|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:35AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Feb 29, 2012
|
it's allowing players to be creative and rewarding them if they want to try special things.
But nothing about this is unique to the fighter. During combat, all of the classes could be attacking and trying to do such special maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules, as of yet, to indicate that the fighter is better at this than anyone else.
Usually the fighter is better at hitting opponents, if other classes can't hit as well they will be at a disavantage in doing called shots. Unless called shots are allowed on the magic missile, the mage would be the best user of called shots.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:40AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 29, 2012
|
I think we have raised an interesting point here, is it more interesting to have 'powers' as the mage and other classes get. Or is it possible to have an interesting basic core mechanic that makes 'powers' fun but not the only thing interesting in the game. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion. I think that 'powers' shouldn't be an obligation to have interesting characters. They might be fun, but this shouldn't be what makes the system.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:45AM
#33
|
|
|
I personally like the keep it simple method, everyone can try called shot with no penalities, if they succeed. But a minor hindrance if they fail, something like lose 2 to AC due to failure. Of course master at arms could remove this special penality with a special skill.
Ok, I feel we're getting somewhere. Some new questions emerge:
1. If the Fighter's edge in maneuevers/called shots is an effective +2 to AC, does this make the Fighter both distinct and viable as a character class? If the only difference between a Fighter trying to Sunder and a Rogue or Ranger trying to Sunder is a +2 to hit, will that be enough to make the Fighter class worth playing given the class features on other characters (this last part may be mooted if problems with Medium and Heavy armor are fixed, because ATM the Fighter doesn't really get an AC advantage from being able to use those classes of armor)?
2. Is it as compelling a mechanic as a wizard's spells or a rogue's sneak attack? I would argue not; mathmatical advantages are rather passive and can be rather invisible, they don't involve the player doing things or being active.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:54AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Trance-zg - the danger with this approach is that it replicates the Fighter's feat tax from 3.X. In order to get interestingness, you have to use up feats and themes that could go to other purposes (effectiveness in the interaction and exploration pillars, rounding out a character concept, etc.), while other classes get class features and feats and themes on top of that.
not necessary. Barbarian theme could give you +3 intimidate and perception.
duelist could give you +3 sense motive and +3 bluff,
archer would give you +3 perception and stealth,
ranger would give you +2 survival, perception, stealth and nature
paladin would give you +3 sense motive and heal
power attack feat can give you +1 intimidate,
expertise can give you +1 sense motive,
dodge feat can give you +1 tumble,
also fighter would get like 3.5e most bonus feats so he can make that choices.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:55AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Feb 29, 2012
|
Ok, I feel we're getting somewhere. Some new questions emerge:
1. If the Fighter's edge in maneuevers/called shots is an effective +2 to AC, does this make the Fighter both distinct and viable as a character class? If the only difference between a Fighter trying to Sunder and a Rogue or Ranger trying to Sunder is a +2 to hit, will that be enough to make the Fighter class worth playing given the class features on other characters (this last part may be mooted if problems with Medium and Heavy armor are fixed, because ATM the Fighter doesn't really get an AC advantage from being able to use those classes of armor)?
2. Is it as compelling a mechanic as a wizard's spells or a rogue's sneak attack? I would argue not; mathmatical advantages are rather passive and can be rather invisible, they don't involve the player doing things or being active.
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to do a standard attack again, and again, and again. This is what makes the fighter boring, not the lack of sneak attack mechanics or the ability to use a special distinct power. Would called shots give him a dinstinct advantage, maybe not. Would they make him more interesting to play without the need to ressort to powers? Deninitely!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 12:01PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
wel looking at the OP post i see one problem.
he wants to take a improvised action that slows or trips, and make a attack.
this is not alouwed in the current rule set.
as the tripping slowing is a improvised action and you only have 1 action on your turn so you need to chose between attacking dealing damage or the improvised action to trip.
my sugestion would be the folowing:
codify a few of the more common combat manuvers,
slow, knock prone, disarm, push, couse target to have disadvantage on next attack.
would be some examples.
when a fighter attacks with advantage he choses one of the basic codified combat actions.
( the fighter might have a list limiting him to certain combat actions.)
if both of his attack rolls hit the fighter deals damage as normal but also performs the combat manuver.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 12:07PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 29, 2012
|
wel looking at the OP post i see one problem.
he wants to take a improvised action that slows or trips, and make a attack.
this is not alouwed in the current rule set.
as the tripping slowing is a improvised action and you only have 1 action on your turn so you need to chose between attacking dealing damage or the improvised action to trip.
my sugestion would be the folowing:
codify a few of the more common combat manuvers,
slow, knock prone, disarm, push, couse target to have disadvantage on next attack.
would be some examples.
when a fighter attacks with advantage he choses one of the basic codified combat actions.
( the fighter might have a list limiting him to certain combat actions.)
if both of his attack rolls hit the fighter deals damage as normal but also performs the combat manuver.
That would certainly be easy to implement, and give the fighter an advantage. Here's one : everyone can try manoeuvers, but only the fighter also deal damage if it connect.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 12:12PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
My biggest beef with Powers and Feats is that if it provides for a lot of extra customization for the character, it does create an extra layer of complexity and the requirement of having to use gaming jargon to play the game. Let me explain.
