I am sure everyone has heard the big announcement by now. 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is on the way, probably a summer 2013 release date.
Personally I think 4E is a great system, very robust, balanced and near perfect for combat. Designing monsters has never been more fun. But all that said, it does have a number of flaws:
- Rules Bloat: I think in particular the individual classes REALLY take up far too much space. I do however, think I have solved this problem below.
- Lack of Identity for the higher Tiers: The higher tiers are just more of the same with more math, when they needed to add elements like mass combat, running a stronghold, gigantic monsters, politics, running a country, becoming a religion/immortal. I go into more details on this in The Ten Commandments of Epic article.
- The Game System License: Slightly improved now, but the initial GSL for 4E really isolated the third party companies and caused the schism that is Pathfinder.
- Too Combat Centric: Don’t get me wrong, I love RPG combat/tactical play and 4E is the best system for that. But after reading Revenge of the Iron Lich it was clear that other 4E products (adventures in particular) really ignored the exploration and puzzle side of the game.
- Underwhelming Products: While 4E had its share of gems (Dungeon Delves, Open Grave, Draconomicon, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting among others) too many of the books were all too familiar and pretty lacklustre efforts. I can’t remember the last time I really got excited by a 4E release.
The Rules Bloat
This problem is particularly important because it works against any expansion of the game (in particular any 4E Immortal Tier expansion). In 4th Edition, the Fighter class entry takes up about 14 pages (1 page of illustration & fluff text, 10 pages of Powers and Utilities, 3 pages devoted to Paragon Paths). Note that this doesn’t even count feats or Epic Destinies. So you are probably talking about 16 pages of material for each and every class…and remember that each of the main classes was also expanded with more powers and utilities, more feats and more Paragon Paths in multiple books. Its too much to remember, it really is.
4E ‘Lite’: The Fighter Class
So I don’t know what direction 5E will take, but here is an idea for how to represent all of a classes powers within about a half a page of text. The benefits of this approach are in my opinion MASSIVE:
- Flexibility: Gives people the ability to create (and name) their own powers.
- Simplicity: Less text means its MUCH less daunting for casual gamers.
- Space Saving: Detailing all of a classes powers in less than a page. You could even, easily now fit ALL the powers for the entire class on a character sheet.
- Variety: Retains ALL the variety of the 4E powers…in fact if anything it expands the number of powers.
- Expansion: Makes expanding classes simple…all you do is add a new power modifier. Thats ONE line of text.
- Transparency: Shows how the system works allowing DMs and gamers to experiment for themselves.
- Multi-classing: By making multi-classing in itself a power modifier you do away with the need for multi-classing feats.
- Eradicates Repetition: Going over the Fighter powers in 4E and you’d be amazed how many times almost identical powers are repeated…and remember that each new power is about another 10 lines of text.
Anyway without further ado, here is the idea.
Eternity Publishing 
S'mon
January 11, 2012
Interesting… It’s “manoeuvre” BTW, but I had to Google it to be sure. I went over to US spelling – maneuver – years ago. 🙂
Upper_Krust
January 11, 2012
I always used American grammar for the Immortals Handbook, but I think I slipped back to the Queen’s English for the Vampire Bestiary…and flip-flopped again for this article. :p
Anyway I’ll give you a while to mull over the Martial Maneouvres idea and hear your thoughts, but it basically does everything the 4E players handbook does in less than one tenth the space.
Perico
January 11, 2012
The idea is very cool. I agree that it is flexible, saves space, and provides a lot of variety. However, I couldn’t disagree more with one of your points: You claim that this approach is simple where, in fact, it is much more complex than the current 4E power model.
Granted, building a character becomes much easier – you no longer need to choose powers, and instead gain automatically all effects in the list. But, on the other hand, whenever a player uses an encounter or daily attack, he faces an staggering amount of choices.
