Bull rush and trip are also bad.

Many of you may vehemently disagree with me, and that's okay, but I find that the definition of both bull rush and trip manuevers to be problematic. Bull rush doesn't allow for any kind of save or resist check for the target. It just auto works if you spend your martial dice, and moves the target. Now, this is different than the debated taunt skill trick and the infamous come-and-get-it of 4e, but it is also problematic. IMHO, nothing should just auto work like that, without at least a roll.  I understand that as a manuever, an action like bull rush ought to do something better than or more likely to succeed than a typical bull rush combat action, but it still should not be auto success. Instead you should either be able to use your MDD to increase the effect/distance of the bull rush, or add the MDD roll to your check/contest roll.


Trip is not as bad, but it still has the auto-effect smell to it. Just by hitting the target you get to force it prone, with no regard to a save or check of any sort.  Instead, a trip manuever should simply be the ability to combine a trip attempt with an attack, possibly with mdd added as bonus to the check.
Trip is not as bad, but it still has the auto-effect smell to it. Just by hitting the target you get to force it prone, with no regard to a save or check of any sort.

Agreed.  Wizard spells should also require an attack roll to hit in addition to saves for reduced effect.

Everything that's more than just straight damage should require both an attack roll and a save.

The metagame is not the game.

So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.
So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

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.

Trip is not as bad, but it still has the auto-effect smell to it. Just by hitting the target you get to force it prone, with no regard to a save or check of any sort.

Agreed.  Wizard spells should also require an attack roll to hit in addition to saves for reduced effect.

Everything that's more than just straight damage should require both an attack roll and a save.


I think that's far too much die rolling.  Just oppose the more difficult one of the two factors and be done with it in a single go.

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.

So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

Disarm does not forgo damage.


So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

Disarm does not forgo damage.


If you're talking about the maneuver, then yes it does.

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 do get a save...

It's having AC high enough that the warrior misses.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

Disarm does not forgo damage.


If you're talking about the maneuver, then yes it does.

Disarm Manuever

Effect:
As an action, you can spend one
or two martial damage dice to
make a disarming attack.
Make a melee attack.
If the attack hits, deal
damage as normal, and
the target suffers an additional
effect based on the number of dice
you spent....

Unless there has been an update I've missed.

So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

Disarm does not forgo damage.


If you're talking about the maneuver, then yes it does.

Disarm Manuever

Effect:
As an action, you can spend one
or two martial damage dice to
make a disarming attack.
Make a melee attack.
If the attack hits, deal
damage as normal, and
the target suffers an additional
effect based on the number of dice
you spent....

Unless there has been an update I've missed.


Damage "as normal."  Normal damage doesn't include bonus damage from damage dice.  The way I read it, you spend the dice specifically to perform the disarm, not to both deal extra damage and disarm.

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.

Seriously how many turns do you people want going by where nothing at all happens?  also I feel it needless to touch on the complexity of play issue.  It isn't like the subjects of these attacks didn't get a say in what is happening.  All of their attempted defense against these manuvers (manuvers invented to show a superiority in combat over others) is covered by their AC.  In fact the actions normals can use to replicate these effects do indeed involve opposed checks. Simply put the people with these maneuvers are specifically better at it than those that don't have the maneuver. the being better is signified by there not being an opposed check.  I just spent one of my precious few character options on this capability.  It would be pretty **** if I sacced all that damage for an ability that may not work.  In effect it would always be a terrible decision to use that maneuver.  It would be a king among trap options.  Compared to the straight undeniable damage it would be undeniably worse.  Outside of given niche examples like needing to try to push the white dragon into a wall of fire.


Disarm
You knock a weapon, or other object, out of a
creature’s grasp by making a successful Strength
check against that creature’s Strength or
Dexterity check (the creature chooses the
ability). If the creature is armed with a melee
weapon and you aren’t, you have disadvantage
on your check. If you succeed and have a hand
free, you can snatch the item.


Knock Down
You knock a creature prone, provided it is no
more than one size category larger than you, by
making a successful Strength check against that
creature’s Strength or Dexterity check (the
creature chooses the ability).


Push
You push a creature no more than one size
category larger than you by making a successful
Strength check against that creature’s Strength
or Dexterity check (the creature chooses the
ability), shoving the creature back 5 feet. The
larger creature in the contest has advantage on
the check.

All of the things you mentioned as being broken are in fact, for normal people, opposed checks.  in fact making the maneuvers include an opposed check would make them worse than these options.  Here are the maneuvers:


Bull Rush
You throw yourself into a full-fledged shove,
driving your opponent across the battlefield.
Effect: As an action, you can spend martial
damage dice to push a creature that is your size
or smaller away from you. Choose a creature
within 5 feet of you. For each martial damage die
you spend, you push the creature 5 feet away
from you, and you move along with the creature
along the same path

so you give up the option of damage entirely and have to stay adjacent to the guy.  Literally all you accomplish by doing this is pushing the enemy into questionable spells and terrain effects.  Literally this move is useless unless the given situation calls for it.  Situationally awesome, but not always even useful.


