Magic Combat Tricks

[Sniperfox47]

I was reading over the section for combat tricks, and was wondering, "Are magic attacks a valid situation for combat tricks"? Obviously the general situation tricks like roll-with-it and quickmount can benefit a mage, but I was wondering if "Magic Only Combat Tricks" would deserve a section with a couple entries. Even though some things would be better suited by spell enhancements aren't there are some things that could make good tricks for combat casters?

 

[Morrus]

Sure. I'm currently working on scientific tricks for N.E.W. The same principle applies. The only caveat is that spell casters are already very well served in terms of options, so the need isn't as great as for some other types.

 

[GlassEye]

This isn't about magic combat tricks, just combat tricks.

Looking over the list of combat tricks it strikes me that these seem to be options that anyone could do without special training. I don't think that they should have to be purchased with experience. Also, I think the attribute prerequisites are unnecessary coupled with cost. For example, 'Knockdown': STR 5+ & 2 dice cost. With a cost of 2 dice that already eliminates anyone with an attribute of three or less. STR 4 has three dice in their pool just like STR 5 so it seems a little odd to set the prerequisite at five. The cost is going to limit spellcasters with fairly low physical attributes from attempting these without magical enhancement.

As you say, spellcasters are well served in terms of options. I'd like to see a more open system for the fighting types. I was really excited when Pathfinder came out with Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense. It seemed like an easy, elegant system and I couldn't wait to try it. Then they layered on feat after feat so that they only people who really use them are those who specialize; everyone else just swings, applies damage, and CMB/CMD goes largely unused. I really like the more open system of Mighty Deeds that Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG uses.

So, I would probably remove XP cost and prerequisites and give everything a dice cost. Then when attempting the maneuver take the dice cost from the attacking dice pool and replace them with either different colored dice or different size dice (e.g. d4 instead of d6) to differentiate from the attack pool. Roll 'em all. If the attack misses, maneuver fails. If the attack hits, then check the maneuver pool: to determine success the dice need to have a certain number or within a range of numbers on the dice face or meet a target number to succeed.

I think a system like this fits better with the open skills and wide options of spellcasting than a limited system of buying individual tricks does. As for ambidexterity, I'd greatly decrease its bonus and make it a AGI trait.

 

[Morrus]

See, a lot of them were free to everyone and what happened was - like Bull Rush and Trip in D&D 3.x - nobody ever used them. The moment you put a cost on them and make them a thing people have to buy? Bam! They're being used all over the shop. We did a lot of playtesting with that, and that held true time and time and time again. There's definitely a truism that folks tend to use things they've bought, and which they've put on their character sheets.

 

[Sniperfox47]

See, a lot of them were free to everyone and what happened was - like Bull Rush and Trip in D&D 3.x - nobody ever used them.

I have to agree. I've been playing D&D for quite a few years and only very recently started thinking about combat maneuvers (particularly trip and overrun > ).

I think part of the problem is that there are *way* too many options if everyone has everything. Its easier just to go "I hit him with my sword" than to think of the list of 30+ things you can do (availability bias?).

By making her buy the maneuvers not only are you giving them more value ("well I played for them so I might as well use them..."), but also limiting the pool of options the player has to consider to only those options she's bought.

 

[GlassEye]

A lot of times, particularly in 3.x, the benefit from the maneuver wasn't nearly as effective as just doing straight up damage and getting the monster out of the fight as quickly as possible. Add a penalty to doing the maneuver (AoO) and a cost to each maneuver for doing it without penalty or with a bonus or both and the maneuver gets used much less often. DCC handles it by doing normal damage and getting the maneuver off plus the maneuvers are free-form to what the fighter is trying to do at the time instead of a large chart of 'If you want to do this, buy this'.

Maybe dual cost or multiple levels of success. Base level combat maneuver open to anyone at X cost in dice pool and success at base level (sort of like cantrip level effects). Buy training in the maneuver and cost becomes X-1 (or whatever) and can reach higher levels of success.

 

[Sniperfox47]

I don't understand the issue though. They're not even that expensive. Go raze a small village of 100 peasent farmers and you can afford the most expensive combat trick.

For my group they've really enjoyed playing around with the different combat tricks. They give fighters a bit of versatility in the areas they choose but not as much as mages. I find this a nice compromise since mages for once actually seem fairly balanced from our tests, unlike the other fantasy games I've played.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, like I said - when the were free, nobody used them. If you want to make them free in your game, that's totally fine; your group might be atypical. But 100% of the time, free tricks did not get used, while (cheap) tricks you have to select and buy do. One of those "game design affects payer psychology and playstyle" things.

 

[GlassEye]

Ok, I'll bow to your design and testing experience and try it as presented before considering changes.

 

[Sniperfox47]

Ok, I'll bow to your design and testing experience and try it as presented before considering changes.

And keep in mind that there's nothing saying that list have to be exclusive. If a player wants to train an ability to behead humanoid enemies with his axe by exchanging a certain number of attack dice for a certain percentage to instagib them, there's nothing stopping their DM from working with them to come up with a trick to handle that. [EDIT](? Is that correct? Sounds like a run-on sentence to me, but I can't find the separation point...)