Community

May 25, 2012 -- 12:18PM, IxidorRS wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Alex_ wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 10:27AM, deadworld56 wrote:

I /also/ like the notion of some maneuvers being clearly defined (much like spells are). Different kinds of fighters for different mindsets behind the characters.
 

  That can work.

  Dirt in Their Eyes
You kick dirt into an enemy's eyes, blinding them.
  Effect: The target must make a Dexterity Saving Throw (to represent them blinking or shielding their eyes fast enough).  If they fail, they are blinded for one round.
  Requirement: There must be loose soil on the ground, and the enemy must be reliant upon sight for navigation/combat.

  Just like spells are divided up as Illusion and Evocation, you can split up maneuvers into "Pragmatist" (lots of dirty tricks), "Disciplined" (bonuses for you and allies), or "Swashbuckler" (flashy and maneuver related) styles.

With the rules as written, you can already do something like this in the playtest. Yes, you do have to improvise with your DM. So maybe you're DM doesn't blind the creature, but instead just gives you advantage or disadvantage or a bonus to your roll or a penalty to its roll. If you say to your DM, I'm using my action to kick dirt in this orc's eyes and he gives you nothing for it, he is not following the spirit of the playtest. I do see how different DMs will give you different things. For instance, if I was DMing, I'd allow you kick the dirt up instead of moving on your turn, it would require a dex contest between you and the monster (he tries to dodge or cover his eyes as you kick up the dirt), and if you win the contest, I'll give you advantage on the attack you make that turn. Another DM might expect just a dex check and only give you a bonus to your roll.

Up until know I've only played 4th edition, but I never have liked the concept in 4th that all you can do is what your charachter sheet tells you. It's not actually true in 4th, but most of the players I've played with have had that concept in their mind because typically that is how the rules work in 4th. I love that they are putting these improvisation rules into the game as a way to encourage this kind of play for those who would not think to do it on their own (sometimes it's a lack of creativity while sometimes it's a sort of programming from past experiences).

Nothing in 4th edition prevented you from improvising exactly the way you're sugesting players should do in the playtest. As a matter of fact there was encouragement in the DMG to allow just that. What 4th did is provide you with a lot of cool things to do that didn't rely on needing to get the DM's permision first.

  wrote:

Nothing in 4th edition prevented you from improvising exactly the way you're sugesting players should do in the playtest. As a matter of fact there was encouragement in the DMG to allow just that. What 4th did is provide you with a lot of cool things to do that didn't rely on needing to get the DM's permision first.

  I agree.

  Unfortunately, it was a matter of perception, and with the wealth of legitimate and effective pre-made actions a 4E character could already take, the implied option to improvise seemed to arise less often in peoples' minds.

  The rules in the playtest seem looser and faster, and the big bold IMPROVISE option makes it stand out more against the relative lack of other options. 

May 25, 2012 -- 4:51PM, elibus wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 4:46PM, K.530 wrote:

I'm really curious to hear why people think that every DM is capable of writing a fun and balanced improv combat system to make the fighter less boring.

Clearly, every DM is going to write a completely different system and most days it's going to be Mother May I Gaming, but just the fact that different DMs have different systems means that getting a new DM means relearning an entirely new system that may be a lot less or more powerful than what you were used to.

Don't we pay WotC to write fun and balanced systems so the DM can spend his time designing cool adventures?

Why would it have to be a new system for each DM? I think the point of improv combat is being missed a bit. The player comes up with a cool idea he wants to do. The DM cues the actions off which abilities/skills come in to play to make it happen, success or failure results. It's not "Mother May I?", no extra systems have to created.

Every DM is going to have a different system for what stunts he thinks should be possible and how difficult it should be to use them, not to mention the degree of effect.

For example, maybe a Rogue wants to do a blinding attack by throwing sand in someone's face.

One DM might decides that this is a Dex check 15 and it lasts one round, but another may decide that this is a ranged attack roll that has disadvantage in melee, has a Dex save, and doesn't actually blind and instead gives advantage for the rest of the round.

That's two entirely different systems for blinding attacks right there that reward different kinds of characters. They are balanced totally differently and one might lead to a rogue becoming a blinding specialist who starts carrying around hot chili powder, glass dust, and flour and the other means that no one tries a blinding attack ever again in that DM's campaign.

Literally, an improv system as described in the playtest is every DM writing his own combat system and many are going to fail to write coherent and balanced systems. Even worse is that none of it is going to tranfer; for example, when Mike takes over DMing from Steve, suddenly the blinding specialist loses all his tricks because Mike thinks blinding attacks should be a contested Wis roll and the attacker has disadvantage.