|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:17PM
#11
|
|
|
I think they should be given to all the non-casting classes, well except for the barbarian if they bring that back. The barbarian isn't really about expertise.
Personally, I think they make more sense for the barbarian (wild, undisciplined) than the fighter (trained). Should be used for the sorcerer too, for that matter.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand you. It seems to me that a "wild, undisciplined" style is the opposite of "expertise". Like I said, I see expertise as a conscious understanding of technique, not necessarily trained but definitely the sort of thing that training imparts. It's all about control, and the barb is all about losing control.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:23PM
#12
|
|
|
I think the ED feature shouldn't be given to spell casters. They already have spells, which is equivalent to their ED dice pools.
This is sort of my line of thinking with regards to the paladin and ranger. Conceptually, I can definitely see them as displaying some fighter-like technique, so expertise dice would make sense. But they're also going to get magic (the paladin definitely, the ranger probably, based on the "old school" design direction we see). So mechanically, I'm not sure that two subsystems on one class is a good idea. It might be unnecessarily complex. Plus, it might also play into the long-standing perception that rangers and paladins are "fighters plus", which I think would be to the fighter's detriment.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:24PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Fighter, Monk, Barbarian .. Good
Rogue .. Ok
I think the ED feature shouldn't be given to spell casters. They already have spells, which is equivalent to their ED dice pools. I'd like to see the Fighter, Monk and Barbarian classes have more ED than the Rogue also. The Rogue has more skills it can call on outside of the the fight. As long as the Rogue's sneak attack gets a boost.
But you're assuming that the caster would have spells and then maybe we give him expertise dice.
What if we give him expertise dice but take away spells? As I describe here in an attempt to allow a Harry-Potter-like wizard.
I would prefer the casters don't use the expertise dice mechanic. That is the point I am trying to make. I can see how a martial class could use expertise dice, but a magic class already has spells and I like that mechanic is it stands. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:27PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I think the ED feature shouldn't be given to spell casters. They already have spells, which is equivalent to their ED dice pools.
This is sort of my line of thinking with regards to the paladin and ranger. Conceptually, I can definitely see them as displaying some fighter-like technique, so expertise dice would make sense. But they're also going to get magic (the paladin definitely, the ranger probably, based on the "old school" design direction we see). So mechanically, I'm not sure that two subsystems on one class is a good idea. It might be unnecessarily complex. Plus, it might also play into the long-standing perception that rangers and paladins are "fighters plus", which I think would be to the fighter's detriment.
I have to agree. I suppose if the game system limited the number of spell features a Ranger and Paladin could obtained, then expertise dice would take over as the main mechanic.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:27PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Seems to me like it needs to be handled the same way spell slots work. Pretty much all the classes do is provide a list of relevant abilities, and maybe a slight implementation tweak.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:33PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The thing expertise dice do is they provide a decent means of access to a list of powers. If they're going to be used anywhere else, then that's how they should be used. If you're going to have a caster type use dice then they'll spend them to cast their spells same way a fighter spends them to use a maneuver. I don't want them to do this. Even so, I think there's scope for more classes to use this mechanic. Basically I want them to use it when it's appropriate for a class to have an encounter based medium to access a menu of abilities, but I want it to be one of many mechanics that do this. edit: got my words mixed up.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:57PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
I think they should be given to all the non-casting classes, well except for the barbarian if they bring that back. The barbarian isn't really about expertise.
Personally, I think they make more sense for the barbarian (wild, undisciplined) than the fighter (trained). Should be used for the sorcerer too, for that matter.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand you. It seems to me that a "wild, undisciplined" style is the opposite of "expertise". Like I said, I see expertise as a conscious understanding of technique, not necessarily trained but definitely the sort of thing that training imparts. It's all about control, and the barb is all about losing control.
I think you're getting too hung up on what the words mean and missing what the mechanic does. Sure, "expertise" implies something that doesn't fit for the barbarian, but "expertise dice" allow you to, get this, build your own attacks on the fly.
Muscle memory being a thing, a soldier who is trained in a specific way (which is to say, a fighter) would tend to have a few fixed techniques with limited application. A fighter is taught how to swing a sword and thus cannot improvise as well as a monkey swinging a stick to obtain a goal. That is the difference: regimented combat style (Tome of Battle) versus Bruce Lee (expertise dice).
On the same token, it works for sorcerers as well. Just call their effects "seeds" instead of maneuvers and you're good to go; each turn, the sorcerer can call on different "seeds" and stick them together to create a spell. Works much better for the idea of spontaneous spellcasting.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 4:01PM
#18
|
|
|
A fighter/mage "gish" class with ED and Maneuvers seems inevitable to me. I really feel like ED have overriden the design goal of "Every class should have its own unique mechanic" and it bugs me a little.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 4:18PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I am working on a module putting XD in the hands of 14 classes both martials and casters. In the module, casters will get a spell overhaul.
My group is anxiously awaiting the draft.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 4:52PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
I don't want to see expertise dice brought into EVERY martial class. Although I can see how the maneuvers differentiate between the classes (the Fighter and the Rogue play very differently at the moment), it just seems like a bit of a pigeonhole. Well, martials get THIS, so how do we implement THIS for THIS class. Rather than, what seems to work the most naturally for the class.
Honestly, for the Rogue, I liked the Sneak Attack and Skill Expertise as class features. Then, I would have loved to have seen ten-minute based resources for their combat maneuvers - which expertise dice would work very well for. This way the Rogue would have felt VERY different to the Fighter - but would still use a similar feature.
This way our core four classes would not seem like a class either has to use spells, expertise dice, or a mixture of a two - and we could end up with very interesting mechanics for other classes.
|
|
|
