Tactical Narrative Combat Modules in D&D Next

ArmoredSaint · Jun 28, 2012

It meets with my approval.

More of this, please, WotC! :lol:

UngeheuerLich · Jun 28, 2012

I don´t like a trip attack that does not take enemy strength into account. I´d rather have a lesser penalty but the enemy needs to make a strength check vs your attack roll to see if you really trip him.
And that +4 to damage needs to be +1+level to damage or something. As +4 to damage in this system is quite high at 1st level, but neglegible later on.

Not everything is bad:

fighters are getting maneuvers, that will do damage and do nice things in addition.

As a sidenote:
I really believe people don´t get what bounded accuracy means:
It most surely does not mean, that penalties or bonuses to hit may not occur. It just means, the base assumption is, that attack bonus is no function of level in general. There may be exceptions like the fighter, who was confirmed to increase his attack bonus in some way as he levels up.

CasvalRemDeikun · Jun 28, 2012

jadrax said:
The Knockdown effect is on top of your normal Damage.

Provided it hits, which it won't because with bounded accuracy, -5 is devastating as a penalty, -10 essentially removes any possibility of hitting.

I would much rather they just didn't give these options to other characters and give the Fighter stances similar to the Knight and Slayer from Essentials. At baseline, they would have the non-tactically minded stances, but the tactical module would add things like Defend the Line.

Herremann the Wise · Jun 28, 2012

Mike Mearls advanced combat module seems like it might be more to my liking. This seems a little too simplistic and dinky for me. Again though, I think you need to see the whole picture and actually play with it to really see how it goes. First impressions though; not so good.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Sir Brennen · Jun 28, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
What I don't get is, how is this "narrative combat?"

My take is narrative combat involves actions the players can simply describe their character taking without resorting to a battlemat. It's called "narrative" because it sounds cooler than "gridless"

UngeheuerLich · Jun 28, 2012

CasvalRemDeikun said:
Provided it hits, which it won't because with bounded accuracy, -5 is devastating as a penalty, -10 essentially removes any possibility of hitting.

I would much rather they just didn't give these options to other characters and give the Fighter stances similar to the Knight and Slayer from Essentials. At baseline, they would have the non-tactically minded stances, but the tactical module would add things like Defend the Line.

Yes, but should it not be very hard to knock someone down? On the other hand, a horse should not be that hard to knock down with a heavy weapon.

So maybe -2/-4 would suffice. A strength check to see if you can catch yourself however would be useful. This, in a bounded accuracy enviroment, seems like a more reasonable tradeoff, as -2 just shifts the chance from 55% to 45% on average. Add in advantage, and you have a reasonable chance to trip someone.

Minigiant · Jun 28, 2012

High accuracy penalties with bounded accuracy is stupid.

-10 to attack pretty much means you can't hit an AC over 10. AC starts at 10. Hmmmm.....

And -5 to attack is pretty much as bad.

Ahnehnois · Jun 28, 2012

Sounds like a good idea if they can make the math work.

Agamon · Jun 28, 2012

This is the first thing I've seen that I'm not a fan of. Bounded accuracy or no, I'm not a fan of penalties for extras. Hopefully the examples were pie-in-the-sky.

Connorsrpg · Jun 28, 2012

I have always preferred 'extra effects' to be part of a critical hit (and they are in our rules).

I did not like the idea of always doing extra stuff in 4E - it then lessens the 'coolness'.

I like a system like Savage Worlds or even Saga, where penalties can be taken to do extra. The penalties have to be enough to not make players want to 'risk' it every round. I am all for large penalties for extra stuff, BUT given standing up is only 5ft of movement, why would you bother to risk knocking someone down? (Unless of course you were immediately after the foe you are knocking down and have several allies in the initiative order b/w you and its turn - and they are in melee (b/c they would be at penalty for ranged)).

Seems a bit excessive, but I am okay with these ideas. You don't have to take the actions, but opening them up is good. (Whatever system we play, I always table the possible manuevers anyway. Easy to use for DM and players).