There's not much to say about the Wizard, at least not without discussing individuals spells in more detail than I'd like to. Spells, and having the most versatile and powerful spell list in particular, is the bulk of the Wizard's schtick. Wizards can simply bend the laws of reality more than a Cleric or Druid, despite the fact that those two classes have plenty of spells that are comparable. They just don't seem to have such a vast array of potential offensive options as the Wizard. Plus being able to recover spell slots gives them more daily resources, a distinction that only the Circle of Oak Druid shares with them. It's pretty clear that the designers put a lot of stock into this ability if you consider the Druid. Assuming thought was put into balancing Circle of Oak with Circle of the Moon, since this spell recovery ability is largely what replaces the combat-ready Wild Shape forms. I'm actually not convinced, as I think Circle of the Moon is the better choice, with the spell recovery feature being a little underwhelming. Which puts a major class feature of the Wizard in the "underwhelming" column as well.
Other than that, the Wizard traditions are the only other thing that the class gets. Unfortunately, only Illusion is particularly impressive. The Scholarly tradition lets you prepare an extra spell at each spell level, and lets you learn more spells when you level. But your raw power isn't boosted since you still have the same number of spell slots as any other wizard. You're just a little more versatile, so you'll probably feel a little better about preparing one of those situational utility spells. Evocation lets you designate creatures (read: allies) to ignore the damage from your AoEs, which is awesome for spells like Fireball. Of course those spells are traditionally less valuable than control spells, and then you've got the spells that are a combination of damage and status effects (Evocation doesn't allow allies to ignore a spells non-damage effects). Some of the most iconic "evocation" spells fall into this category (sleet storm, stinking cloud). Finally, we're given the Illusion tradition, which is easily the best of the bunch. Not only to Illusion spells typically offer some of the most powerful control effects, but the tradition's signature ability boosts the DCs to resist such spells by two (which is the equivalent of a +2 attack bonus; pretty impressive in a Bounded Accuracy system!).
The biggest problem is that an individual tradition pretty much just grants one ability. Compare that with other spellcasters: Druid Circles are roughly comparable to Wizard Traditions, but Druids also get Wild Shape and are far less squishy; Cleric deities grant channel divinity, a specific "Disciple of..." ability, domain spells, and sometimes different armor/weapon proficiencies (and once again the Cleric is far less squishy than the Wizard.
So "the spell list makes the Wizard," since Wizards appear to have a better spell list (though this is arguable, and would need playtesting to verify) and fewer useful class features. Where I foresee running into problems is for spellcasting classes that are traditionally similar to the Wizard, notably Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bladesingers. Sorcerers and Bladesingers in particular have shared the Wizard spell list outright, but both classes have a lot of potential for features well beyond the Wizard traditions. The problem, obviously, is that if Wizards don't have much outside of their spell list, then there's not much that the designers can "trade out" when designing (and balancing!) similar classes.
Like Druids and Clerics, I can foresee most of the other spellcasters just being flat-out more interesting than the base Wizard. Whereas those classes have "spell list + a bunch of cool stuff," Wizards have "spell list + weak, tacked on stuff" and they're much squishier to boot. Even if I'm right about the Wizard spell list being better (which might be justifiable from a balance perspective), it's a bad solution to the problem. What if a Wizard player doesn't choose the right mix of spells, or the best spells? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, what happens when new spells are released and the inevitable power creep ensues? Hint - Wizards (spellcasters in general) become more effective than martial classes.
I guess the main things I'm taking away from this initial reading is that the designers need to tread carefully, and Wizard traditions should be more comparable to the features that other classes get. Just like "better armor/weapons" isn't a good way to balance Fighters against classes with more "interesting" features, "better spells" is a bad way to go about balancing Wizards with other classes (albeit for somewhat different reasons).
Sunday, April 14, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Cleric
I'll be honest - the momentum of the playtest packet has waned, and so goes my interest. But I'd like to complete this series on my impressions. So here's the Cleric.
Spellcasting
The basic framework behind the Cleric is extremely solid. By virtue of its being a spellcasting class it's inherently customizable. Prepare whatever spells you want to achieve a specific playstyle. The spells themselves are pretty much what you'd expect, so I won't get into specific details here. One thing that bears mentioning is that I'm not too happy about how important magical healing is, but I admit that that's personal preference. I have players in my group that are of the opposite opinion. That's what compromising is for (besides, I doubt there's anybody that likes every single element of any one game).
More important (at least in my opinion) is that the Cleric isn't relegated to "necessary" status. Fortunately, that's not the case. As you'd expect the Druid is another "full caster" that has ample healing, and given the increased spellcasting ability of Paladins and Rangers compared with past editions and Clerics are hardly necessary. Indeed, to compare the state of available healing with 4E it's worth noting that so far we have a class from each of the four roles that can heal, even if the classes aren't quite as married to those roles (i.e. Druid isn't necessarily a controller in Next). This is a good sign, because it suggests that as other "Leader" classes are designed they're likely to have more than enough healing to get by. If a Ranger specced for healing can do a decent job of keeping the party up, I'm sure a Bard, Shaman, or Warlord would be more than capable.
Because ultimately spreading magical healing out amongst a wide variety of different archetypes makes magical healing as a critical party function a much easier pill to swallow.
Deities
Something that I've seen suggested a lot since these playtest packets have been released is making deities an important aspect of a Cleric's playstyle. This packet really delivers on that front, with deities possibly affecting armor proficiency, what cantrips you automatically get, what domain spells are "auto-prepared," and what Channel Divinity options you have access to. Who you worship has a big impact on how you're built.
Now, I've complained about the lack of customization for some of the classes in that your choice of "build" at level 1 determines pretty much everything you get. The Rogue is especially bad for this. While that's essentially what choosing a deity does for the Cleric, there are some important differences to keep in mind. The most obvious (and one that I already mentioned earlier) is that Clerics will still be customizable regardless because they can choose to prepare whatever spells they want. Defensive buffing, offensive buffing, healing, control, utility, etc., you have a pretty broad spectrum available to you. But the other major difference is that having so much decided based on deity is more desirable than Rogue schemes (for example) because there's a strong tie to the game world. In other words, Clerics get their power from the gods so it makes sense that a god of Trickery is going to give the Cleric a specific set of specialized abilities that are different from a Sun god. From a narrative standpoint it also reinforces a player's choice of deity, keeping it in the spotlight. The deity is important to the Cleric (in the game world), and so it's important to the player.
It makes a lot LESS sense for a Rogue to ALWAYS have all of their abilities lumped in specific "packages."