Disarm
You strike a blow that also batters at your
opponent’s weapon.
Effect: As an action, you can spend one or two
martial damage dice to make a disarming attack.
Make a melee attack. If the attack hits, deal
damage as normal, and the target suffers an
additional effect based on the number of dice
you spent.
If you spent one die, you cause the creature to
drop one object that it is holding in one hand.
If you spent two dice, you cause the creature
to drop one object it is holding with both hands.

okay this one is cool, but generally all disarming like this is going to do is result in the next turn being the enemy stooping down to grab their weapon and then hitting you with it anyways.  In fact that doesn't even have to take an action on their part...If the DM wants to be nice it could eat some of their movement, but they need not give you that courtesy.  In fact the only use this ability seems to have is to allow you to escape without eating an OA.


Trip
You use your attack to drive your enemy to the
ground.
Effect: When you hit a creature that is your
size or smaller with a melee weapon attack, you
can spend one martial damage die to knock that
creature prone.
If you instead spend two dice, you can use this
maneuver when attacking a creature that is one
size larger than you.
If you instead spend three dice, you can use
this maneuver when attacking a creature that is
up to one size larger than you, and standing up
requires the creature to use all of its movement
for the turn.

This one is the most useful of the three because it provides advantage to your whole party (or at least to anyone that goes before this guy in the init order).  However you are still saccing straight damage to accomplish this (though at higher levels this isn't as much a problem).  I think the granting of advantage is the only reason this thing is in any way powerful.  It doesn't stop OAs it only barely hinders movement unless you spend three dice on it, and if somerthing is two sizes larger this will not work at all whereas other maneuvers or just straight damage will indeed work.  Also if the init order works incorrectly, such as the guy that got tripped going right after you, this becomes less usefull because the tripping won't help anyone in any way.  So this maneuver can become situationally useless.  

While these are some decently powerful abilities these are not as overpowered as you guys make it seem.  Wizards are still carrying off similar, if not more powerful and universally useful, effects based on singular die rolls (dice they don't even need to roll), and somehow those don't seem broken to you.  These abilities are just a way of bringing the martials into a realm of being even with casters.

So far, my players agree that both Trip and Disarm are too powerful as currently written. We will creating Saves for the defender.
I can see us doign this for Bull Rush also.

Anything that is auto success like that has to be carefully weighed. I think the current rules are a miss in that regard.


I don't see that they need a save.  You might want to change the number of MDD it cousts to use them, but the maneuver is foregoing damage to apply the extra effect.  I'd also like to point out that it's really no worse than the non-maneuver disarm.  The only difference is that you're opposing AC instead of a Strength check.

Disarm does not forgo damage.


If you're talking about the maneuver, then yes it does.

Disarm Manuever

Effect:
As an action, you can spend one
or two martial damage dice to
make a disarming attack.
Make a melee attack.
If the attack hits, deal
damage as normal, and
the target suffers an additional
effect based on the number of dice
you spent....

Unless there has been an update I've missed.


Damage "as normal."  Normal damage doesn't include bonus damage from damage dice.  The way I read it, you spend the dice specifically to perform the disarm, not to both deal extra damage and disarm.

I didn't say "extra damage". I said you get to do damage PLUS disarm. And there is nothing the defender can do or say about it. Imagine how irritable this will be when a monster does it to you over and over again.
Damage "as normal."  Normal damage doesn't include bonus damage from damage dice.  The way I read it, you spend the dice specifically to perform the disarm, not to both deal extra damage and disarm.

I didn't say "extra damage". I said you get to do damage PLUS disarm. And there is nothing the defender can do or say about it. Imagine how irritable this will be when a monster does it to you over and over again.


Under the current rules, it won't be that irritating.  MDD and MDB make weapon damage less important than the skill of the PC.  And, since magic items are no longer required, being disarmed doesn't mean becoming ineffective.

Yes, you get to do damage and disarm.  The damage is less than you could have done had you spent your MDD on dealing additional damage.  So you are foregoing some of your damage capability to apply the disarm effect.  And yes, the opponent does get a say in what happens through their defense to your disarm, their AC score.  If you want a save or opposed check, then just drop the AC by 10 and add it to a d20 roll.

Or, we could stop tap-dancing around all this BS and just bring back the NAD's.

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.

Well, guess we will find out we have one player whose geared up for this trick. We're going to start playing with it "as is" and see how it goes. Playtesting playtesting.... fun fun fun..
I think that's far too much die rolling.  Just oppose the more difficult one of the two factors and be done with it in a single go.

Eh, it's one of those little things that has been bothering me forever, when you can't tell beforehand which of the two factors is supposed to be the more difficult one.  Third edition kind of had it right, where you had to both hit and then overpower your foe in order to trip or bull rush or anything, but you're entirely right that it's a lot of dice to roll.