Consider the humble level 1 encounter attack. With only 2[W] to spend, many of the most potent maneuvers are not available – but this still leaves quite a few to choose from! The fighter can pick:
– One out of four Basic Combat Skills
– One out of 11 (!) Advanced Martial Maneuvers costing 1[W], or one out of 2 AMVs costing 1/2 base [W].
The AMVs alone provide more options than the attack powers a Level 30 fighter usually has to choose from in 4E (2 at-wills, 4 encounters, and 4 dailies) – and those are already considered overwhelming by many players. And to this we have to add an additional choice among 4 options for the Basic Combat Skills, whose effect combine with the AMV, multiplying the total number of options to about 50.
But wait, there’s more! The list of Advanced Martial Maneuvers includes a maneuver called Reckless Assault, which can be taken without cost, and in fact adds another [W] to the pool. So we have another decision point with 2 options, multiplying again the number of total combinations.
And then we realize that the extra [W] we have just gained could be spent (the rules do not explicitly forbid it) on yet another effect, opening up the maneuvers costing 2[W] or, alternately, a second maneuver costing 1[W]. The total number of choices now falls easily on triple digits, and we are still in the simplest scenario where advanced martial maneuvers can be used…
Don’t get me wrong: I think this can be a lot of fun, and in fact I’m tempted to spend a few hours playing around with the system, to see what I can get out of it. But any appearance of simplicity is a mere illusion – your ‘lite’ fighter would have more depth and complexity in play (by orders of magnitude!) than any existing 4E character.
Upper_Krust
January 12, 2012
Hey Perico, thanks very much for the feedback. 🙂
Re: Simplicity or not simplicity. I think an easy solution to this problem would be to assign some maneouvres to each Tier.
For instance, lets say we have 10 for the Heroic, 10 for Paragon and (a new set of) 10 for Epic.
Re: Reckless Assault: Yes I probably should have added a stipulation that you cannot use the +1[W] from Reckless Assault for additional Martial Maneouvres.
Re: Depth and Complexity. I agree it has far more depth. Does it really have more complexity though?
I honestly think this is the closest thing to freeform combat that D&D has ever had.
Perico
January 12, 2012
Having explained why I think your system is far from a simple one, I’d like to comment on some potential drawbacks I’ve found (later I’ll get a bit more constructive, and discuss how you might address these drawbacks)
– Expansion:
While it is true that creating a new maneuver involves adding just a single line of text, that only tells half the story. Since the system is extremely modular, every new maneuver can be combined with all existing ones (or, for that matter, with any maneuvers you create in the future!).
This has important implications for game balance, since a maneuver that is harmless by itself could be gamebreaking when used in combination with certain others. Now, if we want to prove that adding our new maneuver to the game is safe, we have to test it with the full maneuver list! And the cost of this operation increases with every new maneuver we add to the pool.
By contrast, a new power in 4E, though it contains a lot of redundancy, is a self-contained game element that can be evaluated and tested by itself.
Another thing to consider is that each new maneuver added to the game contributes to further increase the complexity of the system, making it more difficult for the fighter player to decide how to act.
– Customizability:
One drawback of opening the full list of maneuvers to every fighter is that you can no longer differentiate one fighter character from another by their set of movements – they all have access to the same toys now. This is, in my opinion, a loss for the game.
Likewise, given the scope and variety of effects in your list of maneuvers for the fighter, I have to wonder what is left for other classes. How would you make a list of powers options for a rogue or a paladin that played differently from this one (either in augmenting mechanic, or in available effects)?
– Encourages repetition:
This is something I have observed with characters using power points, but it also applies here: we have a system with an impressive flexibility, allowing for any number of different cool attacks. However, if there is a combination that is more effective than the rest (and there almost always is), players will eventually figure it out – and use it over and over. This can result in more monotonous gameplay, despite the vastly superior potential variety!
– Multi-classing:
I’m not sure I understand how multiclassing would work with this system. Could you expand a bit on the topic?
Upper_Krust
January 12, 2012
Hello again Perico, thanks again for the lengthy feedback. It is getting late though so I’ll respond to your other post in the morning.