The deities themselves are pretty generic, keeping them open to be fit into any pantheon. This also opens the players up to seizing narrative control by making up their own details about the pantheon. As a DM I prefer leaving this stuff up to players, and I'd rather have them fill in the narrative blanks as opposed to simply picking a god out of a list.
I like the choices that are given. The Arcanist allows for an "arcane dabbler" type Cleric, the Lifegiver is the healbot, the Lightbringer is the "laser Cleric" or white mage archetype, the Protector is a defender/defensive support option, the Reaper is your death god (awesome, because The Raven Queen was quite popular in a lot of 4E groups), then you've got the Stormcaller (your typical flinging lightning, bow before Zeus type guy), the Trickster (Rogue-lite, but with spells!), and the Warbringer (the martial "crusader" Cleric with the best armor and weapons).
Religious Knowledge
A minor point, but Advantages on all Int checks to recall religious lore establishes the Clerics as the go-to guy when it comes to that sort of thing, despite a (likely) minimal investment in Int.
Spellcasting
The basic framework behind the Cleric is extremely solid. By virtue of its being a spellcasting class it's inherently customizable. Prepare whatever spells you want to achieve a specific playstyle. The spells themselves are pretty much what you'd expect, so I won't get into specific details here. One thing that bears mentioning is that I'm not too happy about how important magical healing is, but I admit that that's personal preference. I have players in my group that are of the opposite opinion. That's what compromising is for (besides, I doubt there's anybody that likes every single element of any one game).
More important (at least in my opinion) is that the Cleric isn't relegated to "necessary" status. Fortunately, that's not the case. As you'd expect the Druid is another "full caster" that has ample healing, and given the increased spellcasting ability of Paladins and Rangers compared with past editions and Clerics are hardly necessary. Indeed, to compare the state of available healing with 4E it's worth noting that so far we have a class from each of the four roles that can heal, even if the classes aren't quite as married to those roles (i.e. Druid isn't necessarily a controller in Next). This is a good sign, because it suggests that as other "Leader" classes are designed they're likely to have more than enough healing to get by. If a Ranger specced for healing can do a decent job of keeping the party up, I'm sure a Bard, Shaman, or Warlord would be more than capable.
Because ultimately spreading magical healing out amongst a wide variety of different archetypes makes magical healing as a critical party function a much easier pill to swallow.
Deities
Something that I've seen suggested a lot since these playtest packets have been released is making deities an important aspect of a Cleric's playstyle. This packet really delivers on that front, with deities possibly affecting armor proficiency, what cantrips you automatically get, what domain spells are "auto-prepared," and what Channel Divinity options you have access to. Who you worship has a big impact on how you're built.
Now, I've complained about the lack of customization for some of the classes in that your choice of "build" at level 1 determines pretty much everything you get. The Rogue is especially bad for this. While that's essentially what choosing a deity does for the Cleric, there are some important differences to keep in mind. The most obvious (and one that I already mentioned earlier) is that Clerics will still be customizable regardless because they can choose to prepare whatever spells they want. Defensive buffing, offensive buffing, healing, control, utility, etc., you have a pretty broad spectrum available to you. But the other major difference is that having so much decided based on deity is more desirable than Rogue schemes (for example) because there's a strong tie to the game world. In other words, Clerics get their power from the gods so it makes sense that a god of Trickery is going to give the Cleric a specific set of specialized abilities that are different from a Sun god. From a narrative standpoint it also reinforces a player's choice of deity, keeping it in the spotlight. The deity is important to the Cleric (in the game world), and so it's important to the player.
It makes a lot LESS sense for a Rogue to ALWAYS have all of their abilities lumped in specific "packages."
The deities themselves are pretty generic, keeping them open to be fit into any pantheon. This also opens the players up to seizing narrative control by making up their own details about the pantheon. As a DM I prefer leaving this stuff up to players, and I'd rather have them fill in the narrative blanks as opposed to simply picking a god out of a list.
I like the choices that are given. The Arcanist allows for an "arcane dabbler" type Cleric, the Lifegiver is the healbot, the Lightbringer is the "laser Cleric" or white mage archetype, the Protector is a defender/defensive support option, the Reaper is your death god (awesome, because The Raven Queen was quite popular in a lot of 4E groups), then you've got the Stormcaller (your typical flinging lightning, bow before Zeus type guy), the Trickster (Rogue-lite, but with spells!), and the Warbringer (the martial "crusader" Cleric with the best armor and weapons).
Religious Knowledge
A minor point, but Advantages on all Int checks to recall religious lore establishes the Clerics as the go-to guy when it comes to that sort of thing, despite a (likely) minimal investment in Int.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Monk
My first impression of the Monk is that it doesn't look customizable enough. Really the only thing that makes it special, the thing that differentiates it from a Fighter in play, is the Monastic Traditions. I like that there's a good mix of the more mundane martial arts as well as elemental attacks, but the fact that you make one choice at character creation which determines ALL of your special powers for the rest of your career just grates at me. Choose Path of the Phoenix, you're the Fire Guy. You won't be throwing around Stunning Strike or healing yourself with Wholeness of Body. You're just...pigeonholed.
The per day limits on ki are also a bit annoying. It's these abilities that will make you "feel" like a Monk in combat, and you just don't get to throw them around often enough. Spellcasters get cantrips now that make them feel like spellcasters, why can't Monks get something like that? There's nothing here that conveys the feeling of that crazy guy without weapons fluidly darting around the battlefield hitting large numbers of foes.
Granted, he IS unarmed. But the martial arts playstyle is just fluff. His fists count as a d6 light, finesse, bludgeoning weapon, but he basically just walks up to guys and hits them, kinda like a Fighter. Except that even this incarnation of the Fighter gets his Expertise dice, which being an encounter resource will get a lot of "screen time." Meanwhile the Monk, with his daily ki limit, is going to be encouraged to "save" his big powers and playing that resource management metagame doesn't seem even remotely appropriate for a martial artist. He should be showy and fight in a distinctive way. Right now he's just "walk up to a guy and hit them until one of you dies" the vast majority of the time.
About the only thing this version of the Monk gets right (at least out of the gate) is Mindful Defense, which is the same basic mechanic that the Barbarian gets to make up for the fact that he's not wearing armor. Predictably, the Monk gets to add his Dex and Wis mod to AC.
Other than that it's your typical array of stuff Monks got in 3.x. Almost every level has something new, but they vary A LOT in terms of usefulness. Immunity to disease and poison are pretty situational, immunity to aging will have exactly zero impact in 95% of campaigns, understanding all languages comes out of left field, and Perfect Self is just so overpowered and nonsensical it borders on ridiculous (at 20th level, all of your abilities that aren't already 20 increase to 20, so your 8 Int dunce magically becomes a genius just because he's reached some form of nirvana). Abundant Step is just about the only one that screams "Awesome!" though; it's an at-will ability that allows you to exchange your movement to teleport 30 feet. So at-will teleporting at 12th Level definitely gives the class an edge, but it's still not the "martial artist" kind of mobility I'd expect from the class.