If you just make it a straight attack roll (as Next is doing), then you invalidate the concept of the opponent who is too strong to trip (if you're familiar with Radical Edward's father, then there's no way Spike would have been strong enough to trip him even if he'd been good enough to hit).  If you make it just a strength save to negate, though, then that's saying that the hit is a gimme, which isn't fair to un-hittable ninja types where not getting hit is their only defense.

The current DDN model, where you need an attack roll to hit but it's only effective against creatures of a certain size category, is.... well, it's stretching things a bit much for my liking, but at least it prevents you from tripping the Tarrasque.  (You can totally trip all manner of dinosaurs and giants with no difficulty, though.)

The metagame is not the game.

I think that's far too much die rolling.  Just oppose the more difficult one of the two factors and be done with it in a single go.

Eh, it's one of those little things that has been bothering me forever, when you can't tell beforehand which of the two factors is supposed to be the more difficult one.  Third edition kind of had it right, where you had to both hit and then overpower your foe in order to trip or bull rush or anything, but you're entirely right that it's a lot of dice to roll.

If you just make it a straight attack roll (as Next is doing), then you invalidate the concept of the opponent who is too strong to trip (if you're familiar with Radical Edward's father, then there's no way Spike would have been strong enough to trip him even if he'd been good enough to hit).  If you make it just a strength save to negate, though, then that's saying that the hit is a gimme, which isn't fair to un-hittable ninja types where not getting hit is their only defense.

The current DDN model, where you need an attack roll to hit but it's only effective against creatures of a certain size category, is.... well, it's stretching things a bit much for my liking, but at least it prevents you from tripping the Tarrasque.  (You can totally trip all manner of dinosaurs and giants with no difficulty, though.)



DDN's size category restriction isn't new.  In 4e, IIRC, tripping was also limited to just one size category larger.  It might have been in 3e as well, my 3e books are boxed up right now or I'd look.

I'd also like to point out that tripping doesn't require a great deal of strength.  It's more a matter of leverage.  Now, sure, you need a certain amount of strength to get the job done, but I've never overcome being tripped in real life (whether while sparring, or tripping over an obstacle) through brute strength.  It's all a matter of dexterity, that is, moving swifty enough to get my feet back underneath me before I fall.

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.

Ah. I see. Another "fighter's can't have nice things" thread. No thanks. I like it much more as is. 
Ah. I see. Another "fighter's can't have nice things" thread. No thanks. I like it much more as is. 


It can see how you feel that way, I did too at first, but it looks more to me like a thread about the proper way to adjudicate the trip, bull rush, and disarm maneuvers.

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 think bull rush and trip are good for the exact reason that they're saveless. Sacrificing optimal damage for extra martial capacity is exactly what I wanted to see.
But, if you houserule in a save, make sure you also houserule that casters need to hit a location w/ a ranged AoE. Unless fireballs aim themselves? Which is a fascinating lore idea...
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
The fighter maneuvers are really supposed to make them the best at Disarm and Trip, and it does that beautifully.  In my eyes, the fighter is sacrificing the damage from their MDD to get a bonus to trip their target.  However, if one wanted to include an additional opposed check, then the fighter should get a +3 against the save check per MDD spent.  That makes it equivalent to the average damage they are sacrificing to perform the maneuver.

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.

DDN's size category restriction isn't new.  In 4e, IIRC, tripping was also limited to just one size category larger.


Same with grabbing, though there were some exceptions(for example, a power that simply applies "Grabbed" will always do it regardless of size, since only the "Grab" action itself is limited like this. I had a field day when I found this out and made my Pixie Brawling Fighter).
I'd keep it the way it is. Namely because:

1. It causes more rolling and more time lost due do figuring out the numbers.

2. It instantly makes these options less desirable than more damage if there is a chance your decision to use MDD on something else has the option to fail.

3. It restricts tactacl play more.
A few thoughts:

- Damage is more useful most of the time. When you give up damage in those situations where the extra effect makes sense, it should be reliable.

- The actual effect of being pushed, knocked prone, or disarmed is generally not that big. Most creatures can easily recover in their next turn.

- The rules as is lead to more dynamic combats, with opponents tripping, pushing and disarming all over the place, rather than just standing there beating on each other with sticks. These let you  create Jackie Chan type combats, and that is pretty cool.

- For NPCs or monsters that should be resistant to one of these types of maneuvers, give them an ability to make a save (probably Dex or Str, depending on what makes sense). Giving that to everyone slows the game down, giving it to a few makes their resistance special.

Maybe a save could be made into the target's choice when MDD's  are used. If the target wants a save, they take the MDD damage, then they get to make a save. So if a fighter uses MDD's to bullrush a target, the target might not bother with a save so as to avoid the extra damage, but if they were being bullrushed off a cliff they might take the extra damage so they at least could try to resist being pushed off to their doom. They might take the extra MDD damage and go over the cliff anyway.