Re: Testing. Of course lets assume this is a first draft. But I think at first glance it appears fairly robust.
Re: Customizability. 1. Race, 2. Weapon Choice, 3. Magic Items, 4. Prestige Classes/Paragon Paths (Which I would simply detail by offering a new Martial Maneouvre or two). As far as I can tell thats already more customizable than any edition except 4E.
Re: Other Classes. There might be a little overlap between Martial Classes, but I can definately see Rogues, Rangers and Warlords having their own Unique maneouvres.
I’m actually working on a version of the Wizard tonight. Instead of maneouvres as such, it has the modifiers split between customisable ‘delivery systems’ (ray, storm, lance, wave, circle etc.) and effects (with some effects similar to how maneouvres work). So the Wizard might pick Fire-Lance, or Acid-Ball, or Magic-Missile, or Sleep-Storm.
Re: Repetition. I wonder if there is a loophole thats better than all others. Personally I doubt it, plus any ‘best attack’ would only be the best for a set [W] score and those damage dice go up every few levels.
Re: Multiclassing. Yes I mentioned multiclassing in this blog but forgot to mention it in the article itself. My initial idea was that you could gain individual powers/maneouvres from other classes but you would only be half effective with them. So a fighter could multiclass to Wizard (expending a feat perhaps?) and take Fire-Ball but it would be only half as effective as a Wizard using the same attack.
Perico
January 12, 2012
And finally, some suggestions!
This may not be very intuitive, but I think that the system would be improved by removing some of its flexibility. You can make player choices much more guided, while still keeping plenty of varied and interesting options. I would take the following steps:
1- Make Basic Combat Skills stances. To borrow a page from the Essentials Knight and Slayer, one way to make your system easier on the player would be to turn the basic maneuvers into continuous effects (i.e. stances) that remain active until changed. This may seem just an aesthetic change, but it means that a fighter does not need to actively choose a basic skill for every single attack – unless he wants to.
2- Have fighters choose a limited set of advanced maneuvers. 20 options to choose from every other combat round are way too many. A first level fighter with 3 basic skills and 3 advanced maneuvers already has plenty of options for a beginner player. Even an epic character would be well served with just 4-5 basic skills and half a dozen advanced maneuvers.
3- Limit the number of maneuvers you can combine. The current system really encourages players to burn down all their [W]s to pile lots of special effect on their attacks (since a single [W] is usually a very low cost in D&D 4E), as well as to always use Reckless Assault, no matter what. This is also a major component of system complexity. Consider limiting heroic characters to 1 advanced maneuver on encunter attacks, and 2 on daily attacks, and increasing the cap to 2/3 and 3/4 for paragon and epic characters respectively. Now one has to think carefully about which effects to get. Incidentally, this limitation should play very well with step #2, encouraging players to ‘build a deck of maneuvers’, balancing costs and effects.
4- Limit access to maneuvers by level. This happens naturally due to available [W]s, but I think the system could benefit from explicitly restricting some advanced maneuvers to certain levels. As an example, restricting heroic characters to maneuvers costing 1[W] or less, paragon characters to 2[W] and epic characters to 4[W] looks like a natural progression. This would make levelling more exciting, and help better limit some effects (like stunning) that are usually reserved for higher tiers.
5- Allow exceptions, on a limited basis. Though I think reducing the maneuver list through the limitations described above makes for a better, more agile system, the idea of freeform attacks is appealing, and I’d like to preserve it for special occasions. As an example, you could allow the fighter to choose, once per day (perhaps more at higher levels), any maneuver from the list, or to exceed the normal limit on advanced maneuvers. Optionally, a DM could also grant this ability to a player in certain scenarios, provided the player gave proper description and passed a series of checks.
6- Super combo! This has little to do with my previous points, but I think it could be a cool idea to implement. Consider the following maneuver:
Combo Attack – Effect: On a hit, add +1 base[W] to your next attack; Cost: -1 base [W]; Upgrade: extra [W] for every -1 base [W].