A swing and a miss on this one.
The per day limits on ki are also a bit annoying. It's these abilities that will make you "feel" like a Monk in combat, and you just don't get to throw them around often enough. Spellcasters get cantrips now that make them feel like spellcasters, why can't Monks get something like that? There's nothing here that conveys the feeling of that crazy guy without weapons fluidly darting around the battlefield hitting large numbers of foes.
Granted, he IS unarmed. But the martial arts playstyle is just fluff. His fists count as a d6 light, finesse, bludgeoning weapon, but he basically just walks up to guys and hits them, kinda like a Fighter. Except that even this incarnation of the Fighter gets his Expertise dice, which being an encounter resource will get a lot of "screen time." Meanwhile the Monk, with his daily ki limit, is going to be encouraged to "save" his big powers and playing that resource management metagame doesn't seem even remotely appropriate for a martial artist. He should be showy and fight in a distinctive way. Right now he's just "walk up to a guy and hit them until one of you dies" the vast majority of the time.
About the only thing this version of the Monk gets right (at least out of the gate) is Mindful Defense, which is the same basic mechanic that the Barbarian gets to make up for the fact that he's not wearing armor. Predictably, the Monk gets to add his Dex and Wis mod to AC.
Other than that it's your typical array of stuff Monks got in 3.x. Almost every level has something new, but they vary A LOT in terms of usefulness. Immunity to disease and poison are pretty situational, immunity to aging will have exactly zero impact in 95% of campaigns, understanding all languages comes out of left field, and Perfect Self is just so overpowered and nonsensical it borders on ridiculous (at 20th level, all of your abilities that aren't already 20 increase to 20, so your 8 Int dunce magically becomes a genius just because he's reached some form of nirvana). Abundant Step is just about the only one that screams "Awesome!" though; it's an at-will ability that allows you to exchange your movement to teleport 30 feet. So at-will teleporting at 12th Level definitely gives the class an edge, but it's still not the "martial artist" kind of mobility I'd expect from the class.
A swing and a miss on this one.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Rogue
The thing that jumps out at me most with this iteration of the Rogue is that it doesn't cater to a wide enough array of tastes. The Rogue has traditionally occupied a wide spectrum, with near-uselessness in combat (but the only guy that got skills!) on one end, and an extremely deadly skirmisher (at the top tier of damage output) under a combat-parity paradigm at the other. I had to check all the way back to the August 2012 packet for the last version of the Rogue that I remembered. As unpolished as it was, the Thief vs Thug dynamic is what I'd assumed from the Rogue in Next. The out-of-combat utility monkey AND the dirty tricks version of the Fighter, along with everything in between.
Rogue Schemes
The schemes still have the potential to bring back that spectrum into one class in the same game, but not if they're written as rigidly as they are in this packet. Which is a tough line to walk, because this rigid structure is more foolproof in terms of game balance. Every scheme gets two free skills, and then three bonus feats. Unfortunately, like my problem with Fighters and maneuvers, the mess of a feats system in this current packet invariably affects the Rogue. Many of these bonus feats are just more skills with a new name, and from a different resource pool. It's unnecessary.
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that skirmisher types have feat support in Next, but the Rogue doesn't get much of it for free. Tumbling Movement is a start (2 schemes get that), but no Spring Attack? I suppose one could make the argument that Spring Attack is a more powerful choice than the feats in the Expert category, but if that's the case then it just shows that the feat balance game has already failed. Choices taken from the same pool of resources should be roughly comparable. Otherwise you end up with the dreaded trap feats. Those usually become more apparent after feat bloat has set in, but it's already a problem even with a relatively short list of feats in this playtest!
Ultimately, this Rogue fails at providing me with what I want from a combat Rogue out of the box - a highly mobile skirmisher that can reliably pull off hit-and-run tactics. Yes the Rogue needs this functionality if they plan on going into melee. Otherwise their leather-armor-wearing, low HP butts are going to be toast.
Finally, every scheme gives you a way to generate Advantage for yourself in combat. There's Backstab, which gives it to you when you gang up on an enemy (when an ally is adjacent to the target), Isolated Strike does the opposite (no creatures hostile to the target adjacent), and finally Tumbling Strike (easily the worst of the bunch) gives you Advantage if you started your turn 20+ feet from the target.
Backstab is the best option for a skirmisher playstyle (the enemy is deterred from chasing you down if your friend is threatening them with an opportunity attack), but the two schemes that best represent that playstyle mechanically (i.e. those with Tumbling Movement) don't get it. Awesome, Spring Attack has just become a feat tax if that's how you want to play. Isolated Strike will be the go-to option for your sniper Rogue; melee Rogues that go this route would do well to focus on enemies weaker than themselves. Mopping up the riffraff that everyone else is content to save for later, after the real threats have been eliminated. And Tumbling Strike just forces you into NOT focus firing. And opens you up to the most opportunity attacks, to boot (sure, they're made with Disadvantage, but if you're provoking them every single turn they'll catch up to you pretty quickly). It could be made much more viable by reducing the movement requirement down to 10 feet. That way at least a Spring Attack Rogue stands a chance of avoiding OAs and possibly even attacking the same guy two turns in a row.
Sneak Attack
This just might be the most unintuitive, convoluted version of sneak attack I've ever read. If you don't have Disadvantage already, you can apply your sneak attack damage by making the attack with Disadvantage. Oooookay. From a game balance perspective it actually works out somewhat well. You'll only use Sneak Attack if you manage to snag Advantage, which will cancel out the Disadvantage. So by using Backstab, Isolated Strike, and Tumbling Strike you're really applying your Sneak Attack damage (in a really roundabout way) as a normal attack, but the door's still open for using Sneak Attack if you can get Advantage in some other way.
Cool, easy to attain Sneak Attack damage, yeah? Yeah!? Sure, but the price you pay is that you're still pretty bad at combat. If an ally has some way of giving you Advantage then great, you don't have to jump through your hoops to get Sneak Attack damage, but you're still less accurate than pretty much everyone else because they'll actually be USING that Advantage. And since Advantage doesn't stack, even if you have it from multiple sources your Sneak Attack dice will always cancel it out. In other words, YOU CAN NEVER USE ADVANTAGE AS A ROGUE. Well, at least not if you're "spending" it to trigger sneak attack. Doesn't quite fit the image of a guy who doesn't fight fair.