 
I wouldn't mind a rule where your attack roll had to beat their AC, STR, and DEX scores.  Since most creatures don't have stats far in excess of their AC unless they're also large enough that it's not working as is, this wouldn't be a huge downside.  Plus, I wouldn't mind so much letting you trip a huge creature if you happened to roll high enough to beat their 26 STR.  

But more to the point, my problem with these maneuvers is that the value of a trip, a bull rush, or a disarm is pretty constant with level.  The value of d6 damage is not.  Even if you assume 2d6 damage at high levels because everything you fight is at least large, 2d6 at level 10 (or even level 5) is worth a lot less than 1d6 at 1.  Which means that these maneuvers get more powerful relative to damage maneuvers with level.  That feels wrong to me.   
As others have pointed out, these maneuvers have flashy fluff, but their actual game effects are largely an inconvenience at best.  I would rather see less "normal damage + rider" maneuvers, and more unique combat choices.  For instance

Bull Rush:  Choose one adjacent target no more than one size category larger than you.  Make a Str check (adding the highest of any dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, you may spend your movement in 10ft increments to push the target and yourself 5ft.  If pushed into difficult terrain, the target takes damage equal to the total of MDD rolled above and must make a dex save or fall prone and this effect ends.  If pushed into a solid surface (such as a wall), the target takes damage equal to twice the total of MDD rolled above, plus your Str mod and this effect ends.  If pushed into any hazard requiring a Dex save, that target automatically fails the save and this effect ends.  If you complete your movement without pushing the target into any obstacle, you may push the target an additional 5ft without moving yourself.  If this pushes the target into an obstacle, the above effects apply.  If your movement provokes an opportunity attack and you take damage, you must make a Con save vs 10+damage taken or this effect ends.  If you suffer any condition from such an attack that would prohibit further normal movement this effect ends.

Improved Disarm (renamed for a distinction from the normal "Disarm" attack):  Make a Str check (adding the highest of any dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, you knock the object out of the target's hand.  If you have a free hand, you may snatch the item and make an immediate melee attack with it against an adjacent enemy. The damage from this attack is equal to total from the MDD rolled above plus your Str mod (do not apply normal weapon damage). If you do not have a free hand, or choose not to snatch the item, you may knock the item 5ft per die spent in any direction.

Trip:  Make a Str check (adding the highest of dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, the target falls prone taking damage equal the total of MDD spent rolled above plus your Str mod.  If you move into the target's square (normal opp rules apply), you may place one foot on the target to hold it there.  The creature is considered grabbed, however you may not move while maintaining this grab.  Like a normal grab, the creature's speed is considered zero while grabbed.  This is not a pin, meaning attacks do not have advantage against you, and you do not suffer disadvantage on attacks.  However, you must either take disadvantage on Dex saving throws or end the grab if subjected to one.  If you move out of the creature's square for any reason the grab ends.  The target may use an action to attempt to escape the grab as normal.  However, if it attempts to stand up from prone while still in your square, you may use a reaction to make another immediate trip attack against it.




I would be open to suggestions for making these cleaner and less wordy, but I believe these are better choices for maneuvers.  They are basically souped up versions of the things everyone can do.  They also each have potential for some damage, though not as much as just spending full damage dice on a normal attack.  However, they have situational advantages that could far outweigh extra damage in certain circumstances.  That is what I want from maneuvers.  Things that could be useful in a variety of situations, but have the potential to be game-changers in the right conditions.

Thoughts?
I wouldn't mind a rule where your attack roll had to beat their AC, STR, and DEX scores.  Since most creatures don't have stats far in excess of their AC unless they're also large enough that it's not working as is, this wouldn't be a huge downside.  Plus, I wouldn't mind so much letting you trip a huge creature if you happened to roll high enough to beat their 26 STR.  

But more to the point, my problem with these maneuvers is that the value of a trip, a bull rush, or a disarm is pretty constant with level.  The value of d6 damage is not.  Even if you assume 2d6 damage at high levels because everything you fight is at least large, 2d6 at level 10 (or even level 5) is worth a lot less than 1d6 at 1.  Which means that these maneuvers get more powerful relative to damage maneuvers with level.  That feels wrong to me.   




I can actually see the point in this.  Once you have 6d6, and the martial damage bonus, the 3d6 you spend on the trip isn't all that much of an expenditure.  Its one of the reasons why I would advocate dropping the MDB and going back to increasing MDD size as you level. I mean the martial damage bonus feels clunky anyways.  6d8 isn't all that crazy when you compare it to the 6d6+20 we have now.  Heck 6d10 wouldn't be all that crazy at top level.  At that point the 3d10 you spend on tripping your enemy is now of a similar cost to your character as it always was.  However this does make damage a bit more, and possibly too, swingy the higher you go in level.

