A Casting aproach to the Martial Issue WoTC Please read

I posted this in a thread that got way off topic and as I was writing it I REALY loved the idea, and wondered what others thought.




Personally I would like to see a list of Maneuvers in the back of the PHB right in front of or behind the spell list, that ALL MARTIAL charectors had access too (fighters rogues barbarians rangers ect...

Example:

Tumbling Stab
Requirements Dex 15, Light Blade

Action: Full Round

Move your speed without provoking attacks of opertunity (asuming they will exist). You may move through opponants squares, you must end your move behind the target. You make an attack roll with a bonus of 1/4 your dexterity check and + 1/2 dexterity check damage. All other normal bonuses still apply.



These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. There could even be a theme similar to the magic user theme that would allow NON martial charectors to take some. These could easily be scaled from 1st level maneuvers to x level, whatever makes sense to scale in power. Fighter could be the Wizard of maneuvers gaining access to higher levels quicker then others, having more of ect..


Hybrid charectors like the paladin, would have a very limited selection from both maneuvers and spells.

I could get down with this all day long



edit: after thinking about it, there is no reason to scale these by level
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  
You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  



Personally I'd go with a stamina/encounter mechanic, but other than that I agree prety much entirely with the OP (as noted in the thread where he first posted this)

Personally I'd go with a stamina/encounter mechanic



Would you mind defining that? I'm not clear on wxactly what that would entail. 


Personally I'd go with a stamina/encounter mechanic



Would you mind defining that? I'm not clear on wxactly what that would entail. 




I would assume Seerow means something like:
3rd level fighter has 5 stamina points, during encounter he can expend these points to perform special techniques. If he expends them all he is too tired, and he is limited to basic attacks only, until he gets a short rest.

I like the concept of martial techniques being shared by all mundane classes like spells by casters. It would imho prevent rules bloat and prevent two similar martial characters of different class not being able to share some techniques. It's what they seem to want to achieve with manevroues from themes. For some reason some people seem to oppose it strongly.  
You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  





The same logic as casters....balance. Martial charactors have more HP, More at will damage with melee attacks, and higher AC. Allowing them to do these things, while still having the above advantage doesnt work. UNLESS those things are scaled back or caster damage is raised, only then could a per encounter or stamina like system work. Which is fine by me to
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  




You can describe it however you like.  In real life many things that are not magical are limited... just a couple examples of limited physical efforts.

Competitive weightlifting, sure he can life 900lbs, but can he do it 60 times in 5 minutes?
Professional baseball, the ball only weighs 5oz and the pitcher thows it 40 feet, how come he can't throw 500 pitches?
Sprinters can cover 100 meters incredibly quickly yet nobody can run a mile that fast.
For that matter think of the stories of mothers that lift a car off their children, could she do it twice?  Could she do it on command?

When it comes down to it human bodies are capable of exceptional feats that can't be reproduced on command.

I suspect most or all maneuvers would either be a trick, and the enemy wouldn't fall for it again, or an exceptional physical effort that couldn't be done at will.  I imagine a rogue could have a habit of diving between the legs of large opponents and stabbing them in the legs or groin on the way by, but the second time he tries that the big creature remembers what happened and prevents the technique.  That logic even works if both opponents fight again later, you simply assume the ogre remembers getting stabbed in the jimmy and the rogue remebers he did it, now the orgre is looking for that trick but the rogue has improved his technique and catches him offguard with his improved trick.

For the physical exertion thing, imagine we want to make an attack that attempts to kill an enemy in a single blow that if it fails deals triple damage to the enemy.  If swinging a sword is curling 30lbs this is like curling 200lbs, our strong warrior can manage it but he can't simply rip these off like nothing for exactly the same reason he can't simply curl his max weight all day every day. 

Personally I'd go with a stamina/encounter mechanic



Would you mind defining that? I'm not clear on wxactly what that would entail. 




I would assume Seerow means something like:
3rd level fighter has 5 stamina points, during encounter he can expend these points to perform special techniques. If he expends them all he is too tired, and he is limited to basic attacks only, until he gets a short rest.