And no, dealing a little more damage than the Fighter (maybe; if he's got a big weapon you might be about even with him) isn't worth giving up that accuracy. Because the tradeoff SHOULD be that you're dealing more damage because you're much, much squishier. If I'm playing a squishy character I better be getting something awfully cool in return. Some people might be satisfied with "more skills!" (and admittedly I'll occasionally play such a character), but more often than not what they want is more offense. The assassin archetype of the guy who can damn near one-hit kill guys he takes by surprise.
Distract
Oh come on! Giving up your next action AND a reaction to halve the damage of an enemy's attack? This COULD have been that Feature-That-Compensates-For-Your-Squishiness, but alas, it's just a Bad Idea. Especially if you're trying to fill that striker role your action should be among the best in the party for killing things faster, and killing things faster prevents those things from getting a turn in the first place.
You're basically telling the monster that for the next turn, you might as well be a common housecat (unless they're still capable of one-shotting first level Wizards; then maybe the housecat is more dangerous). You won't be attacking, and you can't even make an opportunity attack if they move away.
Now it does have its uses, situational though they may be. A really big opponent trying to land a solid hit on your Wizard who wants to use any flavor of the Make Him Go Away spell is probably worth a use of Distract. You weren't going to kill him anyways, but if you can keep the Wizard in the fight long enough for him to take the enemy out of the fight then the tide can be turned. Assuming you happen to be standing next to the Wizard and in melee with a big, dangerous opponent, that is. Situational is right.
More likely you're just delaying the inevitable, with the number far from being in your favor. Lets look at two rounds, assuming you're fighting an opponent of roughly equal strength (a duel, perhaps), where you both have the same average damage per round (DPR). DPR is a calculation that accounts for average damage on a miss, hit, and crit. It's not something that you'll ever see in-play; rather it's a value that stands in for all of the probabilities involved with attacking. The following example can certainly be tipped in the Rogue's favor if his attack crits but the Enemy's second attack misses, but over the course of a large sample size those variances get smoothed out into something that looks a lot more like the DPR.
Round 1: Rogue attacks, deals DPR.
Round 1: Enemy attacks, Rogue used Distract, Enemy deals half DPR.
Round 2: Rogue sits there, because Distract takes away his action.
Round 2: Enemy attacks, deals DPR.
Totals: Rogue has dealt damage equal to DPR, Enemy has dealt damage equal to 1.5(DPR)
It gets even less favorable when you consider the limitation in tactical options. If Rogue wants to run away he'll risk taking even more damage from an opportunity attack (even if he has Tumbling Movement there's still a chance that it might hit him). But if Enemy wants to run away, he can do so freely.
This does NOT compensate for the Rogue's squishiness. This is something that you'll use when an Enemy crits you, and you hope that the dice gods impart less luck onto him next round because taking that risk is better than being unconscious on the ground. But you'll probably end up that way anyways.
Rogue Schemes
The schemes still have the potential to bring back that spectrum into one class in the same game, but not if they're written as rigidly as they are in this packet. Which is a tough line to walk, because this rigid structure is more foolproof in terms of game balance. Every scheme gets two free skills, and then three bonus feats. Unfortunately, like my problem with Fighters and maneuvers, the mess of a feats system in this current packet invariably affects the Rogue. Many of these bonus feats are just more skills with a new name, and from a different resource pool. It's unnecessary.
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that skirmisher types have feat support in Next, but the Rogue doesn't get much of it for free. Tumbling Movement is a start (2 schemes get that), but no Spring Attack? I suppose one could make the argument that Spring Attack is a more powerful choice than the feats in the Expert category, but if that's the case then it just shows that the feat balance game has already failed. Choices taken from the same pool of resources should be roughly comparable. Otherwise you end up with the dreaded trap feats. Those usually become more apparent after feat bloat has set in, but it's already a problem even with a relatively short list of feats in this playtest!
Ultimately, this Rogue fails at providing me with what I want from a combat Rogue out of the box - a highly mobile skirmisher that can reliably pull off hit-and-run tactics. Yes the Rogue needs this functionality if they plan on going into melee. Otherwise their leather-armor-wearing, low HP butts are going to be toast.
Finally, every scheme gives you a way to generate Advantage for yourself in combat. There's Backstab, which gives it to you when you gang up on an enemy (when an ally is adjacent to the target), Isolated Strike does the opposite (no creatures hostile to the target adjacent), and finally Tumbling Strike (easily the worst of the bunch) gives you Advantage if you started your turn 20+ feet from the target.
Backstab is the best option for a skirmisher playstyle (the enemy is deterred from chasing you down if your friend is threatening them with an opportunity attack), but the two schemes that best represent that playstyle mechanically (i.e. those with Tumbling Movement) don't get it. Awesome, Spring Attack has just become a feat tax if that's how you want to play. Isolated Strike will be the go-to option for your sniper Rogue; melee Rogues that go this route would do well to focus on enemies weaker than themselves. Mopping up the riffraff that everyone else is content to save for later, after the real threats have been eliminated. And Tumbling Strike just forces you into NOT focus firing. And opens you up to the most opportunity attacks, to boot (sure, they're made with Disadvantage, but if you're provoking them every single turn they'll catch up to you pretty quickly). It could be made much more viable by reducing the movement requirement down to 10 feet. That way at least a Spring Attack Rogue stands a chance of avoiding OAs and possibly even attacking the same guy two turns in a row.
Sneak Attack
This just might be the most unintuitive, convoluted version of sneak attack I've ever read. If you don't have Disadvantage already, you can apply your sneak attack damage by making the attack with Disadvantage. Oooookay. From a game balance perspective it actually works out somewhat well. You'll only use Sneak Attack if you manage to snag Advantage, which will cancel out the Disadvantage. So by using Backstab, Isolated Strike, and Tumbling Strike you're really applying your Sneak Attack damage (in a really roundabout way) as a normal attack, but the door's still open for using Sneak Attack if you can get Advantage in some other way.
Cool, easy to attain Sneak Attack damage, yeah? Yeah!? Sure, but the price you pay is that you're still pretty bad at combat. If an ally has some way of giving you Advantage then great, you don't have to jump through your hoops to get Sneak Attack damage, but you're still less accurate than pretty much everyone else because they'll actually be USING that Advantage. And since Advantage doesn't stack, even if you have it from multiple sources your Sneak Attack dice will always cancel it out. In other words, YOU CAN NEVER USE ADVANTAGE AS A ROGUE. Well, at least not if you're "spending" it to trigger sneak attack. Doesn't quite fit the image of a guy who doesn't fight fair.
