D&D 5th Edition And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!


What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 191
  1. #1

    And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

    Today's Legends and Lore column by Mike Mearls deals with "Fighters and Combat Superiority". One clear message from the D&D Next playtest feedback was that the fighter was too dull. In response to this, the dev team have ome up with a new mechanic called combat superiority which emphasizes the fighter’s combat talents without using static bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls.
    Combat superiority represents a fighter’s combat skill. On a fighter’s turn, the player receives a number of dice to represent that fighter’s skill at arms. For example, a 1st-level fighter might allow a player to use 1d4 and a 5th-level one could provide 2d6. A player can choose to spend these dice in a number of ways, depending on his or her character’s fighting style. The default combat superiority option that all fighters can use allows the player to spend the dice as bonus damage on a successful weapon attack.
    Find the article here.
    Last edited by Morrus; Monday, 30th July, 2012 at 02:42 PM.

 

  • #2
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Normal, IL
    Posts
    6,523
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    KickstarterZEITGEISTD&DI Defended The Walls!

    ø Ignore Obryn
    My communities:

    And Lo, the Fighter did get a shtick of his own... (7/30 L&L)

    Looks like an interesting start.

    My main concerns about the Fighter were...

    (1) Lack of tactical options
    (2) Lack of class features that belong to them as uniquely as other classes' features
    (3) Ability to passably defend a party, say through Opportunity Attacks or something of that nature.

    Today's article gets the first two started, at least. It looks pretty promising, and it's good to see they're re-thinking stuff based on feedback.

    -O
    Last edited by Obryn; Monday, 30th July, 2012 at 06:20 AM. Reason: mentioning the article

  • #3
    I like it. I thought I had missed the part where it said "per day" or "per encounter," so I checked again and it's per round. Sick.

    My only Fighter-related concern now is that this adds complexity to the class that's supposed to be the simplest one. I guess it's still fine (you can just use your CS dice for damage every round), but it does add more fiddly round-to-round decision making, which is starting to sound like the minor action thing all over again.

    All in all, looks good, will have to test to see.

    But I'm sad that they're not doing the two themes thing. I wanted a dual-wielding magic-user fighter.

  • #4
    Sounds fairly similar to DCC

  • #5
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    Serendipity's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Just north of the Emerald City
    Posts
    716
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    ø Ignore Serendipity
    Quote Originally Posted by BobTheNob View Post
    Sounds fairly similar to DCC
    More than a little, yes.
    Though given that I'm fond of that particular mechanic in DCC, this (so far at least) I'm placing in the Good column. It could IMO stand to be a little MORE like Mighty Deeds of Arms for my taste actually.
    "The glass is not half-full, the glass is prepared."

  • #6
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,677
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Ignore Crazy Jerome
    A little bit of choice can go a long way, as long as it is a legitimate choice. Sounds like the basic idea is sound enough.

  • #7
    Registered User
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    mach1.9pants's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    3,589
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews
    OSR

    ø Ignore mach1.9pants
    I like it, as I like MDoA. Sounds like MDoA but a little more codified. I would hope you can easily go for more DCC style, so all good IMO. Crazy Jerome makes a very good point, the other options have to be worth the damage reduction, it would be all to easy to make taking damage bonus every round the sensible choice.
    Gloria Finis

  • #8
    Quote Originally Posted by mach1.9pants View Post
    I like it, as I like MDoA. Sounds like MDoA but a little more codified. I would hope you can easily go for more DCC style, so all good IMO. Crazy Jerome makes a very good point, the other options have to be worth the damage reduction, it would be all to easy to make taking damage bonus every round the sensible choice.
    I am far happier with loss of damage than an earlier suggestion at loss of to-hit.

    If its any comparison my 4e group had a ton of powers which didnt hit that hard but had great additional effects. They tended to be willing to give up damage more readily than to-hit

  • #9
    Moderator
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    Stalker0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    8,206
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Ignore Stalker0
    My communities:

    I like it.

    Its a simple mechanic that can evolve into something more complicated for those who want it.
    Is your game having issues with Grind? Check out Stalker0's Guide to Anti-Grind

    Do you want a skill challenge system that is less mechanical and encourages more roleplaying? Try my Obsidian Skill Challenge System

    Like the core 4e system, but prefer a more balanced system with additional options? Try my Alternate Core Skill Challenge System

  • #10
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    Iosue's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    940
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Ignore Iosue
    Quote Originally Posted by GX.Sigma View Post
    My only Fighter-related concern now is that this adds complexity to the class that's supposed to be the simplest one. I guess it's still fine (you can just use your CS dice for damage every round), but it does add more fiddly round-to-round decision making, which is starting to sound like the minor action thing all over again.
    What I like about it is the inherent customizability of it. Say you just want to run a bog-simple, Old School style game, or, on the player-side, a bog-simple, Old School style fighter. You just put that CS die in damage and you're good to go. But maybe you're more into tactical grid play. Then you can use in many more variable ways -- perhaps for forced movement, perhaps to soak up damage meant for an ally, and so on. It gives you both the simple, uncomplex, "give-it-to-the-newby-and-let-him-go-to-town" fighter, as well as the complex, "I-want-lots-of-options-and-not-just-damage" fighter.

    And most happy, looks like it will add options without burdening the chargen process. I don't have to keep track of more fiddly bonuses -- I just take out an extra die or dice when the pooh hits the fan.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 1 of 20 1234567891011 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 190
      Last Post: Thursday, 2nd August, 2012, 09:57 PM
    2. Combat Challenge/Combat Superiority question
      By Naszir in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: Thursday, 1st April, 2010, 10:08 PM
    3. Combining Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority
      By Naszir in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 35
      Last Post: Thursday, 1st April, 2010, 08:56 PM
    4. Fighter combat superiority question
      By mcnathan80 in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: Thursday, 14th August, 2008, 06:27 PM
    5. Can we get a sticky on Fighter's Combat Superiority, Combat Challenge?
      By Stalker0 in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Thursday, 12th June, 2008, 07:39 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •