|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 11:33PM
#11
|
|
|
The last thing I want to see is more mechanics related to the Expertise and Maneuver system. I am truthfully tired of seeing those mechanics.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 11:41PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
The last thing I want to see is more mechanics related to the Expertise and Maneuver system. I am truthfully tired of seeing those mechanics.
Given that Expertise is now confirmed as, essentially, the new "base attack bonus", I... Well, let's just say you are probably going to get more tired of them.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:09AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I agree with Orzel; however, these new class features need to be balanced against each other. The numbers I parsed for the rogue and fighter at level 10 have a ten point difference in DPR. It's hard to see a class feature tightening the distance. If the rogue has something to tighten the gap; I would assume that something that big (to make up for being 61% effective in relation to another class) would come out for testing sooner than later. In addition, adding something to the fighter just means something even bigger needs to be added to the rogue... But then, a 10th level rogue can regularly break a DC 30 (on average) check (with DC 25 being nearly impossible)...
I agree though. The fighter needs stuff to give it a good flavor. However, I would want these additions to promote more broad concepts. I would like to see a tactical, brutish, defensive, mobile and ranged concepts.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:53AM
#14
|
|
|
The last thing I want to see is more mechanics related to the Expertise and Maneuver system. I am truthfully tired of seeing those mechanics.
Given that Expertise is now confirmed as, essentially, the new "base attack bonus", I... Well, let's just say you are probably going to get more tired of them.
Pretty much applies to the entirety of my D&D experience.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:16AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I personally liked the previous playtest more with the ED-less rogue. If they just made Sneak Attack based on scheme (low damage SA for thugs and High damage SA for thieves) I'd stand ED more.
Having Maneuvers do all the differentiation feels hollow.
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!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:20AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I personally liked the previous playtest more with the ED-less rogue. If they just made Sneak Attack based on scheme (low damage SA for thugs and High damage SA for thieves) I'd stand ED more. Having Maneuvers do all the differentiation feels hollow.
Agreed, though I actually don't mind the monk having ED. I think it's 'cause in my mind the line between a monk and a fighter is very fine.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:38AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Crazy Idea.
What if each scheme makes you into either a facsimile of a previous rogue or a weakened version of another class.
Assassin: Huge damage but Situational Sneak attack rogue.
Thug: Big damage flank and spank 4e-style rogue
Rake/Thief: Fighter-lite rogue with maneuvers
Charlatan/Trickster: Wizard-lite rogue arcane trickster wannabe
Acrobat: Medium damage skirmish style backflipper.
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!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:51AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
The page says "Fighting Style"
I see "Pick a maneuver"
The pages says "Scheme"
I see "Pick 4 skills and a maneuver"
The schemes and styles of the previous playtest had a better feeling to me. Each scheme made the rogue play differently and the class feature greatly changed how the rogue fought. The same with the fighting styles with fighters but to a lesser state.
Now 3 classes have expertise dice. Fighting styles and schemes are just prepackages of skills and maneuvers.
How about fighting styles and schemes being actual class features that matter?
Do you think Schemes and Fighting Styles should have a mechanical aspect?
if yes, what should they be?
For fighters, I think each fighting style should let you perform their level 1 maneuver for free. Essentially a Slayer never pays for Glancing blow. The Duelist can spam Spring Attack. The Protector doesn't paid for Protect. And as Mike Mearls requested, the Veteran doesn;t have to track ED for Parry.
For rogues. each scheme should let the rogue... do something. Like make a skill check to gain advantage.
This i can totally get behind, especially the fighter idea (though parry for free is pretty crazy). I still say that the thieves tools feature should be nested in the thief scheme (and it shouldn't be required in order to pick locks it should just give a bonus to the checks lik +1). Maybe there could be some kind of assassin scheme that gives sized up daggers, shortswords, and hand crossbows. the acrobat could get an ability that allows them to move through battle without provoking attacks (not a maneuver but like something related to making tumble checks as part of a move to straight disallow oportunity attacks). Stuff like that
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:02AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2009
|
The page says "Fighting Style"
I see "Pick a maneuver"
The pages says "Scheme"
I see "Pick 4 skills and a maneuver"
The schemes and styles of the previous playtest had a better feeling to me. Each scheme made the rogue play differently and the class feature greatly changed how the rogue fought. The same with the fighting styles with fighters but to a lesser state.
Now 3 classes have expertise dice. Fighting styles and schemes are just prepackages of skills and maneuvers.
How about fighting styles and schemes being actual class features that matter?
Do you think Schemes and Fighting Styles should have a mechanical aspect?
if yes, what should they be?
I agree wholeheartedly, both in regards to styles/schemes and even further in regard to specialties. These abilities need to have something that make them more than just packages of manuevers and feats. Deities and Traditions both grant an extra class feature of some kind that are distinct from spells, so I think Schemes and Styles should grant extra class features that are distinct from maneuvers.
For the Fighter, the Duelist Style could bump up the damage die of rapiers and grant an extra 5' of movement, the Protector could have some kind of Marking ability, the Sharpshooter could bump up the damage die of ranged weapons (elven sharpshooters with longbows would be SCARY... as they should be), the Slayer could reclaim its STR-damage-on-a-miss ability, and the Veteran could have its XD refresh at both the start AND end of its turn.
On the Rogue end, the Schemes should build around using signature skills to generate Advantage, since IMO exploiting circumstances to generate an unfair advantage is nearly as iconic to the rogue concept as skills are. The Acrobat could get Advantage following a successful Tumble check. The Enforcer could do the same, but with an Intimidate check instead. The Rake can do it with a flashy display of flourishes and feints, so he'd use Bluff. The Thief should always have Advantage when using their Thieves' Tools and Sneak attempts. Tricksters would use Sleight-of-Hand. At later levels, the Schemes would offer special class features that require Advantage to function (a la Sneak Attack).
I think you're on to something here. I honestly really like all the suggestions you gave - couldn't have given better suggestions if I tried. ^ ^ I also liked Orzel's idea of the level 1 maneuvers getting free ED - would be too bad if the two of those were combined?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:23AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
Let me just play Negative Nancy here and say I'm not extremely fond of the idea of extra traits to Schemes.
I like Fighting Styles / Schemes / Traditions / Domains to be mix & match, so that a player can create his/her version of a fighter. you kind of think of it Maneuvers are supposed to be pick & choose class features / powers and that is a very good thing.
Making choices through maneuvers (and feats) makes it possible without having to add extra traits that make the game ever more complicated and ever harder to balance. I think this is exactly the problem with Traditions and Deities. They are inflexible, not easy to tamper with if you want something unique and have enormous balancing problems.
I fully agree that Rogue feels like a bad version of the fighter. But IMHO adding extra traits is not the solution - making original maneuvers and a different mechanic to deploy them is.
|
|
|
