The case against Combat Superiority

[The Shadow]

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.

It's the only thing that makes the ability make any sense. It would be much less useful, much less awesome, and much less balanced against other classes if you had to guess.

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!

Ah yes, the dreaded Dissociated Mechanic! My withers are entirely unwrung; it plays great at the table and certainly didn't interfere with good roleplaying in my playtest.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

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.

Knock Down is of limited use currently when used by a lone character (it is pretty much only helpful in allowing the character to retreat or slow down an opponent in a moving battle), but very useful in a party with several other melee characters, especially if one of them is a Rogue. Granting Advantage to melee attacks against the target usually makes up for the loss of 3.5 to 4.5 damage.

 

[Yora]

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!

It is a bit odd. But the result is so much fun for a class that hasn't been nearly as fun as it should be, that I can perfectly ignore it and just go with the flow of fighters being awesome in battle.

Immediate Action/Reaction spells have been around for over 5 years.

 

[john112364]

Knock Down is of limited use currently when used by a lone character (it is pretty much only helpful in allowing the character to retreat or slow down an opponent in a moving battle), but very useful in a party with several other melee characters, especially if one of them is a Rogue. Granting Advantage to melee attacks against the target usually makes up for the loss of 3.5 to 4.5 damage.

This right here. We discussed this at our last game. It is most useful to give up 1 die of damage for the fighter to set up the extra dice the rouge gets. It's definitely a good trade off as far as actual damage goes. And granting advantage to everyone who attacks the prone target is not a bad decision either. Granted its situational, but we were talking about options.

 

[Vikingkingq]

A couple things:

1. I think the current paradigm of 1 die for the first 4 levels gets us thinking in the wrong way about Combat Superiority - CS isn't about choosing between mutually exclusive abilities, but rather is about making combinations (i.e, not just damage or knockback but damage AND knockback or knockback AND knockdown). I think more but smaller dice earlier on would help make that clear: if you started at level 1 with 2d4 CS dice, then you have the option to mix-and-match effects, which better balances the different options. Right now, Knockdown isn't too exciting, but Knockdown combined with Push really messes with an opponent's movement vis-a-vis stabbing your squishies.

2. Higher level multi-dice maneuvers. We know (from the PA/PVP podcast) that at higher levels, you get maneuvers that cost 3-4 dice to fire off more impressive effects like Whirlwind and Riposte. That offers another balance point against just dumping dice into Deadly Strike, and it creates another level of strategy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whoa there.

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

We didn't houserule it... but I also know it did not get used much at all. Mainly because the Fighter actually ended up using the die to Parry like 60% of the time. I seem to recall Glancing Blow coming up... once? Can't remember. But at least the Fighter had the die available TO trigger Glancing Blow, because of the end-of-turn refresh.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

Heh, you can tell a mechanic is popular when a thread explicitly AGAINST it instantly becomes a discussion about how to extend it to other classes.

As for the concern expressed in your OP that even with CS a fighter has very limited options, I think some perspective is important here.

A starting fighter has 3 uses for his CS die, giving him (at most) 3 class-specific options each round.

By comparison, a level 1 cleric has 4 spells (including a domain spell and Turn Undead), 1 Channel Divinity, and 1-2 orisons for a total of 6-7 options per round max - but since almost all his orisons are typically useless in combat, that's probably 6 options max. If nobody in the party is hurt yet, we're down to 5 (4 if the cleric also prepared Cure Light Wounds or if he's not fighting undead, 3 if both of those). And since those spells/channelings are daily, by the end of the day he could have a grand choice between attacking with a weapon and casting Radiant Lance.

The rogue? Two semi-class-specific options: he can sneak attack or he can hide. (The latter isn't strictly class-specific, but he's really good at it thanks to Skill Mastery.)

The arcane spellcasters are a bit better off: 6 options for the wizard (3 orisons and 3 spells), 5-6 for the sorcerer (two cantrips, two spells, an origin power, and a beefed-up melee attack if you want to count that), up to 4 for the warlock (although some builds would be as low as 1). But of course the majority of wizard/sorcerer options dry up by the end of the day.

Now, by level 5 the fighter has five CS maneuvers, which he can use in various combinations - up to 25 possibilities.

POSSIBLE POWER COMBINATIONS AT LEVEL 5
Fighter: any 2 out of 5 (all non-daily)
Rogue: 2 (2 non-daily)
Cleric: 14 (3 non-daily); but can prepare different spells each day
Wizard: 12 (3 non-daily); but can prepare different spells each day
Sorcerer: 11 (2 non-daily)
Warlock: 9 (9 non-daily)

So depending how you want to count fighter powers, fighters could have the most options at level 5 or second-to-least at the start of the day, but they almost certainly have the most options by the end of the day (except possibly the warlock).

Personally, I'd say all the classes feel a bit anemic at first level. A warlock who picks social and exploration invocations is pretty much an Eldritch Blast spambot; a cleric can toss out a couple flashy spells before he's down to basic attacks each round; a rogue begins his long career of spending combat trying to hide from (or gang up on) enemies and then stab them in the back.

However, I think this is largely by design. You don't want to overwhelm new players, and you want to encourage them to think freeform rather than just look at the powers listed on a character sheet each round. They also level up quickly enough early on that they shouldn't get too bored with that handful of basic abilities. The real question is, how much do those characters grow over the next few levels?

I think the rogue is a real potential problem, because while there is a good amount of strategy to positioning and so on, they could definitely use some cool combat tricks to make them more lively at middle levels.

The warlock is another issue, because the current power list contains a grand total of two attack spells (plus a sweet mass charm); it's very possible to have a 5th-level warlock in the current playtest whose total combat options consist of eldritch blasting or running away (in a very cool fashion).