I was introducted to D&D (I was approx. 12yo, it was 1E) by simply have the DM throw me a character sheet of a human barbarian and then proceeded to start playing right away. No need to learn the rules, as long as the DM can handle them, you can play because you can dictate what you want your character to do in combat by using plain english, no gaming jargon at all. Yes, it does mean that the Fighter "will hit with his sword", but this way, I can start gaming right-off the bat with a complete RPG neophyte without even having to explain how the game works at all. Yes, it does mean I'll have to assist him when he'll make checks/attacks/saves, but as long as he can simply describe all his character actions in plain english, HE CAN PLAY. No need to ask him how much of a penalty he is going to give himself to do more damage with his Power Attack. No need to ask him which Power he'll use that round to then explain him what a Shift/Mark/etc. is. We can start gaming right away.
I'm used to play with these kind of casual gamers; they want to have fun without having to learn a sh*t load of rules. As long as I, the DM, know all the rules, anyone can participate. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of Feats/Powers/Themes and other customization rules. I'm saying, the CORE game shouldn't require them. They should be optional, especially with the fact that DND Next is supposed to be modular. Heck, even in 2E, proficiencies were clearly indentified as being optional.
What I'm trying to articulate is that TSR-era D&D let you be able to play right away by simply throwing a characters sheet at the player and start gaming right away. No need to learn any gaming jargon. Make CORE rules work that way and make the rest available for more rules/details hungry gamers, but make it OPTIONAL. The more people who can play the game, the merrier.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 12:18PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Feb 29, 2012
|
My biggest beef with Powers and Feats is that if it provides for a lot of extra customization for the character, it does create an extra layer of complexity and the requirement of having to use gaming jargon to play the game. Let me explain.
I was introducted to D&D (I was approx. 12yo, it was 1E) by simply have the DM throw me a character sheet of a human barbarian and then proceeded to start playing right away. No need to learn the rules, as long as the DM can handle them, you can play because you can dictate what you want your character to do in combat by using plain english, no gaming jargon at all. Yes, it does mean that the Fighter "will hit with his sword", but this way, I can start gaming right-off the bat with a complete RPG neophyte without even having to explain how the game works at all. Yes, it does mean I'll have to assist him when he'll make checks/attacks/saves, but as long as he can simply describe all his character actions in plain english, HE CAN PLAY. No need to ask him how much of a penalty he is going to give himself to do more damage with his Power Attack. No need to ask him which Power he'll use that round to then explain him what a Shift/Mark/etc. is. We can start gaming right away.
I'm used to play with these kind of casual gamers; they want to have fun without having to learn a sh*t load of rules. As long as I, the DM, know all the rules, anyone can participate. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of Feats/Powers/Themes and other customization rules. I'm saying, the CORE game shouldn't require them. They should be optional, especially with the fact that DND Next is supposed to be modular. Heck, even in 2E, proficiencies were clearly indentified as being optional.
What I'm trying to articulate is that TSR-era D&D let you be able to play right away by simply throwing a characters sheet at the player and start gaming right away. No need to learn any gaming jargon. Make CORE rules work that way and make the rest available for more rules/details hungry gamers, but make it OPTIONAL. The more people who can play the game, the merrier.
I couldn't agree more!!!! You may have struck the whole point of this! Describe in plain english what you want to do, let the DM handle what it means! This is why we need strong core mechanics to support this kind of play.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 12:33PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an action hero, this is the particular reason why a lot of people prefer the 4e. The standard attack is plain boring. When you watch an action movie, the hero often try some desperate moves that can change the tide of the whole battle.
A way around this boring fight mechanics is so simple that I don't know why nobody use it, I call it fight with intent. Something any character can do so it's not game breaking, and even the monsters so it's way more challenging. You only have to describe your action and WHY you want to make it. For an exemple I would say I charge my foe and atempt to hit his legs so he fall to the ground. If my attempt is succesfull, my opponent would roll a DEX save or else he falls. As simple as that, it could even be used with spells.
And it's way way more entertaining than describing a cool moves just to hack away a few hp from your ennemy.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comfortable with those basic rules, provide rules to add any level of detail you want to add in your game, hit locations, bypassing armor, etc. No need to resort to Powers like in 4E to handle non-standard attacks. I actually think that Powers doesn't resolve that issue. Just for example, suppose that :
DM: "The drunk, smelly pirate goes and meet you at the bar and then gropes your ass."
Pirate: "Well, well, what do we have here ?"
Samara, the female Barbarian: "I kick that b*stard in the nuts"
So unless PCs come with special "Kick in da nuts" Powers, I don't think you'll be able to handle that situation with that. As a DM, I wouldn't refrain the Barbarian from attempting this because "there is no rule around kicking someone in the nuts". Using 2E ? I would do let her do so with a Called Shot and go with it. You don't need to have every option spelled out on your sheet to let your character act that way, either in combat or outside of it.
Absolutely, 2E had all those choices worked out in the fighter´s hand book, with the maneuvers and called shots you could attempt practically everything, every power you got for the fighter can be covered with this rules improvisation wise it´s no different than 4E. You can kick someone’s balls in 4E without a power, but I know many DMs won´t allow it because it´s abusive and etc...
I dear to say, it was as much fun to play with a Fighter in 2E before powers and stuff just with maneuver and called shots, than with the power system. The fact that a fighter could get several attacks per round was a huge plus to. I guess D&D is going in this direction with martial characters, not exactly as 2E but somewhat in that direction, we just didn´t see the stuff yet. The problem is actually lack of creativity. Non creative 4E players stick to the powers stiff description and limit their attempts only to that. Which is really boring IMO. Non creative player of old 2E fighter say only “I attack” … boring to. If you are creative, as this thread starter suggested ou can have fun with booth approaches.
|
|
|