And no, dealing a little more damage than the Fighter (maybe; if he's got a big weapon you might be about even with him) isn't worth giving up that accuracy. Because the tradeoff SHOULD be that you're dealing more damage because you're much, much squishier. If I'm playing a squishy character I better be getting something awfully cool in return. Some people might be satisfied with "more skills!" (and admittedly I'll occasionally play such a character), but more often than not what they want is more offense. The assassin archetype of the guy who can damn near one-hit kill guys he takes by surprise.
Distract
Oh come on! Giving up your next action AND a reaction to halve the damage of an enemy's attack? This COULD have been that Feature-That-Compensates-For-Your-Squishiness, but alas, it's just a Bad Idea. Especially if you're trying to fill that striker role your action should be among the best in the party for killing things faster, and killing things faster prevents those things from getting a turn in the first place.
You're basically telling the monster that for the next turn, you might as well be a common housecat (unless they're still capable of one-shotting first level Wizards; then maybe the housecat is more dangerous). You won't be attacking, and you can't even make an opportunity attack if they move away.
Now it does have its uses, situational though they may be. A really big opponent trying to land a solid hit on your Wizard who wants to use any flavor of the Make Him Go Away spell is probably worth a use of Distract. You weren't going to kill him anyways, but if you can keep the Wizard in the fight long enough for him to take the enemy out of the fight then the tide can be turned. Assuming you happen to be standing next to the Wizard and in melee with a big, dangerous opponent, that is. Situational is right.
More likely you're just delaying the inevitable, with the number far from being in your favor. Lets look at two rounds, assuming you're fighting an opponent of roughly equal strength (a duel, perhaps), where you both have the same average damage per round (DPR). DPR is a calculation that accounts for average damage on a miss, hit, and crit. It's not something that you'll ever see in-play; rather it's a value that stands in for all of the probabilities involved with attacking. The following example can certainly be tipped in the Rogue's favor if his attack crits but the Enemy's second attack misses, but over the course of a large sample size those variances get smoothed out into something that looks a lot more like the DPR.
Round 1: Rogue attacks, deals DPR.
Round 1: Enemy attacks, Rogue used Distract, Enemy deals half DPR.
Round 2: Rogue sits there, because Distract takes away his action.
Round 2: Enemy attacks, deals DPR.
Totals: Rogue has dealt damage equal to DPR, Enemy has dealt damage equal to 1.5(DPR)
It gets even less favorable when you consider the limitation in tactical options. If Rogue wants to run away he'll risk taking even more damage from an opportunity attack (even if he has Tumbling Movement there's still a chance that it might hit him). But if Enemy wants to run away, he can do so freely.
This does NOT compensate for the Rogue's squishiness. This is something that you'll use when an Enemy crits you, and you hope that the dice gods impart less luck onto him next round because taking that risk is better than being unconscious on the ground. But you'll probably end up that way anyways.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - Exploration
I'll start off by referring you to this thread on RPG.net, which inspired me to write about Exploration next. It also inspired me to convert the rules to 13th Age, which highlights one of the mechanic's strengths - it's fairly edition-neutral. My "conversion" was mostly condensing all of the information so that it would only take up a single page. Really the only changes I made were:
It's tough for me to not reflexively compare these exploration rules with the Journey rules from The One Ring, which I purchased a little over a year ago. Those rules are probably the most well-designed of any exploration mechanic that I've encountered in a tabletop RPG. One of my favorite aspects of these rules is how well they balances light and heavy armor. A character with a high Fatigue rating can be made Weary very quickly, and that results in a significant decrease in overall effectiveness. In short, it definitely pays to travel light, with lighter armor having an edge unless you're defending a fortified location (and thus unlikely to accumulate travel Fatigue, and with ample opportunity to get bed rest).
Unfortunately, there's really not a good way to replicate that in D&D. Part of the reason why this works is that heavy armor in TOR just gives you more protection against Wounds, with most hits simply dealing Endurance damage. Your stance also determines how hard you are to hit; a lightly armored character in defensive stance can be pretty hard to touch most of the time, even if he is susceptible to a lucky hit.
In D&D your AC is just your AC, and based on whether you're expected to be in melee combat it's usually assumed to be a certain value. Case in point is Barbarians, who don't wear heavy armor, instead having a class feature that buffs up their AC roughly to parity. Tweaking with armor can throw combat assumptions really out of whack. It's also tougher to emulate Weary as presented in TOR; ignoring low rolls out of a dice pool still allows a lucky character to function at full effectiveness, whereas numeric penalties don't accomplish this. Instead of simply being less likely to succeed, your ceiling actually drops.
Finally, the hardships of the journey simply isn't a major focus of D&D. TOR has those mechanics because it's a huge theme in Tolkien's works. A huge theme in D&D is looting. Fatigue would work inconsistently in such a system by punishing it early on, making it trivial once you grab yourself a Bag of Holding, and punishing those classes who need to wear heavy armor in order to be effective.
That said, while the existing mechanics don't offer any obvious suggestion for a Fatigue system, I wouldn't mind an optional module being offered as part of an "advanced" exploration package.
Despite these rules lacking my favorite feature from TOR, I do really like them. One thing they do better than TOR is emphasize navigation in a more structured way. The d4 roll is a simple and effective way of adjudicating how lost a party gets, and the tradeoffs of the different Travel Paces give the players a lot to consider. Though I usually don't bother in my games, tracking Rations would be desirable to generate enough pressure to temp players into choosing faster paces. Encounters that deplete rations (They got spoiled in a swamp! Raccoons rifled through your packs at night!) likewise have more of an impact, perhaps being enough to completely change the goals of the PCs. Even without Rations though, Wandering Monsters might be enough of an impetus to travel quickly, especially in dangerous areas. The more quickly you cover a given distance, the fewer encounters you'll generate.
The granularity in the time scale is a nice touch, and feels like a logical expansion of the 6 second combat turn. It provides enough structure for long-distance exploration to provide meaningful choice without being too stifling. It's tough to wing it for things like travel pace, and usually my players will say something to the effect of "I'm going as fast as I reasonably can while still doing X." Great, but without a baseline I'm forced to improvise, and the players usually try to tweak their wording to get more of a benefit or eliminate tradeoffs. I think these exploration rules hit the sweet spot in codifying that baseline enough to generate predictable results and provide meaningful choices, all without being too crunchy to become unwieldy or to stifle flexibility.
Finally, the very existence of these rules - the fact that space was dedicated to exploration - is a signal to players that it won't be a waste to invest in it, and more importantly gets them thinking about it ahead of time. On the other side of the screen, because they're there, written down, DMs might be more likely to put some focus on exploration. Sometimes "it takes you 3 days to get there" just isn't very satisfying.