Also the case has been made that trip, disarm, and bull rush are so situationally dependent that this perceived increase in power relative to damage maneuvers is totally fine as far as balance goes.  I mean the trip is less situationally dependent than the others, since it instantly incurs advantage for anyone else attacking the thing before it gets a chance to stand up, but given initiative order the usefulness of it could be somewhat minimal.
As others have pointed out, these maneuvers have flashy fluff, but their actual game effects are largely an inconvenience at best.  I would rather see less "normal damage + rider" maneuvers, and more unique combat choices.  For instance

Bull Rush:  Choose one adjacent target no more than one size category larger than you.  Make a Str check (adding the highest of any dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, you may spend your movement in 10ft increments to push the target and yourself 5ft.  If pushed into difficult terrain, the target takes damage equal to the total of MDD rolled above and must make a dex save or fall prone and this effect ends.  If pushed into a solid surface (such as a wall), the target takes damage equal to twice the total of MDD rolled above, plus your Str mod and this effect ends.  If pushed into any hazard requiring a Dex save, that target automatically fails the save and this effect ends.  If you complete your movement without pushing the target into any obstacle, you may push the target an additional 5ft without moving yourself.  If this pushes the target into an obstacle, the above effects apply.  If your movement provokes an opportunity attack and you take damage, you must make a Con save vs 10+damage taken or this effect ends.  If you suffer any condition from such an attack that would prohibit further normal movement this effect ends.

Improved Disarm (renamed for a distinction from the normal "Disarm" attack):  Make a Str check (adding the highest of any dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, you knock the object out of the target's hand.  If you have a free hand, you may snatch the item and make an immediate melee attack with it against an adjacent enemy. The damage from this attack is equal to total from the MDD rolled above plus your Str mod (do not apply normal weapon damage). If you do not have a free hand, or choose not to snatch the item, you may knock the item 5ft per die spent in any direction.

Trip:  Make a Str check (adding the highest of dice spent on this maneuver) vs the target's Str or Dex (they choose).  If you win, the target falls prone taking damage equal the total of MDD spent rolled above plus your Str mod.  If you move into the target's square (normal opp rules apply), you may place one foot on the target to hold it there.  The creature is considered grabbed, however you may not move while maintaining this grab.  Like a normal grab, the creature's speed is considered zero while grabbed.  This is not a pin, meaning attacks do not have advantage against you, and you do not suffer disadvantage on attacks.  However, you must either take disadvantage on Dex saving throws or end the grab if subjected to one.  If you move out of the creature's square for any reason the grab ends.  The target may use an action to attempt to escape the grab as normal.  However, if it attempts to stand up from prone while still in your square, you may use a reaction to make another immediate trip attack against it.




I would be open to suggestions for making these cleaner and less wordy, but I believe these are better choices for maneuvers.  They are basically souped up versions of the things everyone can do.  They also each have potential for some damage, though not as much as just spending full damage dice on a normal attack.  However, they have situational advantages that could far outweigh extra damage in certain circumstances.  That is what I want from maneuvers.  Things that could be useful in a variety of situations, but have the potential to be game-changers in the right conditions.

Thoughts?




too complex.  Also the opposed checks make these no better than the non fighter versions really.  Considering the situational usefulness of the abilities spending a precious character option on these maneuvers would kind of be a waste.  Especially given how swingy the results would be.

--snip--




too complex.  Also the opposed checks make these no better than the non fighter versions really.  Considering the situational usefulness of the abilities spending a precious character option on these maneuvers would kind of be a waste.  Especially given how swingy the results would be.



I can see the complaint about being too complex, I got a little carried away addressing corner cases.  However, I disagree entirely that they aren't any better than non-fighter versions.  For one they are a lot less swingy since you get to add +(1-6) to the opposed check making them far more reliable than normal versions.  I had originally thought to use the total of all dice instead of just the highest, but I felt that was too powerful as it would result in an auto-win at higher levels.  Secondly, the effects of my suggestions are all much greater than the current maneuvers.  Bull rush at the very least adds much more movement, and can potentially out damage a normal attack depending on circumstance.  Improved Disarm no only takes any weapon out of their hands (instead of having to spend two dice for a two-handed one) but also includes a similar damage potential to the original maneuver, and ends with the weapon either in your hand, or far enough away from the attacker that retrieving it could be hazardous for them (instead of sitting at their feet waiting to be picked up as a non-action).  Trip can potentially keep a target locked down while you chop them to bits if you continue to beat their escape.  I'd say that vastly outweighs granting advantage until the target's turn.

I don't see how you could consider those a "waste."


--snip--




too complex.  Also the opposed checks make these no better than the non fighter versions really.  Considering the situational usefulness of the abilities spending a precious character option on these maneuvers would kind of be a waste.  Especially given how swingy the results would be.



