Community

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Kaldric wrote:

I'd love to see sets of maneuvers/advantages available various fighting styles. Heck, I'd like to see a plethora of options available to users of specific weapons - even the mundane and simple ones! More tools in the toolbox is awesome.

Maneuvers for specific weapons is going a little too far I think, unless weapon diversity is severely limited. Though I wouldn't mind 1-3 abilities for each category of weapon (ie Light Piercing weapon, One Handed Bludgeoning Weapon, Two Handed Slashing Weapon, etc). Yeah it means that a Greatsword and a Greataxe will have access to the same special powers, but honestly I'm okay with that. With those kinds of categories you have 9 weapon types plus however ranged weapons get divided up (I'm pretty sure the majority of them are piercing. So maybe instead dividing Ranged up by Bow/Crossbow/Throwing, and classifying a sling as a thrown weapon. Giving 12 weapon types total).

But yeah I could see each of the major styles basically acting similarly to a spell school, with focus on different things. Sword and Board might play more like abjuration, with a lot of defensive benefits and a focus on protecting yourself and others, while Two Handed Weapons are more aggressively oriented, gaining bonuses for charging, dropping AC, getting yourself surrounded, and otherwise putting yourself in a risky situation for a big payoff. Reach on the other hand would be all about control, slowing down those who enter your threatened area, and making yourself a general niusance to the other side.

You would have some characters that focus exclusively on one style, and maybe even just with their specialty of weapon (ie you might have the Longsword Fighter who specializes in Einhander and picks up all of the One Handed Slashing maneuvers), and others who shift their style constantly (say someone who uses sword and board and switches between two weapon fighting, using the shield as a weapon, and sword and boarding to use the shield as defense).

IMO the real question is do you tie things like mobility into these styles, or would that be a separate school that anyone can access? Similarly, do all defenses come from the style, or do some come from another source?

edit: Styles for using weapons, shields, bare handed in each hand. Styles for each multiclass combo - a fighter/magic-user fights differently than a fighter/thief. Styles for various armors - maybe something that makes medium armor awesome? Styles for particular weapons - make them more distinct! You can have a theme-like thing for just about anything, that gives special attacks/defenses/powers. It could be cool. 

I don't think that styles for multiclass combos are necessary.  Or really even armor. A fighter/mage's fighting style will be distinct by having access to both maneuvers and spells, how he chooses to use the two together may make a de facto style, but isn't something that needs to be hardcoded as new maneuvers. Maybe a couple of feats to help with synergy (similar to 3.5's arcane strike), but it doesn't need an entirely new and unique set of powers, it already has two sets of powers to draw from.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:19PM, Kaldric wrote:

@Seerow: Is there something in particular you have against a large variety of style-specific maneuvers? You mention that it's not necessary, that it doesn't need to be new maneuvers. Is there something wrong with having dozens, if not hundreds, of options?

Well like I mentioned, I see Combat Styles as a potentially good way to standardize different methods of combat, in much the same way that spell schools work for magic. Can you imagine how much of a mess things would become if we added a new school of magic for every new multi-class combo, or anything that didn't quite fit under a specific school? We'd have like 100 schools of spells, and it'd be a giant mess.

 It seems like what you're asking for is a list of maneuvers for different things, but all drawing from the same list. Like how you have the Beguiler draw from the Wizard/Sorc list. I have no real problem with that. If you want a rogue who has his own list of maneuvers, which has some overlap with a Fighter (and a Fighter/Rogue would get the best of both worlds, getting both sets), I'm okay with that. But that is something different from what I was discussing.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:30PM, Kaldric wrote:

I'm just saying, if we're going to mechanically codify "I hit it with my weapon" for the improvisation-impaired, go all the way. Casters have, quite literally, thousands of spells available. Why not a commensurate number of combat maneuvers available to all non-casters?

edit: This isn't sarcasm. Why not? 

Sure, you have thousands of maneuvers available. I never said you can't have that. My point is you don't make those thousands of maneuvers out of 200 combat styles. You have a handful of basic combat styles, and you add maneuvers under the umbrella of those styles.

Like when a new splat book comes out with new spells, they don't introduce a new spell school "Manipulation" and then add in a couple dozen new spells under that school. They add in a couple dozen new spells spread throughout the existing spell schools.

I'm saying let the same principle work for martial fighting styles. You have your core of 5-9 Fighting Styles (I believe my count above got 6, but the exact styles could be changed or expanded a bit), with a bunch of maneuvers in each one. Each fighting style could then be expanded as time goes on.




Oh wait, I see what the confusion is. When I was mentioning 1-3 maneuvers per weapon category (ie Light Piercing), that was referencing something independent of fighting styles. Two Weapon Fighting might be a style with a hundred possible maneuvers, it's just you can get access to a few bonus maneuvers based on the exact weapon you are holding. I never meant to imply that the main combat styles should be limited that sharply.