Quote from: AsenRG;903066So, you prefer 13th Age mechanics?

Nope, I only like the "availability determined by the die" aspect of it. Not much else.

Quote from: Enlightened;903063* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

A lot of players would be displeased by this lack of control. A few random elements come with the territory of course, but if most of your potential is random there isn't much strategy.

I don't speak for myself though, I would be perfectly fine playing a champion fighter.

Quote from: Skywalker;903049It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

It's the difference between experience and power (Kwai Chang Kane/Master Po, Luke/Kenobi, etc) and "I can only do a one-handed catch 1/day, should I use it now?"  

Show me a daily in 1e, 99% of the time, I'll show you a supernatural power.  Summoning your internal power to do Crouching Tiger shit =/= Parrying.  When your special limited ability is something that is done by every fighter in practically every fight in history, the justification for making it a limited resource is not tied to the world of the setting.  

A character not choosing to fight an Ogre because he's almost out of Hit Points would be similar to a boxer canceling a fight with Tyson if he just broke a rib in a bicycle accident the night before - you're too wounded to win that fight.  Now a player could, in fact, decide that with 12 hit points left, and the Ogre only doing 1-10, he will survive long enough for the Cleric to heal him if he steps up to protect the Cleric.  

Anytime the player knows the math, they can make predictions and calculate probability in a way that the character can not.  That's a player metagaming choice.  That doesn't mean that the choice is one the character cannot make within the setting.

It doesn't matter what system you use, I can't force a player to roleplay and not use every metagaming advantage except by perhaps taking away the character sheet.  I just get a new player.

You could also argue the Fighter, being relatively experienced, knows he has enough stamina to stick and move, so he can calculate he can keep the Ogre off for a while at least.  At some point the math becomes internalized to the point where it is instinctive, at which point it really isn't much different from the instinctive experience of the character.

You could also argue that certain "signature moves", like dirty tricks, fighting style secrets, etc. are less effective after you use them once.  So in certain cases, a "once per Encounter" ability even can make sense within the setting.

Dodge, Parry, Riposte, etc. aren't really those, though.

Why are dissociative mechanics bad? What's wrong with players playing non-magical classes and having agency to do interesting things without requiring those things come randomly  (critical hits, odd numbered dice, etc)? I think that's the biggest reason we see mechanics like Rage or Ki or Superiority dice or encounter based maneuvers. Because spellcastsrs shouldn't be the only classes that have round-to-round options that can effect monsters differently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903091Show me a daily in 1e, 99% of the time, I'll show you a supernatural power.  

I was thinking of the Oriental Adventures 1e Monk's ability to heal HP once a day. It's almost identical to the 5e Fighter Second Wind and is not explicitly based on Ki other than as a general description of how the Monk operates. I struggle to distinguish between that and the kind of focus covered by the Battle Master.

On saying that, this seems like a tangent to the thread, which is criticising of the Battle Master as an option in 5e. The Battle Master is not alone in its approach in this edition regardless of your opinion of the approach of previous editions. If that's the basis for your criticism, then it runs deeper than just the Battle Master.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903098Dodge, Parry, Riposte, etc. aren't really those, though.

Those abilities are more than just their game mechanic titles though, unless you are suggesting the titles themselves are an in-game thing, such that no other PC is able to dodge or parry without them. In D&D, AC covers dodging and parrying in a general sense, and regular attacks cover ripostes. What the Battle Masters abilities cover are much more powerful versions of those everyday combat moves and so would be of the nature of the signature moves that you mention, require levels of stamina and focus to pull off.

Quote from: Skywalker;903121The Battle Master is not alone in its approach in this edition regardless of your opinion of the approach of previous editions. If that's the basis for your criticism, then it runs deeper than just the Battle Master.

Right, but that approach isn't in every edition, basically just 4th.  I'm just sick of the standard "AD&D did it too" defense followed by rather...inventive...ways of defining mechanics to make them appear similar.  Somewhere around 3.5 that became the standard defense of newer D&D, hell the defense for criticism against practically every game at one point or another, at least on this site.  But you're right, it's a tangent, so screw it, on to the Battlemaster...

Quote from: Skywalker;903122Those abilities are more than just their game mechanic titles though, unless you are suggesting the titles themselves are an in-game thing, such that no other PC is able to dodge or parry without them. In D&D, AC covers dodging and parrying in a general sense, and regular attacks cover ripostes. What the Battle Masters abilities cover are much more powerful versions of those everyday combat moves and so would be of the nature of the signature moves that you mention, require levels of stamina and focus to pull off.

Which is what tying it to rests certainly implies.  However, no Rogue archetype has Evasive Footwork?  No Barbarian has Pushing Attack?

The real problem is class design.  Classes work best when they are either 1.) Broad open archetypes, where a few can cover a huge amount of characters or 2.)Hyper-specific to a certain role.  An example would be having a "Cleric" class vs. having a specialty priest class for every god.   The problem with 5e class design is, it's both.  WotC is trying to have it's cake and eat it too.  It wants the TSR archetypes with WotC power sets.  It's hyper-specific covering generic roles.  On earth you might have a Knight Class, with sub-classes of Teutonic Knight, Knight Templar, Knight Hospitaller, etc...  The 5e version of that would be Martial Knight, Political Knight who has secret mystical power, and Knights who heal.  Not broad by any stretch of the imagination and specific to absolutely nothing.