I can see the complaint about being too complex, I got a little carried away addressing corner cases.  However, I disagree entirely that they aren't any better than non-fighter versions.  For one they are a lot less swingy since you get to add +(1-6) to the opposed check making them far more reliable than normal versions.  I had originally thought to use the total of all dice instead of just the highest, but I felt that was too powerful as it would result in an auto-win at higher levels.  Secondly, the effects of my suggestions are all much greater than the current maneuvers.  Bull rush at the very least adds much more movement, and can potentially out damage a normal attack depending on circumstance.  Improved Disarm no only takes any weapon out of their hands (instead of having to spend two dice for a two-handed one) but also includes a similar damage potential to the original maneuver, and ends with the weapon either in your hand, or far enough away from the attacker that retrieving it could be hazardous for them (instead of sitting at their feet waiting to be picked up as a non-action).  Trip can potentially keep a target locked down while you chop them to bits if you continue to beat their escape.  I'd say that vastly outweighs granting advantage until the target's turn.

I don't see how you could consider those a "waste."





Monsters with no held weapons...disarm is useless
Monsters without legs (or any other ability that keeps them up like the beholder's hover ability)...trip is useless 
Combat where there is no "fire" (read as any dangerous terrain effect, or spell area) to push the enemy into...Bull rush is only marginally useful (still useful to get the enemy away from your allies so they can move back without fear of OA)

Basically these abilities, unlike some of the others, can easily and regularly be made into completely useless abilities.  Damage is almost always a better choice than these very situational powers.  Taking them as character options is already close to a trap option.  You took the disarm maneuver..."We are about to spend the next three levels fighting nothing but dragons, and animals, and things that don't use weapons.  Say hello to your nice trap selection".  I mean it won't be a trap selection as much after these next three levels but those three levels are gunna take about a year of real world time....  Making them able to regularly fail when you finally actually get a chance to use them makes them a complete trap option compared to other things in the list.  The addition of 1-6 to the check is a nice head nod towards not being a trap, but unfortunately does nothing to make it not a trap.  It would be better to just get a different maneuver from the list that is less based upon being in the right situation and stick to using the versions of trip, disarm, and bull rush that everyone else can use and then seeing if you can get into these types of usages by improvising.

That is the reason these maneuvers seem a little wonky on the power scale...because unlike other maneuvers these ones can often be made completely useless.

--snip--




too complex.  Also the opposed checks make these no better than the non fighter versions really.  Considering the situational usefulness of the abilities spending a precious character option on these maneuvers would kind of be a waste.  Especially given how swingy the results would be.



I can see the complaint about being too complex, I got a little carried away addressing corner cases.  However, I disagree entirely that they aren't any better than non-fighter versions.  For one they are a lot less swingy since you get to add +(1-6) to the opposed check making them far more reliable than normal versions.  I had originally thought to use the total of all dice instead of just the highest, but I felt that was too powerful as it would result in an auto-win at higher levels.  Secondly, the effects of my suggestions are all much greater than the current maneuvers.  Bull rush at the very least adds much more movement, and can potentially out damage a normal attack depending on circumstance.  Improved Disarm no only takes any weapon out of their hands (instead of having to spend two dice for a two-handed one) but also includes a similar damage potential to the original maneuver, and ends with the weapon either in your hand, or far enough away from the attacker that retrieving it could be hazardous for them (instead of sitting at their feet waiting to be picked up as a non-action).  Trip can potentially keep a target locked down while you chop them to bits if you continue to beat their escape.  I'd say that vastly outweighs granting advantage until the target's turn.

I don't see how you could consider those a "waste."





Monsters with no held weapons...disarm is useless
Monsters without legs (or any other ability that keeps them up like the beholder's hover ability)...trip is useless 
Combat where there is no "fire" (read as any dangerous terrain effect, or spell area) to push the enemy into...Bull rush is only marginally useful (still useful to get the enemy away from your allies so they can move back without fear of OA)

Basically these abilities, unlike some of the others, can easily and regularly be made into completely useless abilities.  Damage is almost always a better choice than these very situational powers.  Taking them as character options is already close to a trap option.  You took the disarm maneuver..."We are about to spend the next three levels fighting nothing but dragons, and animals, and things that don't use weapons.  Say hello to your nice trap selection".  I mean it won't be a trap selection as much after these next three levels but those three levels are gunna take about a year of real world time....  Making them able to regularly fail when you finally actually get a chance to use them makes them a complete trap option compared to other things in the list.  The addition of 1-6 to the check is a nice head nod towards not being a trap, but unfortunately does nothing to make it not a trap.  It would be better to just get a different maneuver from the list that is less based upon being in the right situation and stick to using the versions of trip, disarm, and bull rush that everyone else can use and then seeing if you can get into these types of usages by improvising.

That is the reason these maneuvers seem a little wonky on the power scale...because unlike other maneuvers these ones can often be made completely useless.


Ah.  I see.  You simply don't like any kind of situational maneuver.  Fair enough.  However, I'd counter with the fact that every maneuver is situational to a degree, and would therefore count as a trap option to you.

Composed attack?  What if you never have disadvantage?
Controlled fall?  What if you're adventuring in a flat desert?
Defensive Roll?  Bands of orcs with no area attacks.
Deflect missiles?  Only fighting creatures with natural attacks.
Hurricane strike?  Same problems as bull rush.
Lunge?  Only fighting in close quarters.
Precise Shot?  None of your targets take cover.
Protect?  You allies all use ranged attacks, no one to protect.