It is a risky maneuver, but it would allow you to build up a ton of [W]s to combine on a single, amazing attack. For some reason, this strikes me as an extremely fun concept to play…
Upper_Krust
January 12, 2012
Hey Perico, some fantastic ideas you have there.
1. Basic Combat Skills as Stances. Perfect idea.
2. Limit Maneouvres. Yes, I had the idea on how to massively fix this last night by using Fighter Builds. So for instance the Great Weapon Fighter would have two stances and five maneouvres, while the Defensive fighter would have a seperate 2 stances and 5 maneouvres.
Then at Paragon Tier you’d get another 2 stances and 5 maneouvres (from a choice of 4 stances and 10 maneouvres), and again at epic.
3. Limit the number of Maneouvres. Good idea. I was initially going to limit them to 1/2/3 AW/E/D. But I think your */1/2 (Heroic), */2/3 (Paragon), */3/4 (Epic) is a better suggestion.
I know I’ll have to isolate Reckless Assault
4. Limit by Tier. Yes I am planning a revision with the powers slpit into 3 groups of 10 and each 10 subdivided (into 2) for each Build.
5. Exceptions. Maybe we could call these “Weekly Powers”. 😉 Hard to say.
6. Super-Combo’s: I like the idea.
Really busy today, will respond to the other posts when I get back home later. Appreciate the feedback everyone. 🙂
Dave
January 12, 2012
UK:
Very interesting idea, and one I would really like to try (interested in your wizard idea as well) But I have to agree with Perico that it could be more complex a the table given the amount of flexibility and variety. I would also suggest finding a way to limit the # of maneuvers, possible by tier (not sure though).
Maybe basic, expert and master maneuvers
I also like how it could be dropped right into my 4e game without much fuss. Keep up the great work and thank you for sharing!
Upper_Krust
January 12, 2012
Hey Dave,
I’ll work on a few changes to the Fighter tonight.
Had a lot of fun redesigning the Wizard and Cleric last night, I’ll probably try the Rogue tonight, just to see what the classic quartet look like.
Its quite exciting to think how well the Freeform Combat idea could work.
Dave
January 12, 2012
I agree and I am really curious how you applied the concept to spell casters. From my limited perspective it doesn’t seem to be a natural fit, but I can easily see it applying to rouges. Any chance you will post these when you’re all done?
Justin Halliday
January 12, 2012
This proposed system covers some of the same ideas I been using in my RPG system Heroes Against Darkness.
I’ve also been looking at what a modular and unified 5th Edition D&D could look like.
Thinking about this proposal, I think that from the looks of it, characters only have 2 opportunities to use manoeuvres in each combat encounter (1 Encounter power and 1 Daily power).
With this in mind, I reckon that you need to progressively increase the damage of the At Will attacks as levels increase, so that characters will be able to use the manoeuvres more often. For example:
AT WILL POWERS:
Level 1-4: 1[W] Damage
Level 5-8: 2[W] Damage
Level 9-12: 3[W] Damage
ENCOUNTER POWERS:
Level 1-4: 2[W] Damage
Level 5-8: 3[W] Damage
Level 9-12: 4[W] Damage
DAILY POWERS:
Level 1-4: 3[W] Damage
Level 5-8: 4[W] Damage
Level 9-12: 5[W] Damage
Obviously the level ranges are all adjustable to suit.
All in all, it’s an interesting idea, and very similar to what I use in my RPG. In Heroes Against Darkness, the martial powers are all based on trade-offs like this. For example, Warriors have powers like this:
• Careful Strike attacks have a greater chance to hit but deal less damage
• Powerful Blow attacks deal more damage but have less chance to hit
• Feinting Swing attacks have less chance to hit and deal less damage but reduce enemy’s chance to hit
• Breaching Slash attacks deal less damage but reduce enemy’s defenses
The flexibility in my system is that the trade-off costs are more than just weapon damage, and can be different for each of the classes (for example Berserkers can trade off their own armor class for more damaging attacks).
