The case against Combat Superiority

[The Shadow]

I'm not sure that I agree with refreshing at the end of the turn.

Our fighter player was enjoying the tactical decision of whether to expend his CS die or save it for Parry. And he certainly wasn't spamming the same maneuver all the time. (Not that he had a huge list to choose from, of course, but he did switch in the midst of a fight plenty of times, especially once he picked up Cleave.)

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure that I agree with refreshing at the end of the turn.

Our fighter player was enjoying the tactical decision of whether to expend his CS die or save it for Parry. And he certainly wasn't spamming the same maneuver all the time. (Not that he had a huge list to choose from, of course, but he did switch in the midst of a fight plenty of times, especially once he picked up Cleave.)

The difference is mainly whether the PC forgoes using the die during his turn so he can parry in his off turn or whether using the parry in the off turn prevents him from using the die in his next turn. I think I may prefer the latter. It allows a little more aggressive play. You accept the consequences of parrying rather than hold back to parry.

 

[billd91]

I could certainly see that mechanic being extended to monks. Instead of combat superiority dice, they'd be Ki dice. After focusing sufficient Ki, the monk could deal his quivering palm or stunning fist attacks or wire-fu.

Generally, I don't think I'd favor saving up the dice, but this really is an interesting idea.

 

[VinylTap]

I'd like to see damage dice reduced to d3, and d6 on a crit. It'll give people more incentive to use special abilities instead of just going for dmg (zzz). Damage is also going to scale pretty crazy at d6 at higher levels.

Refreshing at the end of his turn sounds like a great idea too.

 

[The Shadow]

The difference is mainly whether the PC forgoes using the die during his turn so he can parry in his off turn or whether using the parry in the off turn prevents him from using the die in his next turn. I think I may prefer the latter. It allows a little more aggressive play. You accept the consequences of parrying rather than hold back to parry.

Huh, that does put a different spin on it. I'll ask our fighter player what he thinks.

I could certainly see that mechanic being extended to monks. Instead of combat superiority dice, they'd be Ki dice. After focusing sufficient Ki, the monk could deal his quivering palm or stunning fist attacks or wire-fu.

Very interesting! That would give an appropriate 'feel' to those abilities, that you have to build up to them.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think this is getting a little away from my main point: I don't think CS is currently flexible enough to extend it into a general physical combat mechanic. If it stays a Fighter only mechanic, perhaps it works (though I still have questions about balance), but if you want it to become the physical equivalent of spellcasting, it falls short.

 

[Someone]

our Fighter, the player did not repeat himself AT ALL. Every single round, his die was spent differently between Parry, Strike, and Glancing Blow.

Whoa there.

Did he have Str 3 or did you houserule it? because Glancing blow as written is quite difficult to use.

 

[VinylTap]

I think this is getting a little away from my main point: I don't think CS is currently flexible enough to extend it into a general physical combat mechanic. If it stays a Fighter only mechanic, perhaps it works (though I still have questions about balance), but if you want it to become the physical equivalent of spellcasting, it falls short.

The rogue has had a version of this mechanic for a long time. It was just damage only and positionally restrictive.

And while its fairly different in application (obviously CS is about options), I can't see there being a huge problem is allowing him to spend some of these 'backstab' dice for another effect (blind, debuff etc). It fits fell into the system already. What other "physical" class could you give it to ? A ranger (already supported with the fighter)... and the monk maybe? I guess the Barbarian.

Paladins and Druids will have magic, so they don't need the mechanic.

I think spreading this mechanic around a little is less of a huge deal then people are suggesting. And you don't want to get into a situation where the Ranger-fighter is significantly better than a module'd ranger. The ranger/fighter already really feels like an early play-test of the ranger class.

 

[Li Shenron]

If he didn't, he then had the die available during his turn, and then once he rolled his attack and saw his result... he could then decided to use it for Glancing Blow if the numbers worked out, or if it didn't, he powered it into Strike damage.

This is how I read it too... that you can choose Deadly Strike when you hit, and Glancing Blow when you miss, no need to "guess" and choose the effect before rolling the attack.

I can imagine some gamers would not like this, saying that DS and GB would require intention before rolling the attack, but in another interpretation they could be both possible results of doing the same thing i.e. attacking in a certain way, and then if you hit the result it extra damage and if you miss the result is... actually the same extra damage!

Perhaps this is ok, that what you do each combat changes, but within a combat you pretty much do the same thing. I just fear that it's a little bland for the player.

I would say that this happens if the player is bland. But unfortunately it happens to a lot of people, probably all of us have fallen into the trap of just doing the same thing over and over and then complaining that it's the game's fault...

My bet is that the Wizard, which is typically the character that does different things every round, does so mostly as a consequence of vancian magic, i.e. she doesn't have the chance of casting the same "good one" spell every round because of the limits of prepared spell slots. I can say that I've definitely seen several 3ed Sorcerers (which have less limitation of this sort) going the route of "as many fireballs as I can", then switching to their best 2nd level spell a few round, then Magic Missile until the are also depleted.

And of course it's also bland DM's fault... if the monsters all fight for damage, damage all the time, the players are going to do the same.

Let's face it, the most commonly seen tactical variations in a fight are these:

- doing something else because it doesn't work (e.g. monster has resistance)
- doing something else because you're out of attempts (e.g. no more highest-level slots)
- retreating because you're all low on HP

I think the designers have a tough job against DM/players' blandness, because even if all CS/ED options were pretty balanced, there is still a good chance that each PC (and monster) will stick to their favourite one and combat become a game of attrition. IMHO it's more in the hands of the DM (primarily) and the players to make a fight more dynamic.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would say that this happens if the player is bland. But unfortunately it happens to a lot of people, probably all of us have fallen into the trap of just doing the same thing over and over and then complaining that it's the game's fault...

My bet is that the Wizard, which is typically the character that does different things every round, does so mostly as a consequence of vancian magic, i.e. she doesn't have the chance of casting the same "good one" spell every round because of the limits of prepared spell slots. I can say that I've definitely seen several 3ed Sorcerers (which have less limitation of this sort) going the route of "as many fireballs as I can", then switching to their best 2nd level spell a few round, then Magic Missile until the are also depleted.

And of course it's also bland DM's fault... if the monsters all fight for damage, damage all the time, the players are going to do the same.

Let's face it, the most commonly seen tactical variations in a fight are these:

- doing something else because it doesn't work (e.g. monster has resistance)
- doing something else because you're out of attempts (e.g. no more highest-level slots)
- retreating because you're all low on HP

I think the designers have a tough job against DM/players' blandness, because even if all CS/ED options were pretty balanced, there is still a good chance that each PC (and monster) will stick to their favourite one and combat become a game of attrition. IMHO it's more in the hands of the DM (primarily) and the players to make a fight more dynamic.

I completely agree that a dull combat can be the result of dull players and dull decisions. But there's still the balance issue - currently you can choose knockdown over 1dX extra damage. It's rarely better to choose to do this. If you made it better - say it took an action to stand up again - it becomes too powerful and is used all the time. You have to make the power just right. Now if knocking someone down cost you a resource you might not get back until the end of the fight.. then it could be more powerful. Spend two awesome points to knockdown and it takes them an action to get back up, and you only have 3-4 awesome points. Much easier to balance because it can't be spammed and does offer a genuine alternative to just damage.