That's over half the maneuvers in the game.  So, they can make every maneuver universally "normal hit plus rider" which is almost always inferior to just extra damage.  Or they can make maneuvers with game-changing advantage in certain circumstances, but somewhat useless in others.  I, for one, prefer option 2.
I would prefer to see maneuvers that impose conditions on opponents. Prone is a fine example, but stunned and blinded should be in there as well. Attacker takes a penalty to attack roll to gain condition. These maneuvers can be used by anyone. The Fighters XD (or MMD) can overcome maneuver attack penalties.
Eliminate the need for a save against the condition, instead of attack the target AC, target the ABILITY, whatever is the relevant ability for the described action. For the more serious conditions like blinded and paralysed impose a greater attack penalty.
Simplfy the system. Allow for imagnative actions.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.


--snip--




too complex.  Also the opposed checks make these no better than the non fighter versions really.  Considering the situational usefulness of the abilities spending a precious character option on these maneuvers would kind of be a waste.  Especially given how swingy the results would be.



I can see the complaint about being too complex, I got a little carried away addressing corner cases.  However, I disagree entirely that they aren't any better than non-fighter versions.  For one they are a lot less swingy since you get to add +(1-6) to the opposed check making them far more reliable than normal versions.  I had originally thought to use the total of all dice instead of just the highest, but I felt that was too powerful as it would result in an auto-win at higher levels.  Secondly, the effects of my suggestions are all much greater than the current maneuvers.  Bull rush at the very least adds much more movement, and can potentially out damage a normal attack depending on circumstance.  Improved Disarm no only takes any weapon out of their hands (instead of having to spend two dice for a two-handed one) but also includes a similar damage potential to the original maneuver, and ends with the weapon either in your hand, or far enough away from the attacker that retrieving it could be hazardous for them (instead of sitting at their feet waiting to be picked up as a non-action).  Trip can potentially keep a target locked down while you chop them to bits if you continue to beat their escape.  I'd say that vastly outweighs granting advantage until the target's turn.

I don't see how you could consider those a "waste."





Monsters with no held weapons...disarm is useless
Monsters without legs (or any other ability that keeps them up like the beholder's hover ability)...trip is useless 
Combat where there is no "fire" (read as any dangerous terrain effect, or spell area) to push the enemy into...Bull rush is only marginally useful (still useful to get the enemy away from your allies so they can move back without fear of OA)

Basically these abilities, unlike some of the others, can easily and regularly be made into completely useless abilities.  Damage is almost always a better choice than these very situational powers.  Taking them as character options is already close to a trap option.  You took the disarm maneuver..."We are about to spend the next three levels fighting nothing but dragons, and animals, and things that don't use weapons.  Say hello to your nice trap selection".  I mean it won't be a trap selection as much after these next three levels but those three levels are gunna take about a year of real world time....  Making them able to regularly fail when you finally actually get a chance to use them makes them a complete trap option compared to other things in the list.  The addition of 1-6 to the check is a nice head nod towards not being a trap, but unfortunately does nothing to make it not a trap.  It would be better to just get a different maneuver from the list that is less based upon being in the right situation and stick to using the versions of trip, disarm, and bull rush that everyone else can use and then seeing if you can get into these types of usages by improvising.

That is the reason these maneuvers seem a little wonky on the power scale...because unlike other maneuvers these ones can often be made completely useless.


Ah.  I see.  You simply don't like any kind of situational maneuver.  Fair enough.  However, I'd counter with the fact that every maneuver is situational to a degree, and would therefore count as a trap option to you.

Composed attack?  What if you never have disadvantage?
Controlled fall?  What if you're adventuring in a flat desert?
Defensive Roll?  Bands of orcs with no area attacks.
Deflect missiles?  Only fighting creatures with natural attacks.
Hurricane strike?  Same problems as bull rush.
Lunge?  Only fighting in close quarters.
Precise Shot?  None of your targets take cover.
Protect?  You allies all use ranged attacks, no one to protect.

That's over half the maneuvers in the game.  So, they can make every maneuver universally "normal hit plus rider" which is almost always inferior to just extra damage.  Or they can make maneuvers with game-changing advantage in certain circumstances, but somewhat useless in others.  I, for one, prefer option 2.