In any case, yours is an interesting proposal, so keep up the good work.
Upper_Krust
January 12, 2012
Hey there Justin, thanks for the feedback.
I guess great minds think alike. 😉
I based my idea on the Metamartial Rules I created back in 2006 that were released in the Immortals Handbook: Ascension pdf.
I agree that the weapon dice assigned to different powers at certain levels could be modified, but I don’t think At-Wills should be close to Encounters.
I do think that At-Will should upgrade to 2[W] by 16th rather than 21st level though.
But I am not sure which others should be upgraded, remember that many people believe (myself included) that Epic tier (and to a lesser extent Paragon tier) PCs are too powerful (pound for pound against monsters) as it is. In fact thats one of the reasons I created the Super-solo monster for 4th Edition (if you want to check out the Kronos preview on this website).
Best wishes with your Heroes Against Darkness RPG. 🙂
Upper_Krust
January 13, 2012
Hi Dave,
Yes, I’ll try and get the four iconic classes up sometime over the weekend. Worked on the Rogue last night, its about 80% determined.
Dave
January 13, 2012
UK,
Glad to hear it. I look forward to the post!
Dave
January 13, 2012
UK,
I forgot to add that I think your diagnosis of 4e’s problems is spot on.
Rules Bloat: an issue with all editions eventually it seems, but your solution to classes would definetly make life easier. I could see it becoming the basis for a classless system actually.
Lack of Identity: Yep. Heroic , Paragon and Epic should feel more different, or at least there should be the possibility that it feels different. Something like the old BECMI series.
GSL: I don’t really know, but everyone seems to agree that this had a negative effect.
To Combat Centric: I don’t really think this is a fault of 4e, but how 4e was presented. It is an issue of the prodcuts that were released (i.e Underwhelming Products) and the incomplete understanding of the skill system at the prooduct launch
Underwhelming Products: I have really like what I’ve bought, but I have bought very little compared to what is available. I think the early adventures have been underwhelming, but some of the newer ones in Dungeon have been great (Against the Giants is looking really good so far – can’t wait for #2, #3 & #4). In general, I have been very happy with the DDI content.
Great Ape Thoughts
January 16, 2012
You would think that they learned from the backlash of 4th edition coming out too fast after fixing the bugs in the 3rd edition. Then again, I personally don’t have any problems with the 4th edition, I just felt that it may have been released a little too fast for my taste. I’ll have to see if the differences in the 5th edition distract from gameplay, or if it’s like the 4th edition where you can really just play a 3.5 style game with a few tweaks depending on what you want to do.
And before you say anything, I know that 4th edition was more than a tweak to 3.5, but the way I play the game, and I haven’t played much 4th since I grew up with 3.5, ends up being similar enough.
Upper_Krust
January 16, 2012
Hey Great Ape Thoughts. 🙂
4th Edition is simply the best tactical RPG ever designed. But the 4E books (and adventures) really push combat at the expense of other aspects of the game. In my opinion there is no question as to which system is superior, but 4E is not without its problems (as I listed above).
Incidently, for those waiting on the revised 4E Wizard, Cleric and Rogue classes (as well as a second crack at the Fighter class), I have the Wizard about 75% typed up. I have just been working hard on the Vampire Bestiary these past few days and not had time to finish the web update. I’ll try to get the Wizard (at least) up there within the next few days.
5th Edition is something of an unknown quantity at this point. One element does confuse me; 5E is meant to be played using optional piecemeal complexity (for instance one player at the table may want the complexity of feats while another may not, instead favouring a simpler game). However, in such cases how would you design the monsters? Are they complex, but divided into parts? Do they require multiple stat-blocks for different levels of complexity. I suppose we will find out sooner or later.
Great Ape Thoughts
January 17, 2012
You raise a really good question. And I agree, though i’ve only played a good few games of 4e, the combat was really well done. I think the key to the other aspects is really the DM. If you have players who came from 3egetting or AD&D then they will tend to carry over their favorite aspects to the new system.