I like the concept of martial techniques being shared by all mundane classes like spells by casters. It would imho prevent rules bloat and prevent two similar martial characters of different class not being able to share some techniques. It's what they seem to want to achieve with manevroues from themes. For some reason some people seem to oppose it strongly.  





I could see "Stamina" as a daily recourse, "casting" similar to a Sorceror. Choosing at time of "casting" which ones to use. Maybe the maneuvers could cost different ammounts of Stamina scaling with level. Once you have used all your stamina points, your down to swinging the sword, your tired nothing fancy left in you time to sleep.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
I would assume the same, if I were given to making assumptions. Laughing 
I like to make sure I know what I'm agreeing with before I agree with it. 

I'd also say that that would also be a good way to handle it (although I'm not fond of the "short rest" concept and would prefer a "[level] points gained per hour of rest" type mechanic instead. ) 


You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  





The same logic as casters....balance. Martial charactors have more HP, More at will damage with melee attacks, and higher AC. Allowing them to do these things, while still having the above advantage doesnt work. UNLESS those things are scaled back or caster damage is raised, only then could a per encounter or stamina like system work. Which is fine by me to


Actually, a daily limit is a stamina system.  The stamina points are just hidden by pre-sinking them into abilities.  That is why I tinkered with 4e's power system a bit to divide powers known into both powers known and # of uses.  For example: knowing 2 enouncter powers, according to the RAW, meant that you knew 2 different encounter powers that could each be used once per encounter.  Under my houserule, knowing 2 encounter powers meant that you knew 2 encounter powers and had 2 uses to divide among them as you saw fit.  If you look at limited use powers this way, then limited use powers really are just a pre-sunk resource system, like stamina points.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

You had me right up to this:


These would be limited in number and uses per day, same as caster. 



Under what logic is someone only able to attempt this a limited number of times a day? 
This is the very definition of a dissociated mechanic, and is exactly the type of thing that kept me from enjoying 4e. 

I'd much prefer it if there was an added difficulty, but you could try it as many times as you like.  





The same logic as casters....balance. Martial charactors have more HP, More at will damage with melee attacks, and higher AC. Allowing them to do these things, while still having the above advantage doesnt work. UNLESS those things are scaled back or caster damage is raised, only then could a per encounter or stamina like system work. Which is fine by me to


Actually, a daily limit is a stamina system.  The stamina points are just hidden by pre-sinking them into abilities.  That is why I tinkered with 4e's power system a bit to divide powers known into both powers known and # of uses.  For example: knowing 2 enouncter powers, according to the RAW, meant that you knew 2 different encounter powers that could each be used once per encounter.  Under my houserule, knowing 2 encounter powers meant that you knew 2 encounter powers and had 2 uses to divide among them as you saw fit.  If you look at limited use powers this way, then limited use powers really are just a pre-sunk resource system, like stamina points.





Absolutely. That is an interesting house rule, I think ill run that by our 4e players and see what they think.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

Personally I'd go with a stamina/encounter mechanic



Would you mind defining that? I'm not clear on wxactly what that would entail. 




I would assume Seerow means something like:
3rd level fighter has 5 stamina points, during encounter he can expend these points to perform special techniques. If he expends them all he is too tired, and he is limited to basic attacks only, until he gets a short rest.



This is more or less correct. There's a couple different ways of implementing it, but this is the simplest one, and most likely to see use. I would probably add the ability to push himself, getting an extra couple stamina but fatiguing/exhausting himself. And maybe also a limited number of times you can recover stamina in a day, so while it's still clearly an encounter based resource, and no real artificial limitations that daily type abilities usually have, you still have a cap on how much you can do during a day, letting it be better balanced against spellcasters. It even makes sense, how many times can you push yourself to near exhaustion in a day before you just need to actually sleep before you can do anymore? There's a limit to what 5 minute rests can get you.



I like the concept of martial techniques being shared by all mundane classes like spells by casters. It would imho prevent rules bloat and prevent two similar martial characters of different class not being able to share some techniques. It's what they seem to want to achieve with manevroues from themes. For some reason some people seem to oppose it strongly.  



