Community

Fighters get maneuvers, sorcerers and warlocks get spells known, clerics get some kind of swapable "known spell" list, wizard gets fire and forget spells and rogues get nothing. Each of these are options that each of these classes can chose from each round.

At level 1, all classes get somewhere between 3 and 5ish cool moves to do in combat at level 1. At level 5, it's more like 7-11. I don't know about you guys, but I'm very happy with these figures. This for me is the right amount of options at these levels. You start with small and you rapidely learn more. Well except the rogue, but that one is clearly not finished.

However, if things continue at this rate, fighters will get over 100 maneuvers to pick from each round at level 19 (10 styles each with 10 maneuvers). That's too much, so I assume that the game designers will find some way to slow down how fast you acquire combat options at higher levels. 

Since this hopefully hasn't been decided yet, maybe we'll get to choose.

How many (meaningful*) spell slots do you think the wizard should have say at level 10, 15 and 20?
How many spells known do you think is right for a spontaneous caster at level 10, 15 and 20?
How many spells do you think is right for a class that can swap his "known spells" every day like the cleric? At level 10, 15, and 20?
Do you think the rogue should get more than 2 combat options (hide and sneak attack) at level 1?
  
*By meaningful, I mean that has an actual impact in combat. If your at-will deals 4d4+4 with no miss chance and your Burning Hands still deals 4d4, it's not meaningful. For instance, if a wizard has 40 spell slots but only 20 of them that are better than his at-wills, then the wizard has 20 meaningful options in combat plus at-wills.

Difficult question.
Also, it has three parts.
What do I feel the game should have.
What do I want at my table 
What do I want as a player.
 
This question becomes even more difficult when juggling options available each round, vs each encounter, vs each day.
I'm going to leave spells alone for the moment, specifically trying to juggle daily spell slots agianst generally available options is very very subjective.

Short answer, round to round, at least 3.
Two of which I feel should be generally available player choice, at least one should be related to the terrain, setting, situation. 
This base of 2, I feel, should grow.  Also, it should be noted how they interact with their environ. Abilities to shove enemies around are far less useful in an open space than in a volcanic cave with lava flows, clouds of toxic gas, and nasty spikes. I hit and do more damge vs I hit and shove back isn't as real a question under some circumstances.
The number of options the player has should grow, and/or the options available to them become stronger with level.

Now, keeping the choices appropriate to the class can be tough.
Allowing player imput on what they are is also important. In so much that I feel the player should choose, within a suite, what those options they get they advance are.

The way I see it, the Iconic fixed options for classes look something like:
 Fighter: Hurt a foe plenty, or shut down a foes incoming nastiness (bodyguarding techs, marking techs, mobility impeders, ect...)
 Rogue: Hurt a foe plenty or dance about the battlefield (abilities to move freely, move unseen, blind an enemy, hobble an enemy, ect...)
 Wizard: Hurt a foe or a few foes, and mightily inconveince a foe or some foes (create areas they don't want to move through, charm them, slow or paralyze them, weaken them, levitate them off the ground, ect...)
 Cleric: Smite a foe or bolster my allies ( restore hp, grant bonuses, strip enemies of special effects, remove conditions, ect...)

The advancement concept I prefer is to add an additional meaningful option at least every level. Or, alternatively, a new option every other level while enhancing an additional option on levels new options don't become available. Modularity of options (different spell s in spell slots, ect,) increase flexibility, but if the options available are coherent and well thought out, should not overwelm the fixed options for other classes.

I would like to see more growth in the other pillars to advance options there as well, but it is still far to early for me to say in these regards.

Sep 11, 2012 -- 2:19PM, Saelorn wrote:

A good number of spells known, for those who have to plan ahead of time (and can only hold ~10 at a time), would be in the ~30 range, assuming some of the spells known are very situational and would likely remain unprepared at any given time; if anyone ever has access to more than that, then I would say it's a) probably too much versatility for one character, and b) probably going to slow down gameplay.

10 spells per day for a wizard? That's not a lot of spells!

If you're worried about versatility or gameplay, there's a lot to learn from MMOs. High level characters in the latest MMOs I've played typically have 30-40 options to pick from at all times. Options are added one at a time. By the time you get your next option, you're familiar with all the older ones. 30-40 is pretty close to the limit I can personally handle in a raid boss. You don't really have time to think in a raid boss, so I don't think 30-40 will really slow down game play that much. It's just my 2 cp, you're very welcome to have a different opinion.

As far as I'm concerned the fewer the better. There's nothing I hate more than five people all with their heads down trying to figure out the best thing to do in a given situation. 

I have a holdover rule from 1e you have one minute to figure out what you're going to do or you forfeit your turn. #e combat took so long that I'd get a quarter of my adventure done in a six hour session. giving players dozens of things to choose from is bad, very bad. Some might complain about the fighter only swinging his weapon over and over again but I see it as a good thing. 

For me D&D isn't a tactical combat simulator that's what warhammer is for. D&D is a role playing game that resolves some of it's challenges with combat.

The devs need to stop trying to pile on the options in the core and relegate them to a small corner of the player's handbook where I'm not likely to look. 

So far D&D next is looking a lot like 3e and 4e are taking over the design and I'm not liking it one little bit. 

Sep 11, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Tlantl wrote:

As far as I'm concerned the fewer the better. There's nothing I hate more than five people all with their heads down trying to figure out the best thing to do in a given situation. 

I have a holdover rule from 1e you have one minute to figure out what you're going to do or you forfeit your turn. #e combat took so long that I'd get a quarter of my adventure done in a six hour session. giving players dozens of things to choose from is bad, very bad. Some might complain about the fighter only swinging his weapon over and over again but I see it as a good thing. 

For me D&D isn't a tactical combat simulator that's what warhammer is for. D&D is a role playing game that resolves some of it's challenges with combat.

The devs need to stop trying to pile on the options in the core and relegate them to a small corner of the player's handbook where I'm not likely to look. 

So far D&D next is looking a lot like 3e and 4e are taking over the design and I'm not liking it one little bit. 

You give them a full minute?
I may have differences with you elsewhere, but that's more benevolence than I have.
My table, and not just me as DM have a 30 seconds then you are holding your action clause.