It isn't that I dislike situational maneuvers. in fact all of them are situational for the most part.  However bull rush, trip, and disarm are all incredibly incredibly situational.  So situational that it is a more regular occurance for them to not be that useful than it is for them to be highly useful.  trip being the least situational of the three because it does indeed give out some advantage.  bull rush being the most situational of the three.  The exact usability of these three abilities put them on par for usefulness with all the other situationally useful maneuvers in the list.  That is basically the balancing factors for most of the maneuvers.  They make up for their incredibly situational usefullness by always working in those situations.  That is basically the balancing factors here for a lot of the maneuvers.  Given the situational usefulness of this maneuver (how often it will be useful) how often will it work in those situations.  given that the trip, disarm, and bull rush abilities are so situationaly useful (don't come up that often unless specifically designed to come up often) they are given the ability to work more often in those situations.  This is especially important given how few options characters have at their disposal.  Remember a fighter gets I think 5 maneuvers at the moment (dear lord do I hope that number goes up) taking one of these three maneuvers is a very large portion of your character at that point, and spending that much of your character on something that might not always get used and is likely to fail when used is a trap option if ever I have seen one.
JihVed-
Simple Solution. Fighter XD can negate any penalties to combat actions, that way they can react to any situation. Also can add to damage or reduce damage taken.

example: Target has cover? I used 1d6 XD to eliminate some or all of the Cover.
example: Knock Prone imposses -5 attck roll penalty. I use 1d6 XD to eliminate some or all of the penalty. (see my previous post)

This allows the fighter to not gain accuracy with all attacks, just ones that would penalize less combat oriented classes. Also eliminates the need to have an exhaustive list of varied combat maneuvers for the fighter only.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

JihVed-
Simple Solution. Fighter XD can negate any penalties to combat actions, that way they can react to any situation. Also can add to damage or reduce damage taken.

example: Target has cover? I used 1d6 XD to eliminate some or all of the Cover.
example: Knock Prone imposses -5 attck roll penalty. I use 1d6 XD to eliminate some or all of the penalty. (see my previous post)

This allows the fighter to not gain accuracy with all attacks, just ones that would penalize less combat oriented classes. Also eliminates the need to have an exhaustive list of varied combat maneuvers for the fighter only.

Oh I'm completely with you on preferring a more open ended system for using MDD.  I think a list of maneuvers that you must select only one of at a time is a pain the the butt.

I was merely offering a suggestion on how to improve the maneuvers we have currently, since they seem dead set on codified specific uses for MDD.
You do get a save...

It's having AC high enough that the warrior misses.



Which is an issue due to bounded accuracy.  It's far too easy to hit things for that to be a suitable "save".
I found a d20 OGL rules set called Mystery Men! and his idea for Special Maneuvers is simple.
-5 on attack to condition an opponent. The opponent can roll a save to resist, I think it is easier to target the ability.
-3 to attack additional target imposed on each roll. want to attack 3 targets? roll three times each at -6!

I like the XD for Fighter and Rogue. Our group has discussed it and that is what we plan on using moving forward. Hope the designers used the idea in the core as the Basic system. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
It isn't that I dislike situational maneuvers. in fact all of them are situational for the most part.  However bull rush, trip, and disarm are all incredibly incredibly situational.  So situational that it is a more regular occurance for them to not be that useful than it is for them to be highly useful.  trip being the least situational of the three because it does indeed give out some advantage.  bull rush being the most situational of the three.  The exact usability of these three abilities put them on par for usefulness with all the other situationally useful maneuvers in the list.  That is basically the balancing factors for most of the maneuvers.  They make up for their incredibly situational usefullness by always working in those situations.  That is basically the balancing factors here for a lot of the maneuvers.  Given the situational usefulness of this maneuver (how often it will be useful) how often will it work in those situations.  given that the trip, disarm, and bull rush abilities are so situationaly useful (don't come up that often unless specifically designed to come up often) they are given the ability to work more often in those situations.  This is especially important given how few options characters have at their disposal.  Remember a fighter gets I think 5 maneuvers at the moment (dear lord do I hope that number goes up) taking one of these three maneuvers is a very large portion of your character at that point, and spending that much of your character on something that might not always get used and is likely to fail when used is a trap option if ever I have seen one.



I would disagree that my versions are less reliable.  The given uses still require a normal attack roll versus AC (Except apparently Bull rush).  I would argue that an opposed check with a bonus from MDD is just as likely to hit, not less.  If you were inclined, you could make the check vs their Str or Dex Score (effectively a NAD) if it's their roll that bothers you.  Besides, I would argue that the worth of a maneuver is not in it's dependability, but in the unique outcome.  You're right.  I would never take Bull Rush if all it did was move the target 5ft per square.  Even with a guaranteed outcome (which I don't like anyway) it's no more beneficial than using a normal Bull Rush (getting to attack too isn't special enough to me).  What's worth taking a character option for is an added (potentially game-changing) outcome.

Most of the maneuvers we currently have are uninspiring at best, and mostly inferior to just doing extra damage.  That's what I'd like to change if we're going to keep a codified list of character options.  Otherwise, just let me spend dice to improv added effects or add damage/remove penalties like strider said.

I don't think that Trip or Disarm is overpowered right now, but I do agree that the way they work out is kind of odd.  I think I'd rather see Trip, Disarm, and Bull Rush be things that require some kind of contested check, but that you can use whether or not the attack that they are a part of actually hit.  That keeps them at roughly the same level of power/accuracy without it feeling like "well as long as I hit them with my weapon they'll also fall over".
Sign In to post comments