Great Ape Thoughts
January 17, 2012
Ok. My auto correct really messed that last one up. 🙂 i’m posting this with a “smart” phone.
Brian
January 24, 2012
Multi-attacks are where damage comes from, not multi-[w]. Your multi-attack maneuvers indicate your severe lack of understanding of this fact. Please see the DPR king candidates to see that vulnerabilities and stacking static modifiers are the path to achieving high damage. Balancing with this in mind is going to be quite difficult.
Ongoing is not as strong as you think. Think of the expected damage in the end (+10 damage if you hit most 1/2 of that is differed till the part of the combat where the foe is most likely dead.
Your fighter is not simple. The 3.5 wizard at least had a limited selection of spells to pick from at any given time. Your fighter must keep in mind what set of maneuvers would be best given this scenario. He effectively has a set spell book and no fighter will look different than any other figher. You need weapon specialization which gives you what maneuvers you have available. The 4.0 fighter had his at-wills and a couple nice encounter powers to deal with any given scenario. Your fighter has 1764 powers assuming he only has a 3[w] power at his disposal. A 2[w] power limits that down to 84 possible ways to deal with a scenario. That is too many option. To say that he could just leave it as a 2[w] power is ridiculous. See my first statement. Getting a damage roll at all means tons of damage.
Dave
January 24, 2012
Brian,
I could be wrong but I think you are missing the point. This system is part of the solution to the problem of multi-attack powers. You wound not have the CharOP problem of 1500hp novas caused by a ridiculous number of attacks in one round, because there would be no method to produce multi-attacks other than what is in the table.
This is one step in a revamp of the system, not a simple band-aid. At least that is how I see it.
I would also argue that the concept is very simple. You have a Stance and then add a maneuver(s) to it to produce the effect that you want. Just because there are many possible options doesn’t make it overly complex to play. UK has already discussed limiting certain maneuevers to certain classes, but I personally would keep it open and flexible.
Upper_Krust
January 24, 2012
Hey Brian,
firstly, thanks for the feedback.
Re: Multi-attacks. I think I have limited multiple attacks in the table in a way that makes them balanced. While its true that 9[W] + bonuses, is weaker than (3[W] + bonuses) x3, you still need to hit with all 3 attacks.
Re: Ongoing Damage. I totally agree, it will be reduced to -1 base damage per 5 ongoing in the v2.0
Re: Too many options. Part of me sees this as a more ‘realistic’ approach. If a Fighter wants to kick an opponent off a castle wall then why should they not have that option at all times, since its something you could attempt anytime? I don’t want a Fighter thinking “Damn I wish I’d taken that ‘Tide of Iron’ power now!”
My point is, most of the fighter options are pretty straightforward, and while 1764 combinations may seem daunting…you don’t actually have to know them all to get the benefits of this freeform combat system.
Brian
January 24, 2012
Here is another variant you may like.
Subsets of Maneuvers are available to fighters that choose certain weapon groups when you attack with that kind of weapon in a basic attack.
-Light blade maneuvers either re-position you for flanking, give more damage if you have CA, or give ongoing 5(save ends) [ie. hit a critical organ], swap [w] for added dex to damage (dagger wielder is now happy 4[w] < 4*dex)
-Polearms are very controlery and should have sliding as the primary maneuver. proning maneuver should be here too. Don't be afraid of putting marking maneuvers, as marking is a subset of control.
-Flails also prone, immobilize and slide, but are better for burst attacks
-Heavy blades have more versatile maneuvers
-Spear maneuvers are charge focused or allow you to make the MBA a RBA, but you cannot apply any other maneuvers to this RBA
-Axes get more brutal, literally(trade 1[w] for brutal 2 at heroic, brutal 3 at paragon, and brutal 4 at epic). Axe group is also focused on charging. Another maneuver is to trade a healing surge for an extra [w].
-Hammer maneuvers immobilize, push and grant THP galore.