The fighter? Honestly, I'm not so worried. Sure, there are adjustments to make, but the underlying setup seems fine.

Extending CS to other classes? I'm against it for a variety of reasons. Basically I'm worried that a 5e rogue using his half-ass CS dice would feel like a 3e ranger using his half-ass animal companion: they're so far behind the curve you wish the designers had just cut them out and made the core of the class more powerful.

 

[Ainamacar]

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.

A couple things:

I think more but smaller dice earlier on would help make that clear: if you started at level 1 with 2d4 CS dice, then you have the option to mix-and-match effects, which better balances the different options.

Higher level multi-dice maneuvers.

I agree with Chris_Nightwing that the current implementation doesn't quite meet what we would need for a generic combat system. I also agree with Vikingkingq (an achievement in itself given the other thread ) that mix-and-match and more ways to combine the dice move toward such a more flexible system.

I've been dabbling at a small alteration to the conceptualization of maneuvers that might enable such a system. I'm not ready to make a big post on it yet, maybe in a few days, but the main idea is to make the actual die type used matter while keeping all the complexity of the maneuver system "opt-in". My current thought is that small dice would power "efficient" maneuvers, while large dice would be used to power "sweeping" maneuvers. (Not quite the right terms, but I hope the basic idea makes sense.) Two characters with dice that average to more-or-less the same amount of damage (say 2d12 vs. 1d6+4d4) might have much different abilities and incentives for using various maneuvers.

Now, one could always spend higher dice to get a maneuver that requires a lower one, in which case higher dice are extremely flexible. (This is also to keep the system from getting too finicky by needing exactly the "right" die.) However, when using "efficient" maneuvers these higher dice are inefficient: If a maneuver requires spending 2d4 to activate a character could spend 2d12 to use it, but they are paying a higher opportunity cost (in terms of lost damage) than a character that can spend exactly 2d4. The character concentrating on many lower damage dice doesn't get the ability to make the sweeping maneuvers at all, but he usually gives up the absolute minimum damage required for his maneuvers, and will have a lot more dice to play with for building combinations as well.

Now, assume that fighters have some control over the dice they gain. One fighter might choose to use 2 handed weapons and emphasize gaining large dice to power his maneuvers, so he'd probably concentrate on "sweeping" maneuvers such as a whirlwind that attacks all adjacent creatures. A different fighter might stick to daggers, and load up on d4s to concentrate on things like tumble. There are lots of maneuvers this second fighter wouldn't really be able to use, but the ones he can he does better than the other fighter. Another fighter might stick to a balance of both. The main thing is to make sure that all these dice add up to basically the same average damage, so that if someone wants to play a simple fighter and just add damage every round then the exact type of dice don't really matter.

In addition, it means that combinations of maneuvers could really start to look different from character to character. A complex high-level combination might require 4d4 + d10 + 2d12 dice, and that sort of thing will probably be outside what is possible (or wise) unless the character is tailored to make such a thing possible. Those dice average to 28.5 damage, but that combination is not possible for a 13d4 or a 5d12 fighter, even though the average damage for both of those sets of dice is 32.5.

Such built-in differentiation might also support a larger set of generic maneuvers anyone can use without stealing as much thunder from ones a character must specifically learn. If they wanted to expand this idea past fighters (not the topic of this thread) there is increased ability to tailor the dice provided to the kinds of things those classes do best. A rogue sneak attack might provide a bucket of d4s, so they can only be used on highly efficient maneuvers. A barbarian/berserker might be getting d10s or d12s instead. Hopefully that specificity would also be a contributing factor, among other measures, to keeping the fighter unique.

Edit: Wanted to add that not every maneuver has to be as presented above. Maneuvers that involve rolling the spent dice to determine the outcome of the maneuver (whether for damage or something else) could work just as they do now.

 

[triqui]

Now, my main complaint about CS as it stands is that the extra resources it provides are given back on a round-by-round basis. This, in my opinion, gives the illusion of having options other than just doing more damage, where in fact, in any given combat, it is highly likely that there is just one thing you will likely do every round.

This is true for any system that do not use a "spell list". If in a given combat, "trip" is the best maneuver, you'll trip in every single opportunity you have. And half the target audience will not buy the game if it has "encounter" powers with a "spell list" which cannot be repeated. So I don't think your solution has a lot of possibilities to be used by WotC.

I think CS are nice enough for people who want their fighters do different things. Nothing *forces* them to trip every round. Those who want a dinamic fighter (like myself), can do so. People who want to just do damage, can too. And those who want to spam-trip 3e style, can too. It's a good enough compromise.

Dailies and encounters are not going to make the cut. Too much people will vote against them in the playtest.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

This is true for any system that do not use a "spell list". If in a given combat, "trip" is the best maneuver, you'll trip in every single opportunity you have. And half the target audience will not buy the game if it has "encounter" powers with a "spell list" which cannot be repeated. So I don't think your solution has a lot of possibilities to be used by WotC.

I think CS are nice enough for people who want their fighters do different things. Nothing *forces* them to trip every round. Those who want a dinamic fighter (like myself), can do so. People who want to just do damage, can too. And those who want to spam-trip 3e style, can too. It's a good enough compromise.

Dailies and encounters are not going to make the cut. Too much people will vote against them in the playtest.

See, I disagree because the exertion of physical combat naturally lends itself to encounter-based resources. Slap a label such as 'stamina points' onto the resource you're spending and I think it would be generally supported. People who don't want a Fighter who manages resources will presumably already dislike CS. I don't want to see daily powers for the Fighter either, since it's much harder to explain those without meta-narrative.

The reason I wanted to have a go at CS is because it's the first thing we've seen to make Fighters interesting and my fear is that they'll not try anything else, that they'll only make small changes to something that I think will come undone when it comes to balance.