- replacing the Readiness DCs with the standard tier-based 13th Age DCs
- adjusting the max distance per 1 day turn to better reflect my real-world experience as a backpacker (increasing mileage)
- requiring an Int check for mapmaking to grant the navigator a -5 to the DC
- clarifying Searching as an umbrella term for hunting, tracking, exploring, etc.
- adding the option to make a Con OR Wis check when attempting multiple actions (depending on the nature of the second action)
- and finally adding a d8 roll to determine random encounter difficult in lieu of a specific wandering monster chart (1-2 is an easy encounter, 7-8 is probably too tough to take on, and the rest is a balanced encounter).
_______________________________________
It's tough for me to not reflexively compare these exploration rules with the Journey rules from The One Ring, which I purchased a little over a year ago. Those rules are probably the most well-designed of any exploration mechanic that I've encountered in a tabletop RPG. One of my favorite aspects of these rules is how well they balances light and heavy armor. A character with a high Fatigue rating can be made Weary very quickly, and that results in a significant decrease in overall effectiveness. In short, it definitely pays to travel light, with lighter armor having an edge unless you're defending a fortified location (and thus unlikely to accumulate travel Fatigue, and with ample opportunity to get bed rest).
Unfortunately, there's really not a good way to replicate that in D&D. Part of the reason why this works is that heavy armor in TOR just gives you more protection against Wounds, with most hits simply dealing Endurance damage. Your stance also determines how hard you are to hit; a lightly armored character in defensive stance can be pretty hard to touch most of the time, even if he is susceptible to a lucky hit.
In D&D your AC is just your AC, and based on whether you're expected to be in melee combat it's usually assumed to be a certain value. Case in point is Barbarians, who don't wear heavy armor, instead having a class feature that buffs up their AC roughly to parity. Tweaking with armor can throw combat assumptions really out of whack. It's also tougher to emulate Weary as presented in TOR; ignoring low rolls out of a dice pool still allows a lucky character to function at full effectiveness, whereas numeric penalties don't accomplish this. Instead of simply being less likely to succeed, your ceiling actually drops.
Finally, the hardships of the journey simply isn't a major focus of D&D. TOR has those mechanics because it's a huge theme in Tolkien's works. A huge theme in D&D is looting. Fatigue would work inconsistently in such a system by punishing it early on, making it trivial once you grab yourself a Bag of Holding, and punishing those classes who need to wear heavy armor in order to be effective.
That said, while the existing mechanics don't offer any obvious suggestion for a Fatigue system, I wouldn't mind an optional module being offered as part of an "advanced" exploration package.
_______________________________________
Despite these rules lacking my favorite feature from TOR, I do really like them. One thing they do better than TOR is emphasize navigation in a more structured way. The d4 roll is a simple and effective way of adjudicating how lost a party gets, and the tradeoffs of the different Travel Paces give the players a lot to consider. Though I usually don't bother in my games, tracking Rations would be desirable to generate enough pressure to temp players into choosing faster paces. Encounters that deplete rations (They got spoiled in a swamp! Raccoons rifled through your packs at night!) likewise have more of an impact, perhaps being enough to completely change the goals of the PCs. Even without Rations though, Wandering Monsters might be enough of an impetus to travel quickly, especially in dangerous areas. The more quickly you cover a given distance, the fewer encounters you'll generate.
The granularity in the time scale is a nice touch, and feels like a logical expansion of the 6 second combat turn. It provides enough structure for long-distance exploration to provide meaningful choice without being too stifling. It's tough to wing it for things like travel pace, and usually my players will say something to the effect of "I'm going as fast as I reasonably can while still doing X." Great, but without a baseline I'm forced to improvise, and the players usually try to tweak their wording to get more of a benefit or eliminate tradeoffs. I think these exploration rules hit the sweet spot in codifying that baseline enough to generate predictable results and provide meaningful choices, all without being too crunchy to become unwieldy or to stifle flexibility.
Finally, the very existence of these rules - the fact that space was dedicated to exploration - is a signal to players that it won't be a waste to invest in it, and more importantly gets them thinking about it ahead of time. On the other side of the screen, because they're there, written down, DMs might be more likely to put some focus on exploration. Sometimes "it takes you 3 days to get there" just isn't very satisfying.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Barbarian
Thick Hide
I'll start with the simplest class feature, which takes inspiration from some of the 4E Primal classes (or at least the tougher, Con based builds). Simply put, if you're not wearing armor you add both your Dex mod AND Con mod to AC. This reinforces the flavor of the "wild" warrior by making being unarmored an attractive option. It's as good a solution as any.
Rage
This is the bulk of what the Barbarian does, and there's some good and some bad with its implementation. Not unexpectedly, there's a daily limit but since it starts at 2x/day it's somewhat forgiving. You get Advantage with any use of Strength (attacks, ability checks, and saving throws), which models what's going on really well. The accuracy boost is pretty huge here. You also deal bonus damage, so you're hitting harder, too (as expected). Finally, you gain Resistance to the weapon-based damage types (Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning), which at first blush seems awfully potent. I would have expected aset damage reduction (DR) value (method for generating temporary hit points? See comments) since that's easier to balance; with Resistance the more potent the attack, the bigger the effect is (the Barbarian ignores more total damage). Which seems counter-intuitive unless your vision of Rage is an almost Hulk-like positive feedback loop (the more punishment he takes, the stronger he gets).
Clearly the benefits of Rage are pretty substantial. When in a Rage the Barbarian is certainly looking like the most dangerous melee combatant in the party, which is as it should be. Without play experience, though, it's really tough to judge whether Rage's drawbacks balance out this awesome power.
Obvious the first "check" on Rage is the daily limit, but there's more to it than that. Your Rage ends when you fall unconscious (tough to do given the defensive buff!), or also if you can't attack for a turn (say, if some enemy restrains you). While this might seem harsh I like the strategic element that it creates. Maybe you shouldn't use Rage if you're fighting a spellcaster that's likely to hamper you enough to waste your Rage. Or if you do, the whole party has its priorities shifted; do everything in your power to prevent the enemies from turning off your Barbarian. Looks like it'd be fun to play!
But Rage also has a final drawback. This one has some major tactical implications - you can't take reactions. While this makes some sense (your fury is extremely focused on just wrecking stuff and you don't have the presence of mind to worry about tactical openings), it also kind of doesn't (aren't you so angry that you'll lash out at anything that moves?). There are also mechanical consequences, the minor one being that offensive output might actually decrease in some situations (since you're not getting in opportunity attacks), but more of a concern is the fact that your stickiness is reduced to exactly zero. It's extremely easy to simply walk away from this raging engine of destruction, and that just doesn't sit well with me. This guy's dangerous. If he has you pinned up against a wall, you should be screwed.