I agree that having martial techniques shared by all mundane classes is a great thing. This was one of the worst parts about 4e, how you'd have the same ability written up 10 times as different powers for different classes, rather than just having one single power referenced by multiple classes. We absolutely should have a common baseline that all characters with maneuvers can tap into, just like casters have a common pool of spells they tap into.

The reason we (or at least I) don't want to see maneuvers in themes is because if they come from themes then the themes with maneuvers need to be balanced against themes without maneuvers. There's very good reason to believe that most themes are going to be much weaker than spellcasting, and as such we'd rather see maneuvers built into classes so they can be balanced against spells, rather than against feats. You can leave in the option for a player to trade out their maneuvers/resources for a bonus theme, just make sure to mark it stating that while it will make a character simpler, it is likely to make the character weaker as well. 
I really like the idea, though I also wouldn't be opposed to each class getting a few class-specific maneuvers as well, to allow for better class identity. I also think this could encourage more evenly distributed point distribution, as now as a fighter I have access to unique powers that draw off both Dex AND Strength, or Constitution, or even Wisdom.

This would only work effectively for encouraging even distributions, however, if the shared list is both deep and unique--No two powers with the same effect but different flavor and ability score.


Addition:

It's important not to forget that you still need to establish unique class identities despite a shared theme and maneuver pool. Will class features be enough for that? What about maintaining the feel that you're actually leveling up in a specific class, and not just becoming a better martial warrior? If all or most maneuvers are shared, then any level-ups will potentially feel like a more GURPS system of open-advancement. Just some thoughts on the matter.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth

The same logic as casters....balance.



Exactly my problem with it.  When I choose to play an RPG over say a board game, I chose to do so for the sense of immersion. So when I ask "why does this work this way?" I want an answer that makes sense to my CHARACTER.  "Balance" doesn't do that.  

I like the idea of stamina points though. It limits the uses in a way that makes sense to the character- "I'm too tired to keep doing fancy stuff " (See? you can have balance AND verisimilitude!) How and when they regen could be a bit of a discussion, but the idea of them is promising.

I really like the idea, though I also wouldn't be opposed to each class getting a few class-specific maneuvers as well, to allow for better class identity. I also think this could encourage more evenly distributed point distribution, as now as a fighter I have access to unique powers that draw off both Dex AND Strength, or Constitution, or even Wisdom.

This would only work effectively for encouraging even distributions, however, if the shared list is both deep and unique--No two powers with the same effect but different flavor and ability score. 




I only disagree with this because, this makes 4e esque manuevers. Basicaly the same moves called something different. A Martial Manuever/power system should be universal, the same way sorcerors and Wizards draw from the same Arcane spell list.

I think by making the maneuvers stat and or weapon dependant could produce a large variety of abilities that would make the charectors unique and of themselves.

Typicaly a Rogue goes for Dex mainly and uses Daggers so he would have access to some that a Monk who focuses on WIS and STR and uses his fists may not be able to; BUT if they wanted to build their charector that way, they could.

If I had the time I could easily come up with TONS of these with there own effects.



ADDITION TO YOUR ADDITION: I agree each class needs its own unique feel, but I dont think these are the way to do it. Rogues get Sneak Attack, Barbarian Rage, So far Fighters get Surges, Wizards schools, clerics domains, ect.. The uniqueness of the class should be baked in. Fireball is not unique to the Wizard it is merely a power he has access to as an arcane caster.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
I really like the idea, though I also wouldn't be opposed to each class getting a few class-specific maneuvers as well, to allow for better class identity. I also think this could encourage more evenly distributed point distribution, as now as a fighter I have access to unique powers that draw off both Dex AND Strength, or Constitution, or even Wisdom.

This would only work effectively for encouraging even distributions, however, if the shared list is both deep and unique--No two powers with the same effect but different flavor and ability score. 




I only disagree with this because, this makes 4e esque manuevers. Basicaly the same moves called something different. A Martial Manuever/power system should be universal, the same way sorcerors and Wizards draw from the same Arcane spell list.

I think by making the maneuvers stat and or weapon dependant could produce a large variety of abilities that would make the charectors unique and of themselves.

