Mearls talks about a new martial mechanic designed to address complaints that fighters don't have enough options:

]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730

Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

Sometimes, despite his claims, I can't help but wonder if Mike Mearls has ever even played Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the same attitude that gave us so many ill concieved Super Hero movies before Marvel started hitting them out of the park with actual, you know, super hero movies.

Quote from: David Johansen;566281Sometimes, despite his claims, I can't help but wonder if Mike Mearls has ever even played Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the same attitude that gave us so many ill concieved Super Hero movies before Marvel started hitting them out of the park with actual, you know, super hero movies.

I don't really blame mearls here. His job is to get everyone on board and to do that he has to account for criticism of the playtest document. The 4E and "modern design" crowd have been very loud in calling for more fighter options. The problem is their desires and the desires of many on the opposite side of the fence are in conflict. I just want a more classic D&D fighter without additional fiddly mechanics or resource management. I think the core of the problem is wotc is primarily getting feedback through its own website and there is probably a disproportionate number of 4E player feedback as a result. I do think there are also a lot of gamers in that camp. But I think it is equally divided enough that a mechanic like this is better as an optional rather than a core part of the game. At this stage, I would almost rather they just make 4.5 if this is the direction they plan to go.

Fighters don't need to be given more dice in order to be less "dull". To suggest that simply giving the fighter more dice damage seems like a lazy solution.

Granting fighters more dice to dole out damage isn't the right choice. But then again, we're talking about D&D; you can pretty much assume that the game is going to be built upon the same precepts that have been lain down by its predecessors.

I guess what I am saying is that we should not expect some brand-spankin' new IP here. It's going to be business as usual.

I just shake my head at this.

Yes, let's win back old players by . . . introducing even MORE novel mechanics NEVER SEEN IN ANY D&D EDITION **BEFORE**!

That's a totally safe plan.

Yeah, that'll work.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566276Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

I'm not a big fan of this either, although this does not sound all that bad. I could live with it and definitely would not mind it as an optional rule.

However, there is statement in the article that really turns me off to 5e/D&D Next:

QuoteOther classes can attempt to duplicate these abilities, but few can match a fighter's effectiveness. For example, a fighter might have a combat superiority option that allows for two-weapon fighting that is better than the version offered by a feat.

That mention of two-weapon fighting being a feat is a huge turn-off. It looks like they intend to block off abilities anyone should be able to try with some chance of success into things that only those who took a feat can do again (just like in 3.x).  That is an edition-interest-killer for me.  Feats -- if they have to be in the game at all -- should with be simple bonuses for special training. "Must take to be able to do" feats should be limited to things that either require special genetic features or absolutely require specialized training to be able to try with anything but a miniscule chance of success.

Quote from: RandallS;566285I'm not a big fan of this either, although this does not sound all that bad. I could live with it and definitely would not mind it as an optional rule.

However, there is statement in the article that really turns me off to 5e/D&D Next:



 tccess.

If it is optional, the not a problem for me at all. But if it is core, its a big issue in terms of playability for me.

With merles in charge i have zero interest in the new edition, that guy has no fucking clue how to make a decent set of rules that arent tailored to the charop crowd.

I am surprised; that sounds terrible to me.



Why can't the fighter class have options like this:


Mighty attack, +2 damage, -2 ac
 
Evasive attack, +2 ac, -2 to hit

Flurry attack, -2 hit, -2 ac, -2 Damage; Attack everyone in reach once, can't use this if you have moved, can't move after using this

All out defend, +4 ac, no attacks

All out attack, +2 hit, +2 damage, -4 ac, can't use this if you have moved, can't move after using this

Fleet attack, -2 hit, -2 damage, -2 ac, may full move and attack once

etc...

Mearls is acting like a drug-addled cunt right now.

The biggest reason I don't like it?  I can see this slowing combat down waaaaaaay too much.  Giving someone a pool of dice that they can use for whatever (reducing damage, etc) is introducing yet a few more physical actions (rolling dice) and mental math (adding and subtracting modifiers) just to resolve your action.

I like quick combat resolution.  They are going in the opposite direction.

I don't know who said it, but I really like the idea of fighters having a better chance at critical attacks, and then being able to choose which critical option to inflict upon a creature.  That adds a uniqueness and extra power to a character without having to draw out combat resolution any more than before.

Strip this down to what it is.

Basically a damage bonus per level for fighters.

In the optional rule you can spend some of this extra damage on defence (suspect either reduce damage or when they think of it improve AC)

In the top level of complexity you will have some of the options tied to the fighters combat style - so archers might be able to fire 2 arrows at once  for 10 points (or 2 dice) and other combat options get tied to the cost in superiority.

In that regard it is just like a mechanic we were discussing on a design thread.

Its not terrible. Its just a way of pricing stuff that some classes have had for a while in a more specific way.

It is deliberately gamist because they want to appeal to the 4e gamist players. Now those players deserve to be represented somewhere so fair enough.
He is also looking for a signature mechanic something that can become 'the special thing figthers do' .

I don't a pool for tactical stuff for figthers. I think a random pool will become timecosuming to run, and I think a raw d6 per level damage bonus is hugely powerful even with HP inflation. But a set pool that increases per level that the fighter can spend on combat moves including increased attack and defence might be workable.

Playing with a stack of dice is likely to be too gamist for me.

I like the idea of a Fighter having some special combat options, but they should be relatively simple to implement.  I think a 'dice trading game' is a big step outside of 'simulation' and I'd personally find it rather distracting.  

I'm also concerned that this idea hasn't been thought through well.  Mearls gives the example of a shield specialist being able to reduce damage to an ally or[b/] negate a hit to an ally.  I don't know the relative damage we'd be talking about, but pretty much in every situation one option will be clearly superior - usually the 'negating' a hit.  If they try to add options but only one option is 'sensible', they haven't really added options - you're doing the same thing every round - it's just different from the other thing you were doing every round.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566294The biggest reason I don't like it?  I can see this slowing combat down waaaaaaay too much.  Giving someone a pool of dice that they can use for whatever (reducing damage, etc) is introducing yet a few more physical actions (rolling dice) and mental math (adding and subtracting modifiers) just to resolve your action.

I like quick combat resolution.  They are going in the opposite direction.

I don't know who said it, but I really like the idea of fighters having a better chance at critical attacks, and then being able to choose which critical option to inflict upon a creature.  That adds a uniqueness and extra power to a character without having to draw out combat resolution any more than before.

The critical attack option idea came from BT before his demise.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566276Mearls talks about a new martial mechanic designed to address complaints that fighters don't have enough options:

]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730

Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

Sounds fine to me given it's practically a straight port of Fantasy Craft action dice except for a more specific purpose.