They would have been far better served by sticking to the most basic of sub-classes for the "generic" archetypes and then went to Realms-specific with the others instead of giving us idiotic generic subclasses that don't fit in half the D&D worlds like Eldritch Knight.  WotC doesn't understand that unless you stick to the broadest archetypes, class design is world design, they've never understood that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903129Which is what tying it to rests certainly implies.  However, no Rogue archetype has Evasive Footwork?  No Barbarian has Pushing Attack?

er... Feat: Martial Adept: gain 2 Maneuvers and 1 superiority die.

Also again... Anyone can push, trip, dodge, whatever. Some of its going on automatically even. The Battle Master just occasionally does it better and/or when they really need it/see the opportunity.

Quote from: Batman;903119Why are dissociative mechanics bad? What's wrong with players playing non-magical classes and having agency to do interesting things without requiring those things come randomly  (critical hits, odd numbered dice, etc)? I think that's the biggest reason we see mechanics like Rage or Ki or Superiority dice or encounter based maneuvers. Because spellcastsrs shouldn't be the only classes that have round-to-round options that can effect monsters differently.

But, but, Spellcasters have always been the classes with variety and versatility, it's how it's ALWAYS been done!  You don't mess with a good thing man, you just don't.

Unless, of course, you prefer playing fighters and non-casters and roll your eyes mentally, when you get past third level and your entire schtick is eclipsed by some guy in a robe with a wand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903198But, but, Spellcasters have always been the classes with variety and versatility, it's how it's ALWAYS been done!  You don't mess with a good thing man, you just don't.

Unless, of course, you prefer playing fighters and non-casters and roll your eyes mentally, when you get past third level and your entire schtick is eclipsed by some guy in a robe with a wand.

Well, for what it's worth, that's not why for me.

In fact, I heavily favor fighters in my houserules. (From this thread.)

And I severely limit arcane casters.

I go far out of my way to make fighter a better choice than magic user in my personal games.

As for dissociated mechanics, for me, the issue is my own personal sense of "making sense." It doesn't "make sense" to me than the player can decide things outside of the realm of their character's actions.

And the "not making sense"-ness of dissociated mechanics is like a hyper puppy always jumping into my field of vision and ruining my fun when I try to play. It's like a painful brain splinter that makes me keep screaming,"Why?" There is nothing objective about it. It's a completely subjective preference but it's there none the less.

Quote from: Enlightened;903202And the "not making sense"-ness of dissociated mechanics is like a hyper puppy always jumping into my field of vision and ruining my fun when I try to play. It's like a painful brain splinter that makes me keep screaming,"Why?" There is nothing objective about it. It's a completely subjective preference but it's there none the less.

Cool. But I assume it would be true to say you have a similar issue with the Fighter's Second Wind and Action Surge abilities for the same reason, regardless of whether the PC is a Battle Master or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903091When your special limited ability is something that is done by every fighter in practically every fight in history, the justification for making it a limited resource is not tied to the world of the setting.  

A character not choosing to fight an Ogre because he's almost out of Hit Points would be similar to a boxer canceling a fight with Tyson if he just broke a rib in a bicycle accident the night before - you're too wounded to win that fight.  Now a player could, in fact, decide that with 12 hit points left, and the Ogre only doing 1-10, he will survive long enough for the Cleric to heal him if he steps up to protect the Cleric.

Is there really only one form of stamina (corresponding to HPs) in the real world, which is always restored by a good night's sleep? Do you find the exhaustion mechanic in D&D 5e dissociated? If not, why can you have two forms of exhaustion/depleted stamina without being dissociated but not three? I see the argument against shared pool mechanics but not for one that's specific to the character, who knows what they can do and what they can't do and can manage that as well as the player. But I'm also comfortable with assuming a magical basis for every mechanic, be it Battlemasters or a character who can fall off the Empire State Building and is guaranteed to be able to walk away, so it's not going to bother me anyway.

Quote from: rawma;903290Is there really only one form of stamina (corresponding to HPs) in the real world, which is always restored by a good night's sleep?

By virtue of the fact that all damage and fatique is comepletely healed with a single nights rest, it is clear that there are many kinds of real world fatigue and injury types that PCs are not subject to. There is nothing dissociative about this.

Quote from: rawma;903290Do you find the exhaustion mechanic in D&D 5e dissociated?
If not, why can you have two forms of exhaustion/depleted stamina without being dissociated but not three?

I personally haven't looked too closely at the exhaustion mechanic, but it doesn't seem dissociative. There doesn't appear to be any meta-level decision being made. You could have any number of exhaustion/stamina depletion methods that are not dissociative.

Quote from: rawma;903290I see the argument against shared pool mechanics but not for one that's specific to the character, who knows what they can do and what they can't do and can manage that as well as the player.

Well, that's the crux of it. Does the character know that they can trip four times before they are going to have to rest to trip more? If the character knows about and can personally manage the resource, it's not dissociative.

Quote from: rawma;903290But I'm also comfortable with assuming a magical basis for every mechanic.

Actually, considering them to be minor, in-world, known-to-the-character, depeletable/rechargable battle cantrips is one way to make them associative.

Quote from: Enlightened;903309By virtue of the fact that all damage and fatique is comepletely healed with a single nights rest, it is clear that there are many kinds of real world fatigue and injury types that PCs are not subject to. There is nothing dissociative about this.

The sheer amount of mental gymnastics needed to get to this point just boggles my mind.  I simply get my little mind around this.  I must be an utter moron for just not being able to understand how it's not a major mechanical dissociation.

I just can't do it.