To sum up, I think Rage has a really solid foundation. The main things I would change is to tone down the defensive benefits (DR instead of Resistance), and to compensate for that drop in potency to eliminate the "can't make reactions" drawback. I'm not sure what a good value for that DR would be, though (and perhaps that would have to wait until the math is more finalized). Con mod (but how would it scale)? Equal to Rage Damage Bonus? Con + Rage Damage bonus? These are all pretty simple solutions that result in very different values, so it would really be a matter of looking at the math and picking whichever one "fits" best (a little less than Resistance on average opponents). My gut says Rage Damage Bonus = DR, but without any playtesting that's really just a wild guess.
Reckless Attack
Another simple class feature that gives you a Rage-like boost (Advantage on your attack) essentially at-will, but with a heavy drawback (YOU grant Advantage). I like it. It's risky, but that's sort of the Barbarian's MO. And it makes you feel like that crazy berserker warrior even when you've run out of Rages for the day.
Final Thoughts
I remember reading commentary after the first playtest packet with class was released (back in January, I believe) even though I didn't read through that packet myself. The consensus was that the Barbarian was pretty overpowered compared with the Fighter, and most people advocated for powering up the Fighter.
I'm not sure if the balance issue has been fixed or not (this Barbarian does look like it probably has an edge over the Fighter), but at this stage of the game I'm not sure it matters that much. The math can be refined later. What I'm mostly concerned with during the playtest is whether or not the mechanics do a good job of representing the concepts, and whether or not they provide an interesting game experience. Does this feel like a Barbarian, and how would tweaking things affect that? I think mostly yes, it's a good representation of the Barbarian, who is all about the simple application of brute force.
I'll start with the simplest class feature, which takes inspiration from some of the 4E Primal classes (or at least the tougher, Con based builds). Simply put, if you're not wearing armor you add both your Dex mod AND Con mod to AC. This reinforces the flavor of the "wild" warrior by making being unarmored an attractive option. It's as good a solution as any.
Rage
This is the bulk of what the Barbarian does, and there's some good and some bad with its implementation. Not unexpectedly, there's a daily limit but since it starts at 2x/day it's somewhat forgiving. You get Advantage with any use of Strength (attacks, ability checks, and saving throws), which models what's going on really well. The accuracy boost is pretty huge here. You also deal bonus damage, so you're hitting harder, too (as expected). Finally, you gain Resistance to the weapon-based damage types (Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning), which at first blush seems awfully potent. I would have expected a
Clearly the benefits of Rage are pretty substantial. When in a Rage the Barbarian is certainly looking like the most dangerous melee combatant in the party, which is as it should be. Without play experience, though, it's really tough to judge whether Rage's drawbacks balance out this awesome power.
Obvious the first "check" on Rage is the daily limit, but there's more to it than that. Your Rage ends when you fall unconscious (tough to do given the defensive buff!), or also if you can't attack for a turn (say, if some enemy restrains you). While this might seem harsh I like the strategic element that it creates. Maybe you shouldn't use Rage if you're fighting a spellcaster that's likely to hamper you enough to waste your Rage. Or if you do, the whole party has its priorities shifted; do everything in your power to prevent the enemies from turning off your Barbarian. Looks like it'd be fun to play!
But Rage also has a final drawback. This one has some major tactical implications - you can't take reactions. While this makes some sense (your fury is extremely focused on just wrecking stuff and you don't have the presence of mind to worry about tactical openings), it also kind of doesn't (aren't you so angry that you'll lash out at anything that moves?). There are also mechanical consequences, the minor one being that offensive output might actually decrease in some situations (since you're not getting in opportunity attacks), but more of a concern is the fact that your stickiness is reduced to exactly zero. It's extremely easy to simply walk away from this raging engine of destruction, and that just doesn't sit well with me. This guy's dangerous. If he has you pinned up against a wall, you should be screwed.
To sum up, I think Rage has a really solid foundation. The main things I would change is to tone down the defensive benefits (DR instead of Resistance), and to compensate for that drop in potency to eliminate the "can't make reactions" drawback. I'm not sure what a good value for that DR would be, though (and perhaps that would have to wait until the math is more finalized). Con mod (but how would it scale)? Equal to Rage Damage Bonus? Con + Rage Damage bonus? These are all pretty simple solutions that result in very different values, so it would really be a matter of looking at the math and picking whichever one "fits" best (a little less than Resistance on average opponents). My gut says Rage Damage Bonus = DR, but without any playtesting that's really just a wild guess.
Reckless Attack
Another simple class feature that gives you a Rage-like boost (Advantage on your attack) essentially at-will, but with a heavy drawback (YOU grant Advantage). I like it. It's risky, but that's sort of the Barbarian's MO. And it makes you feel like that crazy berserker warrior even when you've run out of Rages for the day.
Final Thoughts
I remember reading commentary after the first playtest packet with class was released (back in January, I believe) even though I didn't read through that packet myself. The consensus was that the Barbarian was pretty overpowered compared with the Fighter, and most people advocated for powering up the Fighter.
I'm not sure if the balance issue has been fixed or not (this Barbarian does look like it probably has an edge over the Fighter), but at this stage of the game I'm not sure it matters that much. The math can be refined later. What I'm mostly concerned with during the playtest is whether or not the mechanics do a good job of representing the concepts, and whether or not they provide an interesting game experience. Does this feel like a Barbarian, and how would tweaking things affect that? I think mostly yes, it's a good representation of the Barbarian, who is all about the simple application of brute force.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Fighter
Bonus Feats
No. Hated this "class feature" in 3.x, and I still hate it. It's made all the worse when feats vary so greatly in power level (as has always been the case in D&D), and as more supplements increase the power creep this "balancing" mechanism will only get further off-balance.
The "basic" version of the game is also supposed to be designed with the idea that feats are optional. So either the Fighter gets shafted by losing one of his class features, or the player who didn't want to deal with feats in the first place is forced to.
Another issue I have with this has been covered in my post on feats. By only providing access to bonus feats from the Martial category what you're doing is giving Fighters a choice of maneuvers in this messy "maneuvers as feats" system. The system ends up being "fake universal" (sure, anyone can buy into these maneuvers, but how many PCs will give up feats that are more on-theme for their given class?). Or maybe a PC decides to buy into this whole system and chooses Trip Attack, but then a situation comes up where an enemy needs to be disarmed. In a true universal maneuver system (where anyone can try anything plausible without having to pre-purchase the ability with character-building resources) this isn't a problem. Giving the Fighter bonus feats is supposed to show that the Fighter is better at these types of things, but it really doesn't do much good. A Fighter that doesn't choose Trip Attack (for example) is just as hopeless at tripping people as any other class, but if he takes it when he levels all of the sudden he becomes a tripping savant (see my argument in the feats post on why it makes sense to use it constantly once you buy it).