At level 1 you get 1 weapon group, at level 5 you get another weapon group… This gives you enough time to master your weapon's maneuvers before adding a new set of maneuvers to your repetoire. With applying any maneuver to any weapon group it would make for a strange explanation as to why you can prone and push with a dagger attack. But if it were being made with craighammer that makes more sense.
The goal is to make options simple through categorization: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose.html
It would also be nice if you could make the fighter capable of being speced to be a striker, or a controller, or a defender, or a mix. Having all options available at a moment's notice is too powerful. Having options that make you feel different than another fighter is a good thing.
Brian
January 24, 2012
Re: Re: multi-attacks. While it’s true that you must hit with each attack to gain the full effect, the total expected damage is greater for the multi-attack, with static damage being the same.
50% chance to hit
.5(9[w] + X) < 3*.5(3[w] + X)
4.5[w] + X/2 < 4.5[w] + 3X/2
X/2 < 3X/2
When item support makes static damage on the order of 5-10 times that of 1[w] then taking multi-attacks are where it's at which makes a fighter that spams tripple-attack the strongest striker in the game.
It is also difficult to see how thirding the total [w] and testing to see if that "would reduce the dice to less than 1[w]." If you wanted to implement a semi-balanced multi-attack maneuver I would say that the total damage is thirded, sort of like "Miss: Half damage" only Hit: One third of total base damage. This can still be broken with vulnerabilities, but perhaps that should still be allowed as you are indeed attacking 3 times.
vodacce
January 24, 2012
Give weapons different abilities is very interesting Brian. In heroes of fallen lands i see Weapons training feats and i Think that was a good idea but i’d like to see it not like feats but like a natural weapon ability. you choice an hammer. The hammer give you +1 to the number of squares you push or slide creatures with weapons attacks you make with a hammer. Another idea is expand the concept of combat styles that was introduced in martial powers 2. You can make the same martial manouvers for every martial class (ranger, fighter, warlord, rogue) and using combat styles to give a different feel to every martial class.
sorry for my bad english. Good work Upper-krust. Your work is very good and professional.
Upper_Krust
January 24, 2012
Hi Brian,
Re: Limiting choices via weapon type. Very good idea, I was halfway to implementing this in v2.0 myself because I had the different stances based on weapon type. But your version is even better and actually parallels the Revised Wizard in limiting conditions by energy type.
While leads me on to potential weapon specialisation ideas.
If we limit the weapon range to five types: Light, Heavy, Reach, Two-Weapon Style and ‘Plus Shield’ then we can probably keep things relatively straightforward.
Re: Multi-attacks. I understand triple attack spamming is mathmatically better if all attacks hit, but weighed against the miss chance and I think its about right.
Also while bonus damage might be x5 to x10 on epic tier opti-build dagger wielders, a more likely scenario is that (in general) it will be worth 1[W] per tier. Given that monster AC fractionally increases per tier relative to typical character builds I think its a fair trade.
Plus, adding conditions on top of multi-attacks is far more penalising.
Perico
January 25, 2012
“Also while bonus damage might be x5 to x10 on epic tier opti-build dagger wielders, a more likely scenario is that (in general) it will be worth 1[W] per tier.”
“Given that monster AC fractionally increases per tier relative to typical character builds I think its a fair trade.”
Both of these statements are inaccurate. Bonus damage is only really comparable to [W] contribution at level 1, but [W] is quickly left behind – even for the most unoptimized builds, but dramatically in the case of optimized characters. As for monster AC, it can be proved that PC hit rate remains stable with as little effort as taking Expertise and (at Epic) increasing your ability mods with an epic destiny.
