I agree that the current system is kind of silly... fighters might as well be a specialization of rogues if they share the expertise mechanic. However, it was probably a response to "people really like the fighter, and the rogue is messed up... lets take what people like about the fighter and give it to the rogue."
I am sure that in 1 or 2 playtest updates they will change the rogue again to something completely different (unless most people like the changes...)
Let me tell you something folks, this is a lie. A dirty lie born of an unimaginative name with no conceptual integrity to it. Making fighters "the king of combat" is incompatible with having any sort of non-fighter, martial class worth playing. It makes it impossible to carve out any conceptual combat space for them, which forces them into the "like fighters, only worse in combat but with some kind of non-combat abilities to make up for it" box, which in turn forces fighters into the "useless outside of combat" box, or makes it the only martial class worth playing. The fighter's concept needs to be narrowed so that it stops swallowing up everyone elses's niche.
to be honest, I don't mind that the fighter's concept is a little broader than in previous editions but IMO fighters should be the best at fighting - not neccessarily the king of combat but the whole package of armor+accuracy+decent weapons+some nifty maneuvers=fun+combat versatility. If that means they stand around out of combat with their finger in the proverbial, so be it - they've done that for the last 4 editions and peeps who play fighters are used to it. Hell, they probably enjoy a quick blast of angry birds while the rest of the group are doing thier talky-blah-blah stuff.
The problem isn't so much the fighter as the nerfing of the rogue making this iteration of the fighter better and the rogue an out-of-combat skill monkey. Instead, just fix (or unfix depending on how you look at it) sneak attack, rogue schemes (admittedly they're pants!) and/or the rogue's expertise dice.
Sounds logical, but D&D is a game about fighting. Sure there's other stuff going on, but a huge part of the game is about fighting.
This says more about your playstyle than it does the game or the conceptual basis for each class.
I've played entire campaigns that were based on avoiding combat and they worked just as awesome as the ones that consisted of (mindlessly) rampaging and pillaging.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
Someone got it into their heads that a class named after fighting should be the master of fighting. Sounds logical, but D&D is a game about fighting.
I have always thought the fighter was the poorest excuse for a class in an RPG that centers itself around fighting that ever existed. I said this exact thing back in 1986, and have been saying it ever since. Why in the 9 Hells do we need a class whose only shtick is fighting? This sets up a model that A) all other classes try to emulate using their own shtick, or B) has to be cirumvented by designing classes that excel in things other than fighting to be considered viable. The fighter has always been the pink elephant in the room, but it's such an iconic class that people would rather eat their own socks than consider a D&D game that didn't have them...even if that did mean the other melee classes could be independently awesome without the clumsy fighter around to compare them to.
Consider if the pure "fighter" did not exist. Melee combat prowess would be gauged by individual classes without the need for comparisons. As it stands (and has always stood), the other classes are constantly trampling on the toes of the fighter. Considering that, traditionally, the fighter has been one of the game's worst classes in regards to killing things and taking their stuff, I find that both ironic and sad. The thief could do basically everything the fighter could, but could also be a skill monkey and back-stab for ungodly amounts of damage. He did a bit less dmage per swing, but when you've got constant combat advantage it hardly matters. The wizard was always outshining the fighter in regards to killing. The ranger was a ranged fighter that got two-weapon fighting and access to more skills and spells. It seemed the fighter was always his own worst enemy. You had the wizard on one end of the spectrum, and all magic-user classes were compared to it in relative power. On the other end of that spectrum was the fighter. All melee classes were measured against it. Unfortunately, most of them surpassed him in several different areas, while the wizard could always hold up his own end.
If someone wants to be sneaky guy that kills stuff and not a skill monkey, why not just be a lightly armed fighter and let someone else play the rogue?
You are gonna have to convince someone to play the Rogue is the probelm. You used to have to convince someone to be a heal bot. Now its a skill bot. Apart from skill checks outside combat the rogue is obsolete. And he is broken at that.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