Typicaly a Rogue goes for Dex mainly and uses Daggers so he would have access to some that a Monk who focuses on WIS and STR and uses his fists may not be able to; BUT if they wanted to build their charector that way, they could.

If I had the time I could easily come up with TONS of these with there own effects.




You can make maneuvers unique to a class (or even type of class) without reproducing a bunch of the same maneuvers with different names. I agree that absolutely should be avoided. But I could see a set of maneuvers being created for sneaky types that Rogues and Rangers have access to but not Fighters or Barbarians. I could see more defensive maneuvers that a Fighter or Ranger might share, but a rogue doesn't get. On the other hand, rogues might get more active defense based maneuvers, things like slip away into hiding as a reaction when attacked by making a spot check. I could also see some leadership style maneuvers in the hands of the Warlord that the other classes might not have access to. 

Anything generic that all classes should be able to do should be shared, but you can provide maneuvers that are unique to a class, or even just available to some classes and not others, without writing up a bunch of clone abilities that are the same thing just reflavored for 4 different classes.



ADDITION TO YOUR ADDITION: I agree each class needs its own unique feel, but I dont think these are the way to do it. Rogues get Sneak Attack, Barbarian Rage, So far Fighters get Surges, Wizards schools, clerics domains, ect.. The uniqueness of the class should be baked in. Fireball is not unique to the Wizard it is merely a power he has access to as an arcane caster.


Counterpoint: Wizards and Clerics both cast spells. If they cast Animate Dead, it references the same spell in the book. However the Cleric cannot cast Fireball. 

Also, the Bard can cast several divine exclusive spells, including the cure line, despite being an Arcane Caster.

Outside of core it's even more pronounced, where you have stuff like the Hexblade, Duskblade, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, etc, who are all arcane casters with different spell lists. Some of them have a more limited version of the wizard's list, some have that but also borrow from the cleric's list, some even have unique spells. None of these had the problems that 4e had that you are trying to avoid.

We already have a template that worked, just expand it to other things besides spellcasters. Just as not all spellcasters are the same/use the same list, not all mundane characters need to be the same/use the same list. 


I know, scowyn, that was the basis for my second paragraph. It only works if you have both a deep and unique list of maneuvers with no shared mechanics. Embarassed 


Anyways, if the "Stamina" points were used to dictate usage, should the amount of points be tied to Constitution? I feel like CON doesn't get enough emphasis in the core system, and giving CON martial's extra usages might make it competitive with widely emphasized DEX and STR.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
I would probably add the ability to push himself, getting an extra couple stamina but fatiguing/exhausting himself.

 

I was thinking the same thing!


And maybe also a limited number of times you can recover stamina in a day, so while it's still clearly an encounter based resource, and no real artificial limitations that daily type abilities usually have, you still have a cap on how much you can do during a day, letting it be better balanced against spellcasters. It even makes sense, how many times can you push yourself to near exhaustion in a day before you just need to actually sleep before you can do anymore? There's a limit to what 5 minute rests can get you.

 

This is why I'd go hourly with it.  If I've done a full workout I'm not ready to do it again in 5 min, or even an hour, but several hours later I might be. Whereas if I've done a light workout, I might be ready to do a full one in an hour or two.  



The reason we (or at least I) don't want to see maneuvers in themes is because if they come from themes then the themes with maneuvers need to be balanced against themes without maneuvers. There's very good reason to believe that most themes are going to be much weaker than spellcasting, and as such we'd rather see maneuvers built into classes so they can be balanced against spells, rather than against feats. You can leave in the option for a player to trade out their maneuvers/resources for a bonus theme, just make sure to mark it stating that while it will make a character simpler, it is likely to make the character weaker as well. 



Agreed.
I actually really like the OP's use of stat requirements (maybe for more complex ones a level or certain feat or theme or even class could be required too) And then make them more like 3ed cleric spell - sorc spell hybrid: At anytime if you have the stamina points/requirements you can use that maneuver.  

This is why I'd go hourly with it.  If I've done a full workout I'm not ready to do it again in 5 min, or even an hour, but several hours later I might be. Whereas if I've done a light workout, I might be ready to do a full one in an hour or two.  



