Community

     If I'm not mistaken, in a bound accuracy system, the DCs for saving throws are basically static (along with attack, AC, and save values).  In my opinion, this play-test iteration has significantly changed the power dynamic by decreasing the effectiveness of spells & spell-casters to favor fighters & rogues.  I believe this is true because of the new combat maneuvers specifically available to those classes alone (i.e. the additions of Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude to Fighters & Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will to Rogues).  Effectively, a fighter or rogue can greatly increase their chances of making saves against spells with use of expertise dice.  In a bound accuracy system, the class-specific wizard/cleric spell DC bonus is insignificant in comparison to having a Fighter or Rogue's  ability to add expertise die to a saving throw roll each round.

     Effectively, a significant portion of damage-dealing spells will only dole out 1/2 damage to Fighters/Rogues, and spells with a save vs. effect (i.e. charm, illusions, alterations, etc...) will be wasted when cast at those classes.  While the tradition of spell "evasion" has been a class feature of Rogues, this is a new addition to Fighters (or more precisely, this bonus to saves was available to all classes as feats in 3rd & 4th editions).

Am I wrong in feeling that these new additions to the maneuvers list changes the effectiveness of spells and can greatly decrease the ability of spell-casters???

Actually, Fighters had the best saves in pre-3e editions.

Also D&D is not a pvp game. Fighters and Rogues wont be the target of many classed characters to worry about class balance in that manner.

Also Fighters and Rogues have to select each maneuer to boost their saving throws.

Also Fighters and Rogues have to save expertise dice and not use them from actions or reactions in order to boost saving throws.

Doesn't seem like much of a problem.

In fact some may say they are too weak of maneuvers to be worth choosing until late level, if at all.

My problem isn't so much that these manuevers make wizards less effective, but now fighters and rogues are the best at saving against mental attacks. I'm more than willing to give them physical and speed tests, they are stronger and faster than wizards and clerics usually, but willpower tests? Why do the classes that are built around the mental ability scores suddenly the weakest in making those saves?

Now granted, it is only if they take those feats, and the fighter probably doesn't have a terribly great wisdom or charisma modifier to begin with, but it still seems a little wierd that the wizard and cleric have no way to boost their saves even agains the types of attacks they should be the best in defeating.

My two copper on this matter has more to do with the over simplicity of the expertise system.  I think if the maneuvers had a combination of levels and/or statistical requirements, even situational requirements such as the rogue's sneak attack, then such an issue would hardly exist.  As it stands now, the fighter/rogue can get free bonuses without effort to most everything, including damage (except the rogue on that one).  I realise in 2nd edition the fighter just got +3/+3 to hit/damage for putting more proficiencies into his weapon at the end of the day, but at least it was a choice that affected him possibly negatively (ie. he could have focused in battle axes, and a +5 warhammer drops in the dungeon, he would not benefit from it as much as if here were a battle axe fighter).

While having good, desirable numbers is key to a fun and effective class, reward with neither risk or effort is any combination of lazy, fear induced or poorly thought out.  That is not to say there is not potential, or good wrought, from the expertise system.

Deadly strike is overwhelming used in favor over the other maneuvers, because there is no need to do much else if you can kill the monster faster.  Sure, parry is nice, and might be used in certain encounters, I have yet to see the player in my group even use protection (and he wanted it), cleave is a weaker version of whirlwind attack, etc.

The problem stands now that, since monsters are both fairly easy to hit, and have fairly low hp compared to party damage output, deadly strike is the go to maneuver.  If that pardigm shifts to mind control effects preventing the party from doing anything, then Iron Will would become the defacto maneuver, so on and so forth.  As it stands, a fighter is wasting his turn if he doesn't deadly strike, so there is no harm of him using a maneuver that takes away his precious expertise die from that maneuver, and him breaking free of mind influencing magic is not likely with his around average wisdom.

Well, in less words, that is pretty much what I said :P