|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 7:36AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
One of the issues that Mearls identified in his last interview was a concern that codified feats/manuvers might limit the actions availalbe to characters without those feats/maneuvers. For example, if the fighter class can Parry does that mean that other classes can't perform a parry?
Rather than create two (or more) entries with different names (an entry in the general combat section and more in the class maneuver list) why not simply detail a trained and untrained use of each combat feat/maneuver?
I see no reason why we can't have rules for performing an untrained Parry, Disarm, or even a Whirlwind. That way when a player wants to perform an untrained version of a manuever the DM doesn't have to worry about overshadowing a class feature or predefined class maneuver.
Technically, the system is already doing this with TWF. The basic rules for using TWF exist for everyone and we have feats (trained versions) of that maneuver for the specialists.
Actually, you could have one entry that details each level of training (from untrained to grand master)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:28AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
One thing DDN has to do is spend a great deal on improvisation and aiding DMs on untrained actions.
Personally, I'd let anyone perform any "untrained" action or use a feat at disadvantage.
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!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:45AM
#3
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
An "untrained" parry would require the players to be familiar with all maneuvers and that will make the game system utterly unweildy. What would be better would be a robust system for improvised actions and then make sure all the feats and maneuvers work with this system.
As long as the improvised actions are useful and simple to apply, it's easy to add maneuvers on top of it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:08AM
#4
|
|
|
By the way he never mentioned they WOULD make it where you need the ability to do it. He said that said abilities create the PERCEPTION that you need the ability to do it.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:10AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I'm all for:
"you can try anything, but if you don't know what you're doing, most likely is that it will blow up in your face".
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:18AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
One of the issues that Mearls identified in his last interview was a concern that codified feats/manuvers might limit the actions availalbe to characters without those feats/maneuvers. For example, if the fighter class can Parry does that mean that other classes can't perform a parry?
Rather than create two (or more) entries with different names (an entry in the general combat section and more in the class maneuver list) why not simply detail a trained and untrained use of each combat feat/maneuver?
I see no reason why we can't have rules for performing an untrained Parry, Disarm, or even a Whirlwind. That way when a player wants to perform an untrained version of a manuever the DM doesn't have to worry about overshadowing a class feature or predefined class maneuver.
Technically, the system is already doing this with TWF. The basic rules for using TWF exist for everyone and we have feats (trained versions) of that maneuver for the specialists.
Actually, you could have one entry that details each level of training (from untrained to grand master)
Level of training is already reflected with MDD capacity.
Either way, I can't say I approve.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:22AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
|
I think a simple system for improvised attacks could be apply -5 to d20 roll. You want to Trip or Disarm, great, -5 and you still get to apply normal damage. Feats and Maneuvers can mitigate or eliminate this penalty. (damage is applied as normal because HP doesn't represent physical damage)
Multiple Attacks can be -2 for each additional attack. If you attack 3 targets, great, roll 3d20 each at -6. Again, Feats (Such as TWF) can mitigate this penalty.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:24AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
An "untrained" parry would require the players to be familiar with all maneuvers and that will make the game system utterly unweildy. What would be better would be a robust system for improvised actions and then make sure all the feats and maneuvers work with this system.
As long as the improvised actions are useful and simple to apply, it's easy to add maneuvers on top of it.
At the moment the DM must be familiar with all the maneuvers to even provide a reasonable improvised action, one that doesn't overshadow class and character abilities.
A section on improvised actions is needed, but they shouldn't be required for common actions like Parry, Disarm, Trip, Charge, Pin, Overbearing, etc. Having to use an improvised action to do something as simple and common as Parry doesn't make any sense.
At the moment it looks like we will have a spell section at the back of our PHB. If the spell casters are required to read through that list (or rather just the level appropriate spells) I see no reason why the same can't be done for feats/maneuvers. If it's acceptable for spells then it's acceptable for feats and maneuvers. The class definition and themes can simply reference them (i.e. as a fighter you gain Expert training in Parry). The player then looks up parry and uses the "Expert rules". It's not a problem at all.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:26AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
By the way he never mentioned they WOULD make it where you need the ability to do it. He said that said abilities create the PERCEPTION that you need the ability to do it.
Yes, that that "perception" is a result of poor organization of common combat rules and explicit maneuvers.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 9:27AM
#10
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
An "untrained" parry would require the players to be familiar with all maneuvers and that will make the game system utterly unweildy. What would be better would be a robust system for improvised actions and then make sure all the feats and maneuvers work with this system.
As long as the improvised actions are useful and simple to apply, it's easy to add maneuvers on top of it.
At the moment the DM must be familiar with all the maneuvers to even provide a reasonable improvised action, one that doesn't overshadow class and character abilities.
Which is why I said the final version fo the game should have a robust system for improvised actions.
A section on improvised actions is needed, but they shouldn't be required for common actions like Parry, Disarm, Trip, Charge, Pin, Overbearing, etc.
They should if you want the basic game to come in at under 16 pages (excluding class-specific actions, like Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, and Spells). And that's what the designers want. So, yes, having ten pages of all these fiddly actions, like overbearing, charging, pinning, tripping, disarming, etc. is a bad idea form a design perspective. because you can't be exhaustive without making the game a ponderous exercise.
|
|
|