I'd stick with 5 minutes. While hourly may be more realistic, and could certainly be an option for a grittier style of game, waiting around an hour after combat to be ready to fight again is something most groups aren't going to want to do. 





Anyways, if the "Stamina" points were used to dictate usage, should the amount of points be tied to Constitution? I feel like CON doesn't get enough emphasis in the core system, and giving CON martial's extra usages might make it competitive with widely emphasized DEX and STR.

 

Personally I want to just lose con as an attribute, it is entirely passive, and doesn't lend itself to skills and active abilities in the way other attributes do (Except maybe Wisdom, which I have similar problems with). But given that's not likely to happen, making con the go-to stat for extra stamina makes sense and would be a way to make it a bit more relevant.
Whirlwind

Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon

Action: Action

Make an attack against each adjecent enemy, deal damage as normal.



Pinning Shot

Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow

Action: Action

Save: Reflex

Your next shot pins the target to the ground/wall/surface they cannot move. Deal damage as normal.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

I'd stick with 5 minutes. While hourly may be more realistic, and could certainly be an option for a grittier style of game, waiting around an hour after combat to be ready to fight again is something most groups aren't going to want to do. 



Ah, but I'd ALSO give them enough points to start with to give them enough to use a bunch (say 6 - 8ish for example purposes). So they could use one or two every battle over 3 or 5 battles or they could nova and use them all at once or they could save them up if they think they might have something big to fight coming up and don't want to waste energy on the mooks beforehand.  

I know, scowyn, that was the basis for my second paragraph. It only works if you have both a deep and unique list of maneuvers with no shared mechanics. Embarassed 


Anyways, if the "Stamina" points were used to dictate usage, should the amount of points be tied to Constitution? I feel like CON doesn't get enough emphasis in the core system, and giving CON martial's extra usages might make it competitive with widely emphasized DEX and STR.





Yes constitution would absolutely fit perfectly, for bonus stamina only. Similar to how casters gain access to bonus spells.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

I'd stick with 5 minutes. While hourly may be more realistic, and could certainly be an option for a grittier style of game, waiting around an hour after combat to be ready to fight again is something most groups aren't going to want to do. 



Ah, but I'd ALSO give them enough points to start with to give them enough to use a bunch (say 6 - 8ish for example purposes). So they could use one or two every battle over 3 or 5 battles or they could nova and use them all at once or they could save them up if they think they might have something big to fight coming up and don't want to waste energy on the mooks beforehand.  






Now see I dont agree with the encounter based system, it makes things too screwy. I think x points per day would work out just fine, similar to power points and maybe ways to increase that pool through constitution, magic ect.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


I'd stick with 5 minutes. While hourly may be more realistic, and could certainly be an option for a grittier style of game, waiting around an hour after combat to be ready to fight again is something most groups aren't going to want to do. 



Ah, but I'd ALSO give them enough points to start with to give them enough to use a bunch (say 6 - 8ish for example purposes). So they could use one or two every battle over 3 or 5 battles or they could nova and use them all at once or they could save them up if they think they might have something big to fight coming up and don't want to waste energy on the mooks beforehand.  




I think an encounter based system works better explicitly because it discourages novaing. If the character wants to nova, they can do so by pushing themselves, and gaining the fatigue/exhausted condition (and if it works like 3e, fatigue can go away with a few minutes, but exhausted means you're stuck with a heavy penalty until you get a full 8 hours of sleep).

You keep warriors on the same adventuring day cycle as wizards by limiting how many times per day they can rest to recharge their stamina. A given fighter might choose not to take a short rest and recharge his stamina after a fight simply because he knows he didn't do too much and wants to last longer, in much the same way a wizard might choose to cast only one spell instead of 3 or 4 in an encounter.

It lets you stay on the same playing field for balance, but makes the mundane warriors feel like they're closer to at-will than casters. 

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?



Even the weapon requirements could be brought down some. For example I could see pinning shot being done with just about any piercing or slashing throwing weapon. (I was going to say just piercing, but I could see a throwing axe working to pin someone)

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?


Only if you threw it.  I do agree on weapon restrictions.  I'm even cool with restrictions based on strength v finesse and handedness.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I disagree with only if you threw it.

