surfiet of cool thing in 4e, and the fighter got at least some in 3.5, and even a little something in AD&D.  Up until 5e martial characters had been making some progress.  The first playtest put the fighter back on square one, just a brute with big numbers and no options.

The 5e fighter initially got none of those "cool things" the fighter got in prior eds. In 4e, the fighter got a mark feature & combat superiority, making him an excellent Defender, and martial classes got daily and encounter powers, putting him on par with other classes for the first time.  The 5e fighter fighter got none of those things.  In 3.5, the fighter got bonus feats and full BAB progression with multiple attacks - at a penalty - for high BAB.  The 5e fighter got none of those things.  In AD&D, the fighter got percentile strength, weapon specialization, more hps for high CON, multiple attacks (at no penalty) at higher levels, and followers at 'name' level.  The 5e fighter got none of those things.   Now, several itterations into the playtest, the 5e fighter has ED, which roughly maps to BAB (but without the extra attacks), and Maneuvers, which roughly map to bonus feats.  


To be fair, though, each edition they seem to give up on the fighter and start from scratch.  4e put everyone on the same attack progression (1/2 level), same feat progression, and did away with the Full Attack - all the 3.5 fighters 'toys,' gone.  In return, of course, the martial classes got role support, and the full range of AEDU powers, finally putting them on par with casters, and the fighter, specifically, ended up the second-best-supported class in the game, with only the wizard having more powers to choose from.  In 3.5, percentile strength, multiple attacks at no penalty, extra hps for high CON, all went alway, but BAB & itterative attacks and two-handed weapon damage gave some of that functionality back, and the customizeability of bonus feats was quite a step up from the dull but potent non-choice of weapon specialization & TWFing.

In constrast, casters tend to keep their toys but shed their limitations as editions roll by. :shrug:

Dec 9, 2012 -- 3:27PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Dec 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

The only time I say never is when I'm saying you're wrong that my scenario never comes up.

Yeah. You're "never" bombastic...

You're still not engaging my actual point.  But since you never seem to engage anyone's actual points, I give up arguing with you.

Looks like another "never" to me.

Dec 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, powerroleplayer wrote:

Which, by the way, is a counterpoint that has nothing to do with my argument that regardless of the situation the "choice" is not a meaningful one.  Even if you go back to my original post, I say "tend to" which is very different from never even if you have had a different experience about what commonly occurs.  So you're putting your own words in my mouth, then defeating an argument I never made while quietly ignoring the one I did make, and then taking the moral high ground about it.

Your argument seems to be that fighters (read: maneuver using classes) do not have real options to use a maneuver that they don't have? Or if they do happen to have it, its either the only good option at that moment or useless?

I just don't see the point of taking you seriously. Your point has little to do with reality.

So a wizard who doesn't have fireball sure wishes he did when they run up against a troll? Or if he does, it's the "only real" choice to use it?

My mistake, I should have clarified "the only time I say never in those posts in which I make the argument you claim to be rejecting due to overuse of the word never."  But since I also said you never seem to engage with my actual argument, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you were pointing to a never that wasn't actually in my argument.  But let's just put that aside for the moment.  And while we're at it, let's put aside the fact that there's a world of difference between "never" and "never seem" because that "seem" adds a little syntactic nuance that says, "it might not literally be the case that it's never happened, but it happens rarely enough that it has that appearance," thus eliminating the misleading absolutism that is supposed to be problematic about the word never.  I'd rather focus on whether it's actually inaccurate.  I've seen a lot of your posts on the boards, and not once have I seen you fairly construe the argument you're trying to defeat.  I'll make you a deal: if you want to dig through your posts and point me to your very best rebuttal, I'll be happy to reconsider that statement.  I promise to retract my statement if you can find one that passes muster.  Of course if I disagree, you'll probably just accuse me of confirmation bias, but you don't really have much to lose.  Or gain, I suppose, since I don't imagine you care what I think anymore than I care what you think.  But the choice is yours.

And by the way, no, that wasn't my argument at all.  You're absolutely right that that's a nonsensical argument and I can see why you wouldn't want to take it seriously.  What I can't see is why you then chose to engage with it seriously as if someone were actually trying to make that argument.  But like I said, I'm done arguing with you so I'm not going to explain it again.

Tony careful you ar emaking to much sense here. Careful or forums go boom.

Casters are shedding limitations in this version because they are losing spell power. The wizard's (or Magic-User's) limitations were what the devlopers thought allowed them to be so powerful. But with each edition they keep trying, in my eyes at least, to close the gap between melee and magic, and that means nerfing their spell power. But, in taking from the top, they are adding to the bottom so that the wizard isn't cheated. 

TLDR: Weaker/more restricted spells = less limitations