For reference, I have a done an study of the damage of your average unoptimized PC. (http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2012/01/game-math-attack-of-average-adventurers.html). My numbers show that PC hit rate can very easily be kept around 65% across all tiers against same level monsters, and just about any effort will push you beyond that. As for bonus damage for unoptimized PCs, it usually looks as follows:
Lv1 – 4
Lv 6 – 9
Lv 11 – 12
Lv 16 – 16
Lv 21 – 20
Lv 26 – 23
Lv 30 -24
This is without taking into account [W]. It is true that at least the damage bonus and [W]/tier aren’t THAT far off at this point, but even in this very conservative scenario the bonus wins handily for all but the highest values of [W] (i.e. Mordenkrad). From this point, any kind of boost to damage will further increase this difference.
Brian
January 25, 2012
“Re: Multi-attacks. I understand triple attack spamming is mathmatically better if all attacks hit, but weighed against the miss chance and I think its about right.”
Help me understand what you didn’t understand with my proof.
50% chance to hit
.5(9[w] + X) is the rough DPR with a 9[w] attack
= 4.5[w] + X/2 This takes into account your hit and miss rate
For the multi-attack the DPR is as follows
3*.5(3[w] + X) = 4.5[w] + 3X/2
Notice that the multi-attack has 3 times as much static damage after you take into account the miss rate and hit rate.
Your argument that, on average, static damage increases linearly with N[w], also has problems. You want to design a class that is robust to exploits, but your multi-attack maneuver is an obvious path to exploit this unavoidable item power creep.
——-
Re: weapon group based maneuvers, I feel that your categorizations(light, heavy, reach, wxweapon, shield) is insufficient. I feel weapon groups should map to “style feel.” “two-weapon” maneuvers would not make a 2x shortsword fighter feel different from a trident + net fighter, yet they should feel very different. The trident-net fighter should have immobilization and RBA support. The 2x shortsword fighter should feel like a whirling dervish, many attacks and heavy shifting.
Light, heavy, axe, hammer, flail, spear, polearm, shield, Unarmed, staff, net, and pick, crossbow, bow.
I agree that all martial classes should get access to the maneuver subsets based on what weapon groups are available to them.
Each maneuver has a basic, intermediate, and master versions. eg.(push 1, push 2, push 3) or -1 attack, dazed till end of next turn, dazed(save ends), Marked, marked and can’t shift, marked and immobilized, Slide 1/2/3, ongoing 5/10/15(save ends), trade 1[w] for dex + 0/2/4
Prone has only a basic version because it is so strong as is.
The rogue would have only access to light blade and crossbow and bow maneuver-groups, but can access the intermediate version of the maneuvers earlier than the fighter.
The ranger has short, heavy, axe, and bow and gets 2 groups at level 1.
The fighter starts with 3 weapon groups.
Warlord gets bla bla bla.
Brian
January 25, 2012
As an adendum to my basic, intermediate, master approach. All basic maneuvers are free, but only 1 can be picked. Intermediate costs 1[w] and master costs 2[w]. Adding a maneuver to a basic attack that already has a maneuver applied to it increases the cost by 1[w]
Upper_Krust
January 25, 2012
Hey all!
Thought I would have had the Revised Fighter v2.0 ready for tonight but I am still working on a few things and its after 1.30am here and I know it won’t be finished tonight. Hopefully early tomorrow (because I will be out and about with friends from about 3 pm) I can get it done.
Brian,
I see the problem now, how about a -2 attack penalty (when you use 2 attacks) and a -4 penalty (for 3 attacks) respectively?
The way I have the Fighter v2.0 at the moment is that the powers are divided by tier AND build (based on the 2 PHB builds). So some maneouvres will be general (usable by all), some will be for light weapons and others for heavy (2H) weapons. A Fighter with a Heavy weapon can use a maneouvre for a Light Weapon but the base [W] dice penalty is doubled (and vice versa). So if you attack with a dagger and try to stun, it will be at -6 base [W] instead of -3, etc.
Brian
January 25, 2012
Penalty should be -tier for double, and -2*tier for triple. For applying a heavy maneuver to a light blade attack make the cost be an attack penalty instead of damage. Reducing the condition chance is more costly than reducing a d6
Marz
March 6, 2013
Great Job. Your system is MUCH better.