A fencer forces his opponent back with a flurry of attacks and then pins his sleeve to the wall with his rapier.

That I think is every bit as realistic as doing it with a throwing weapon, with the added advantage that you don't have to wait for them to get their sleeve within nailing range of the wall.  I wouldn't say it's a rapier only trick, but I would certainly allow it with appropriate melee weapons. 
I disagree with only if you threw it.

A fencer forces his opponent back with a flurry of attacks and then pins his sleeve to the wall with his rapier.

That I think is every bit as realistic as doing it with a throwing weapon, with the added advantage that you don't have to wait for them to get their sleeve within nailing range of the wall.  I wouldn't say it's a rapier only trick, but I would certainly allow it with appropriate melee weapons. 


As a fencer, I had considered that.  However, keeping an enemy pinned to the wall in that way requires leaving one's blade in the wall.  This is not so bad if you're holding onto the weapon still (though it's a fatal flaw if you let go of it), but even if you do hold onto it, pinning in this way become more like a grappling move with the potential escape method of tearing one's sleeve off.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?


Only if you threw it.  I do agree on weapon restrictions.  I'm even cool with restrictions based on strength v finesse and handedness.





The only reason I was thinking of Stat restrictions was to compensate different builds.



The Dex fighter moves in and out of the battle field stiking and moving

the STR fighter breaks skulls lifts enemies and tosses them cleaves things in half 

A fighter could build high CHA and thus have access to 4e Warlord like abilities.

The fighter could be INT based and use trap like attacks or outsmart his opponant.

The WIS based fighter could be built around reaction due to combat experiance and perception

the CON fighter takes damage like a beast, even throwing himslef into danger for high reward situations because he can take it.


Or any and all of above combinations depending on build
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?


Only if you threw it.  I do agree on weapon restrictions.  I'm even cool with restrictions based on strength v finesse and handedness.





The only reason I was thinking of Stat restrictions was to compensate different builds.



The Dex fighter moves in and out of the battle field stiking and moving

the STR fighter breaks skulls lifts enemies and tosses them cleaves things in half 

A fighter could build high CHA and thus have access to 4e Warlord like abilities.

The fighter could be INT based and use trap like attacks or outsmart his opponant.

The WIS based fighter could be built around reaction due to combat experiance and perception

the CON fighter takes damage like a beast, even throwing himslef into danger for high reward situations because he can take it.


Or any and all of above combinations depending on build


I get the concept behind it, and I can certainly dig it.  However, it might be better to let the fighter choose his primary stat, which determines his fighting style, and this choice then affects the available maneuvers.  That way reinforces the choice but doesn't punish the fighter for not rolling a 15 instead of a 14 in his key attribute.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I've said this before, but I'd basically divide offensive maneuvers by fighting style:

-Two Handed Weapons
-Reach Weapons
-One one-handed weapon (Einhander)
-Two Weapon Fighting
-Sword and Board
-Ranged Weapons


Possibly splitting ranged weapons into Projectile and Throwing weapons.


Now there can be overlap here. A guy using Sword and Board can totally dip into two weapon fighting maneuvers using a shield bash. Someone using a two handed reach weapon might dip into maneuvers for each of them (I'd expect two handed weapon maneuvers to focus at least partially on weapon damage multipliers, so a two handed weapon with reach probably has a lower damage die and gets less benefit vs a non-reach two handed weapon dipping into that style), a character using two daggers might switch between a Einhander style to a two weapon style to a throwing weapon style, dipping into maneuvers from each. But regardless, this is how the maneuvers would be categorized, simply for convenience sake.

Defensive maneuvers you'd probably have some of categorized under weapon styles, and others that are universal. Einhander might have a better focus on self defense against other martial characters, while sword and board is geared towards more general defense(using the shield for cover against area spells for example), and defending allies. Meanwhile some abilities may be useful regardless of what style you're using. In a previous post I mentioned a possibility for a rogue special ability where as he's being attacked he makes a hide check to go into hiding and avoid the attack, something like this would be universal because it doesn't matter what type of weapon he's holding, but it might be something only the rogue can do (or only sneaky classes can do. A Ranger might be able to pick it up as well).

