Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 06, 2014 18:08:08	I'm pretty sure that everybody here agrees that even non-magical fighters should have several cool options to choose from   (as opposed to   Show Wizard: I force the enemy Blackguard 20 ft to the left to protect my Rogue while she recovers her weapon Fighter: I deal 14 damage to the Blackguard Wizard: I give the enemy Ranger a -2 penalty to his next 3 attack/damage rolls unless the enemy Cleric heals him instead of attacking me Fighter: I deal 17 damage to the Ranger Wizard: I deal 5-8 damage and 1 round of blindness to each of those 4 Summoned wolves Fighter: I deal 16 damage to one of the wolves...
#2 Torg_Smith Apr 06, 2014 18:36:43	I think you posted this in the wrong forum. This is intended to talk about future products to be released, not the content of those books.   If you are talking about DnD Next, you should post this over in that forum. http://community.wizards.com/forums/106616
#3 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 06, 2014 18:40:51	Are you sure? The menu said "Want to speculate about what's next for Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and previews and your hopes for the future of the game." so I thought that the DND Next forum was where I would go to talk about a specific, existing edition.
#4 Emerikol Apr 06, 2014 18:55:11	I don't think the two systems are equal.  I do like the idea of a character getting options based on how badly the beat the enemies AC.
#5 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 06, 2014 19:04:13	Emerikol wrote:
#6 rboles82 Apr 07, 2014 13:59:04	Are you attempting to recreate the 4es at will, encounter and daily powers? If so then no. I don't think a fighter has to have the same amount of options as a wizard. This is what I disliked about 4e. It made the reliance on miniatures and maps pretty much a requirement. I would love for next to go back to gridless or at least have that an option. I would be okay if a system was in place for abilities like 3e/pathfinder has but I would be more happy with a more old school approach. Maybe give fighters stances and paths in that style of stance?
#7 Centauri Apr 07, 2014 14:46:33	rboles82 wrote:
#8 rboles82 Apr 07, 2014 15:36:35	Yes it pretty much does. With powers that shift or move allies or enemies maps and minis are pretty much required as not to make the game confusing. again see my above statement. 4e pretty much required maps and minis to run combat. The combat mechanics are too complex to run Iit in the theater of the mind. I'm not saying it's impossible just not effecient. If I wanted to play a tactical wargame I would just play a tactical wargame.
#9 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 07, 2014 15:46:56	rboles82 wrote:
#10 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 07, 2014 15:55:26	Centauri wrote:
#11 Centauri Apr 07, 2014 16:03:17	rboles82 wrote:
#12 Centauri Apr 07, 2014 16:39:11	Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
#13 Dreamstryder Apr 19, 2014 7:44:53	The idea of beating the AC by greater amounts for greater effects is interesting. It is offset enough by difficulty without artificial limits like daily. If we have a set of abilities where some are just more powerful than others, I don't think the more powerful options need to be less used; they could just be harder to pull off. Leaving our beat-AC system at that, however, likely the powerful maneuvers would be used most often on easier-to-hit (likely weaker) opponents, and less powerful attacks against more difficult ones, so the idea for caveats for when the maneuver can be used (I would say instead of having to beat AC) has merit, but if those caveats are too limiting or long-winded, players will tire of them.   Personally, I don't think a set of abilities has to have different power levels to have variety; you could have a tons of varying effects of about the same amount of influence on the game world, and they could even have effects that more powerful abilities do not. I assume you want to work with power tiers in your maneuver sets like 4e classes and wizards, though, but I wanted to point out that you can go outside this box if you wanted.
#14 Beldak_Serpenthelm Apr 23, 2014 9:14:53	I just added a third possibility to the OP: a new "maneuver roll" in addition to attack/damage. I got the idea from YagamiFire's blog (and it sounds like he got the general concept from Pathfinder but improved the specific mechanics), and I think I've found a way to combine his idea with my own concern for abilities with different power levels.   I haven't had practice adding new mechanics on this level before, so I would appreciate feedback on whether the specific execution needs to be improved, but what I have so far works out to:   Level 1 abilities require 1d20 + BAB to add up to at least 3 Level 5 abilities require 1d20 + BAB to add up to at least 11 Level 10 abilities require 1d20 + BAB to add up to at least 21   If you have a BAB of 0, then *rolling at least a 3 (90%) lets you use abilities leveled at 1 *abilities leveled at 9 require rolling at least a 19 (10%) *abilities leveled at 10 are impossible (would require rolling at least a 21)   If you have a BAB of 1, then *rolling at least a 2 (95%) lets you use abilities leveled at 1 *abilities leveled at 10 require rolling a 20 (5%)   If you have a BAB of 2, then *rolling even a 1 lets you use abilities leveled at 1 *rolling at least a 3 (90%) lets you use abilities leveled at 2 *abilities leveled at 10 require rolling at least a 19 (10%)   If you have a BAB of 5, then *even rolling a 1 lets you use abilities leveled at 1 or 2 *rolling at least a 2 (95%) lets you use abilities leveled at 3 *abilities leveled at 10 require rolling at least a 16 (25%)   If you have a BAB of 10, then *rolling even a 1 lets you use abilities leveled at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 *rolling at least a 3 (90%) lets you use abilities leveled at 6 *abilities leveled at 10 require rolling at least an 11 (50%)   If you have a BAB of 15, then *even rolling a 1 lets you use abilities leveled at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 *rolling at least a 2 (95%) lets you use abilities leveled at 8 *abilities leveled at 10 require rolling at least a 6 (75%)