D&D 5E Legends & Lore Article 4/1/14 (Fighter Maneuvers)

[ForeverSlayer]

If you buy D&D Next it will be in large part because of what I like. The difference between you and me, though, is that I'm perfectly happy for other folks to have their fun if I also have mine. It's hard to imagine myself ever playing this "Battle Master" fighter. Not really what I like. But if another player at the table is playing it? No problem, be my guest.

It's not as simple as just someone sitting next to you playing something different. The way you have phrased your statement would be like having two tables where one is playing 4th edition while another table is playing 3rd/Pathfinder. The people playing 4th can have all the fun they want because that game is separate. But the problem here is they have thrown the two concepts together under one game which can sigificantly alter my attitude of the game. It would be like baking making dinner for everyone and loading it down with salt. If I don't like salt then I am screwed because I can't realistically pick out every tiny grain of salt there is. I don't play 4th edition because I think the mechanics are aweful and very gamist. I can't enjoy a game where I am playing my PC but the guy next to me in the same game is using the types of mechanics I hate. It spoils the whole game for me. I play in a lot of sanctioned events so I play with a lot of people I don't know and frankly, I don't care what their personal preference is. I am there for "my" enjoyment and to play the game using "my" hard earned money. If the game were free, then I wouldn't care one way or the other.

 

[variant]

If you buy D&D Next it will be in large part because of what I like. The difference between you and me, though, is that I'm perfectly happy for other folks to have their fun if I also have mine. It's hard to imagine myself ever playing this "Battle Master" fighter. Not really what I like. But if another player at the table is playing it? No problem, be my guest.

Would you have the same attitude if the person next to you was playing a Vulcan with a phaser next to your Faerunian wizard? After all, he is having fun.

 

[fjw70]

Would you have the same attitude if the person next to you was playing a Vulcan with a phaser next to your Faerunian wizard? After all, he is having fun.

Sounds like a fun game to me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's not as simple as just someone sitting next to you playing something different. The way you have phrased your statement would be like having two tables where one is playing 4th edition while another table is playing 3rd/Pathfinder. The people playing 4th can have all the fun they want because that game is separate. But the problem here is they have thrown the two concepts together under one game which can sigificantly alter my attitude of the game. It would be like baking making dinner for everyone and loading it down with salt. If I don't like salt then I am screwed because I can't realistically pick out every tiny grain of salt there is. I don't play 4th edition because I think the mechanics are aweful and very gamist. I can't enjoy a game where I am playing my PC but the guy next to me in the same game is using the types of mechanics I hate. It spoils the whole game for me. I play in a lot of sanctioned events so I play with a lot of people I don't know and frankly, I don't care what their personal preference is. I am there for "my" enjoyment and to play the game using "my" hard earned money. If the game were free, then I wouldn't care one way or the other.

Ah, you must have missed the announcement from a year or so back, where they pretty much say this is the whole point of D&D Next. If you'd known that from the start, you could have saved yourself a lot of aggravation.

It's true that subclasses have multiple purposes, and are used both as complexity dials and narrative archetypes, so there is no way to play a "simple gladiator" unless they design another subclass for that, or unless you adjust the narrative e.g. use the Warrior subclass to get low-complexity but say you're narratively a gladiator.

This actually seems alright to me, since the player who buys splat books looking for mechanical ways to express the concept of "Gladiator" probably isn't the same player who wants to play a very simple fighter.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It's not as simple as just someone sitting next to you playing something different. The way you have phrased your statement would be like having two tables where one is playing 4th edition while another table is playing 3rd/Pathfinder. The people playing 4th can have all the fun they want because that game is separate. But the problem here is they have thrown the two concepts together under one game which can sigificantly alter my attitude of the game. It would be like baking making dinner for everyone and loading it down with salt. If I don't like salt then I am screwed because I can't realistically pick out every tiny grain of salt there is. I don't play 4th edition because I think the mechanics are aweful and very gamist. I can't enjoy a game where I am playing my PC but the guy next to me in the same game is using the types of mechanics I hate. It spoils the whole game for me. I play in a lot of sanctioned events so I play with a lot of people I don't know and frankly, I don't care what their personal preference is. I am there for "my" enjoyment and to play the game using "my" hard earned money. If the game were free, then I wouldn't care one way or the other.

I think I get where you are coming from, but maneuvers don't HAVE to be gamist. Avoiding powers like "Come and get it" from 4e, but allowing maneuvers like Bull Rushing (for pushing), or some manuever that uses a whip to pull would let people who like 4e most of what they want. In other words, enabling you and the 4e fan to play at the same table.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think I get where you are coming from, but maneuvers don't HAVE to be gamist. Avoiding powers like "Come and get it" from 4e, but allowing maneuvers like Bull Rushing (for pushing), or some manuever that uses a whip to pull would let people who like 4e most of what they want. In other words, enabling you and the 4e fan to play at the same table.

Things like that I can get behind. Shield bashing, disarming, and tripping are no problem at all. But having abilities that force an opponent to make decisions without using magic is something I don't like.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Things like that I can get behind. Shield bashing, disarming, and tripping are no problem at all. But having abilities that force an opponent to make decisions without using magic is something I don't like.

I don't have any big problems with "Come and get it"-like powers in 4e, but I would prefer if they were, as you say, left to magic-users.

I am a bit gamist though, so even if I could have disallowed the "Come and get it" power from 4e at my table, I didn't. I just think it's sloppy design giving a power like that to the Fighter. Giving it to the Sword Mage would make it feel a lot more logical and less gamist.

 

[Balesir]

Things like that I can get behind. Shield bashing, disarming, and tripping are no problem at all. But having abilities that force an opponent to make decisions without using magic is something I don't like.

And yet people in the real world do this every day, or the job of "salesman" would not exist.

If everything not strictly physical-mechanical is caused by "magic", my conclusion is that I live in a high fantasy world. So I guess I might as well roleplay in them, too.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

For me, I care more that the people I am playing with, play the types of characters they want to play. But I find I am pretty flexible in adjusting believability based on most given situations, and I can see someone not liking it. For me, as long as I like the character I am playing, it'd be hard for me to be bothered by what other people are playing. For instance if we were playing a 3.5e game and someone else wanted to play a Book of 9 Swords class, I'd be fine with that even if Bo9S was not my thing.

While I want to play in a game where everybody gets to play the character they want, I also understand that some options cannot exist in the same table without losing something. I know, for instance, that this tactical module is not for me and I don't see anyone in my table picking those options. A player that picks them wanting to have an experience that includes them will be disappointed soon.

For instance, if you want forced movement to be relevant, you have to abandon theater of the mind combat, which I won't do. As someone else pointed, for combat maneuvers to be useful, combats should last a good number or rounds, and I'm fine with the 2-3 rounds we're currently experiencing; I don't want to change that.

I hope we get a fighter that feels like this 4E/Bo9S thing (various options and stuff), but plays well within the frame of short theater of the mind combats. I don't want a game that goes other way.

 

[Mistwell]

For instance, if you want forced movement to be relevant, you have to abandon theater of the mind combat, which I won't do.

I disagree. You can do it in theater of the mind, and some do.

As someone else pointed, for combat maneuvers to be useful, combats should last a good number or rounds, and I'm fine with the 2-3 rounds we're currently experiencing; I don't want to change that.

Again, I think they can be useful in the current number of rounds.

I hope we get a fighter that feels like this 4E/Bo9S thing (various options and stuff), but plays well within the frame of short theater of the mind combats. I don't want a game that goes other way.

I am not sure why you think it won't work withing this framset. I think it will just fine.