Utilities I think should probably be independent of style, while mobility I think should have a simple melee/range restriction, primarily because melee needs mobility far more than ranged, just to be able to do their job. Ranged attackers might need more escape mechanisms, but melee characters need abilities like 'gain 30ft movement speed for the round' or 'climb at your full move speed', just to be able to do their job of getting in the enemy's face and beating them with heavy bits of metal.

Whirlwind
Requirement: STR 15/ Two Handed Weapon . . .

Pinning Shot
Requirement: Dex 13/Wis 13 / Bow.Crossbow. . .



I have to confess that I'm not at all a fan of attribute requirements.





lol its not a perfect system, just an idea. I definately cant see letting go of weapon requirements though. Cant use pinning shot with a broad sword.....or could you?


Only if you threw it.  I do agree on weapon restrictions.  I'm even cool with restrictions based on strength v finesse and handedness.





The only reason I was thinking of Stat restrictions was to compensate different builds.



The Dex fighter moves in and out of the battle field stiking and moving

the STR fighter breaks skulls lifts enemies and tosses them cleaves things in half 

A fighter could build high CHA and thus have access to 4e Warlord like abilities.

The fighter could be INT based and use trap like attacks or outsmart his opponant.

The WIS based fighter could be built around reaction due to combat experiance and perception

the CON fighter takes damage like a beast, even throwing himslef into danger for high reward situations because he can take it.


Or any and all of above combinations depending on build


I get the concept behind it, and I can certainly dig it.  However, it might be better to let the fighter choose his primary stat, which determines his fighting style, and this choice then affects the available maneuvers.  That way reinforces the choice but doesn't punish the fighter for not rolling a 15 instead of a 14 in his key attribute.





Ah, I see like a wizard chooses schools. I got it!

So..... Each Martial Class gains automatic access to one "School of Manuevers"

Fighter = Str
Rogue = Int
Barbarian = Con
Paladin = Cha
Monk = Wis
Ranger = Dex 

 At creation you can choose ONE additional "school" if you meet at least a 10 in that stat. Further Schools can be gained through Themes, as long as you meet the requirement of 10.

This would give the "archatypal" approach to each class and still allow for customization, and further growth of charactor.


edit: these would obviosly have fluff names. Like School of Bears Endurance (CON), School of Cats Grace (Dex) ect..
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
I get the concept behind it, and I can certainly dig it.  However, it might be better to let the fighter choose his primary stat, which determines his fighting style, and this choice then affects the available maneuvers.  That way reinforces the choice but doesn't punish the fighter for not rolling a 15 instead of a 14 in his key attribute.





Ah, I see like a wizard chooses schools. I got it!

So..... Each Martial Class gains automatic access to one "School of Manuevers"

Fighter = Str
Rogue = Int
Barbarian = Con
Paladin = Cha
Monk = Wis
Ranger = Dex 

 At creation you can choose ONE additional "school" if you meet at least a 10 in that stat. Further Schools can be gained through Themes, as long as you meet the requirement of 10.

This would give the "archatypal" approach to each class and still allow for customization, and further growth of charactor.


Yeah, that would work.  I can say, so long as the maneuvers are left a little more open-ended than they were in 4e, like with a choice of rider effect (e.g. tide of iron would give you a choice of push 1 square, knockdown, etc.) that I would be completely happy with that.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I dont know about open ended so much. I realy hope that WoTC is planning something along these lines.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please

Yeah, that would work.  I can say, so long as the maneuvers are left a little more open-ended than they were in 4e, like with a choice of rider effect (e.g. tide of iron would give you a choice of push 1 square, knockdown, etc.) that I would be completely happy with that.




That might work quite well if you had classes of effects.  They could also be useful for improvisation.

Class 1:
Push

Class 2:
Pull/Slide

Class 3:
Prone, immobilize

Class 4:
 Stun, Extra attack

...

Class X:
Death

Then you make a maneuver something along the lines of...

Tide of Iron
Make an attack and apply an effect of class one, at level 6 this increases to 1 or 2, at 12 1,2 or 3 and at level 18  up to Class 4.