It's a simple fix, really. Put back the "anyone can attempt it" universal maneuver system, get rid of the "maneuvers" feats, and instead of bonus feats let the Fighter pick a maneuver to gain skill dice with. Anyone could pull those types of tricks but the Fighter is still the best at it.
Expertise Dice
This mechanic has come a long way since the original packet that introduce Expertise Dice for the Fighter (which was the last time I'd really paid much attention to the playtest). Conceptually I think I like this version better than the original, as it gives the Fighter interesting choices via an encounter-based resource system. That said, it's really only appealing if that universal maneuver system is implemented.
With the old Expertise Dice being refreshed each round the Fighter had the option of doing something cool each turn. Maneuvers would also provide that opportunity, with encounter-based Expertise Dice ramping it up even further. Furthermore the options, while all mechanically very similar (Death Dealer options all add damage, Superior Defense options all provide AC boost) and thus easy to balance, are different enough to highlight different playstyles. Granted the choices are pretty limited at this point, but that can be refined in the future. As it stands if you're a shield user, for example, you'll probably choose Slam (because it's flat-out better than the universal Deep Wound), though some might go with Strike Command to emphasize the "Warlord-lite" theme. All "shield builds" won't really be clones, though, because the shield-based Superior Defense option only works against ranged attacks. Honestly all 4 choices are useful in very different situations, with the exception of Nimble Dodge basically being Parry+, but even that choice remains interesting because you'll need to swear off heavy armor for the ability to become more mobile.
In-game you'll still have to make the tactical choice of using your "encounter power" for offense or defense on-the-fly regardless of your build choice. While this sounds pretty simple (and largely it is), the Warlord-lite and the shield options both make things more interesting since you'll also need to determine which allies need your help. While these class features are certainly no substitute for a full Warlord class, I really like what they add to the Fighter. Because the best warrior having the option to be a tactical leader on the battlefield just makes good sense, even if he's spending most of his energy trying to cut down his opponents (unlike an actual Warlord, whose primary goal is to aid allies).
Multi-attack
When I first heard that Fighters were getting this I was extremely concerned. Multiple attacks as a full round action was exactly what made 3.x combat so dull! Anything that discourages movement is a bad idea. I was happy to see that this wasn't the case for the Next Fighter. Basically all it does is let you split any extra damage you'd normally gain from Deadly Strike across multiple opponents. This is great for mowing through minions that will go down from a single damage die anyways and keeps the pace of battle quick as you level up. Because part of reason for bounded accuracy is so that low-level monsters will always be a threat if they have great enough numbers. Now as those numbers start to increase, so does the number of enemies you can attack without affecting the amount of total HP damage that you dish out. Color me convinced!
No. Hated this "class feature" in 3.x, and I still hate it. It's made all the worse when feats vary so greatly in power level (as has always been the case in D&D), and as more supplements increase the power creep this "balancing" mechanism will only get further off-balance.
The "basic" version of the game is also supposed to be designed with the idea that feats are optional. So either the Fighter gets shafted by losing one of his class features, or the player who didn't want to deal with feats in the first place is forced to.
Another issue I have with this has been covered in my post on feats. By only providing access to bonus feats from the Martial category what you're doing is giving Fighters a choice of maneuvers in this messy "maneuvers as feats" system. The system ends up being "fake universal" (sure, anyone can buy into these maneuvers, but how many PCs will give up feats that are more on-theme for their given class?). Or maybe a PC decides to buy into this whole system and chooses Trip Attack, but then a situation comes up where an enemy needs to be disarmed. In a true universal maneuver system (where anyone can try anything plausible without having to pre-purchase the ability with character-building resources) this isn't a problem. Giving the Fighter bonus feats is supposed to show that the Fighter is better at these types of things, but it really doesn't do much good. A Fighter that doesn't choose Trip Attack (for example) is just as hopeless at tripping people as any other class, but if he takes it when he levels all of the sudden he becomes a tripping savant (see my argument in the feats post on why it makes sense to use it constantly once you buy it).
It's a simple fix, really. Put back the "anyone can attempt it" universal maneuver system, get rid of the "maneuvers" feats, and instead of bonus feats let the Fighter pick a maneuver to gain skill dice with. Anyone could pull those types of tricks but the Fighter is still the best at it.
Expertise Dice
This mechanic has come a long way since the original packet that introduce Expertise Dice for the Fighter (which was the last time I'd really paid much attention to the playtest). Conceptually I think I like this version better than the original, as it gives the Fighter interesting choices via an encounter-based resource system. That said, it's really only appealing if that universal maneuver system is implemented.
With the old Expertise Dice being refreshed each round the Fighter had the option of doing something cool each turn. Maneuvers would also provide that opportunity, with encounter-based Expertise Dice ramping it up even further. Furthermore the options, while all mechanically very similar (Death Dealer options all add damage, Superior Defense options all provide AC boost) and thus easy to balance, are different enough to highlight different playstyles. Granted the choices are pretty limited at this point, but that can be refined in the future. As it stands if you're a shield user, for example, you'll probably choose Slam (because it's flat-out better than the universal Deep Wound), though some might go with Strike Command to emphasize the "Warlord-lite" theme. All "shield builds" won't really be clones, though, because the shield-based Superior Defense option only works against ranged attacks. Honestly all 4 choices are useful in very different situations, with the exception of Nimble Dodge basically being Parry+, but even that choice remains interesting because you'll need to swear off heavy armor for the ability to become more mobile.
In-game you'll still have to make the tactical choice of using your "encounter power" for offense or defense on-the-fly regardless of your build choice. While this sounds pretty simple (and largely it is), the Warlord-lite and the shield options both make things more interesting since you'll also need to determine which allies need your help. While these class features are certainly no substitute for a full Warlord class, I really like what they add to the Fighter. Because the best warrior having the option to be a tactical leader on the battlefield just makes good sense, even if he's spending most of his energy trying to cut down his opponents (unlike an actual Warlord, whose primary goal is to aid allies).
Multi-attack
When I first heard that Fighters were getting this I was extremely concerned. Multiple attacks as a full round action was exactly what made 3.x combat so dull! Anything that discourages movement is a bad idea. I was happy to see that this wasn't the case for the Next Fighter. Basically all it does is let you split any extra damage you'd normally gain from Deadly Strike across multiple opponents. This is great for mowing through minions that will go down from a single damage die anyways and keeps the pace of battle quick as you level up. Because part of reason for bounded accuracy is so that low-level monsters will always be a threat if they have great enough numbers. Now as those numbers start to increase, so does the number of enemies you can attack without affecting the amount of total HP damage that you dish out. Color me convinced!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)