Community

 
Dungeons & Dra.. D&D Next General D.. D&D Next Q&A: Racial Stats, Expertise Dice &...
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View D&D Next Q&A: Racial Stats, Expertise Dice & Skills
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 3:08AM #31
Uskglass
Date Joined: Oct 17, 2007
Posts: 925

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. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 3:51AM #32
thespaceinvader
Date Joined: Oct 28, 2010
Posts: 9,667

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!

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part.
The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight.

CB != rules source.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 4:26AM #33
Orzel
Date Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Posts: 3,229
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.
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!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 4:54AM #34
Uskglass
Date Joined: Oct 17, 2007
Posts: 925

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.    

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 5:13AM #35
mrpopstar
  • Dragon Slayer
Date Joined: May 22, 2003
Posts: 2,693
 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'.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 8:22AM #36
kadim
Date Joined: Jun 21, 2012
Posts: 2,766

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.


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 8:42AM #37
ChrisCarlson
Date Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 741
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.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 9:57AM #38
zago
Date Joined: Oct 23, 2012
Posts: 660
SO is a sklil specialist going to become a expertise specialist?
My mind is a deal-breaker.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 10:33AM #39
ChrisCarlson
Date Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 741

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!

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 07, 2012 - 6:48PM #40
Tony_Vargas
Date Joined: Sep 26, 2001
Posts: 10,732

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.

Love 4e?  Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Jump Menu:
 
Dungeons & Dra.. D&D Next General D.. D&D Next Q&A: Racial Stats, Expertise Dice &...
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing