D&D 5E How should combat maneuvers be handled in Next?

[Jack99]

Within what we have seen of the current system, it would make sense to me if such special maneuvers were contests, nothing more. If the attacker wants to deal damage on top of tripping, pushing etc, he would get disadvantage.

Concerning fighters being better than others at this sort of maneuvers, are they already by virtue of higher stats in the str-(dex)-con department and better tohit?, which are the stats that should cover most contests of this type?

 

[Sunseeker]

You can pretty much just copy-paste the basics from Pathfinder, and build new class abilities and such around them. PF has its weak points, but the CMB/CMD as a whole is one of its true innovations.

To an extent. It's pretty much pointless on anything larger and stronger than you. CMB/CMD has the same issue that all of 3.x and it's variants have: number bloat. When I've got a 45 CMD and and 38 CMB and my opponent has a 49 CMD and a 42 CMB, the roll of the d20 is fairly irrelevant.

Combined with the "flat math" concept of DDN it might not be so bad, if the highest modifier can't exceed roughly a 20, then the d20 roll is still fairly relevant.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To an extent. It's pretty much pointless on anything larger and stronger than you.

Shouldn't it be?

CMB/CMD has the same issue that all of 3.x and it's variants have: number bloat. When I've got a 45 CMD and and 38 CMB and my opponent has a 49 CMD and a 42 CMB, the roll of the d20 is fairly irrelevant.

Combined with the "flat math" concept of DDN it might not be so bad, if the highest modifier can't exceed roughly a 20, then the d20 roll is still fairly relevant.

I'd say D&D and all its variants that I'm aware of, but yes, you're right that the numbers get stupid. And hopefully 5e will flatten that out.

The point I was getting at is that combat meneuvers are in this presentation simple, universal, functional, and easily played around with in rules expansions. The numbers are a larger systemic issue, but the presentation is solid.

 

[Ellington]

As opposed rolls.

I don't want CMB and I don't want CMD. Rolling a Strength vs Strength check when attempting a bull rush or a Charisma vs Wisdom check when attempting to feint is simple and efficient. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

 

[Campbell]

As opposed rolls.

I don't want CMB and I don't want CMD. Rolling a Strength vs Strength check when attempting a bull rush or a Charisma vs Wisdom check when attempting to feint is simple and efficient. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

This. With the caveat that I'd prefer not to have trip rules or bull rush rules in the core of the game. Highly specific combat maneuvers like this are highly situation dependent and unlikely to work on a repeatable basis. I really don't like having that level of precision in a game as abstract as D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

Shouldn't it be?

Not necessarily. I think a highly skilled rogue could even trip a drider. It would be a narrow shot sure, say, your CMB is 10+d20 and their CMD is 28, that's only a 10% chance of success, but it's possible. Players will eventually fight things on a grander magnitude than goblins, orcs and kobolds and other small-to-medium humanoids, and I think it would be stupid to make combat maneuvers only useful on creatures in levels 1-6.

I'd say D&D and all its variants that I'm aware of, but yes, you're right that the numbers get stupid. And hopefully 5e will flatten that out.

If I could, on average, have a 10-15 bonus to my attacks by level 20, I think that'd be a good flattening.

The point I was getting at is that combat meneuvers are in this presentation simple, universal, functional, and easily played around with in rules expansions. The numbers are a larger systemic issue, but the presentation is solid.

Yes, to that I agree. An added proficiency system(which Paizo classes touch on, but don't fully utilize) would probably make them more worthwhile, as well as making them free actions, minor actions, or riders.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree. In my perfect game world, some choices are better than others, depending on the situation. And in most situations, the basic attack should be the best choice.

Of all the editions, I think 3rd hit closest to the mark. There are situations where grappling (or bull rushing, or disarming) your enemy is just simply a better tactic than trying to kill him. And I like it that way.

You miss my point.

A spike-chain wielding trip-monkey has no reason to anything BUT trip and make attacks of oppertunity. There is no point to attacking normally when trip + attack is simply BETTER.

A PC should have to make a choice when he uses a manuever: do I want to deal damage, or do I want to somehow incapacitate my foe? There should be no default "Its clearly always wise to trip + attack" or "bull rush is all but pointless and never should be used". Thats what I mean by equal.

 

[77IM]

Here is how I've answered these questions for my own game (because I feel my players will try some of this stuff during the playtest).

1.) How should combat maneuvers be resolved? Should they be modified attacks, a unique stat (something like CMB/CMD in Pathfinder), or some form of power/feat/ability?
A contest of attacker's Strength check versus the defender's Strength or Dexterity check, whichever is better. Except for disarm, which is a contest of attack rolls.

2.) Should they be limited to fighters, fightery-types, or open to all? If the latter, should fighters get bonuses to be the "best" at them?
Everyone can try it. At most, it could be a skill, "Brawling" or "Grappling" that is part of fightery backgrounds and possibly even a bonus skill from Fighter class (I think it's OK for classes to give a skill or two).

3.) Should they be part of an attack (do damage + trip) or replace the damage?
Replace. Damage+maneuver sounds like a good special ability, but for ordinary characters, KISS by just having a maneuver do an effect.

4.) How is the best way to resist the effects? Contests? Checks? Saving Throws? or something else?
It's a Strength or Dexterity saving throw, whichever is better, contested against the attacker's Strength check. This would seem to favor the defender, but remember that the attacker is the one choosing to use the special maneuver, and can choose to do it only when it favors them. The exception is disarm, which is a contest of attack rolls.

5.) Should they be a managed resource (you can use X combat maneuvers per day), be encounter-based (you can trip a foe once per encounter) or be spammable at-will?
"Wasting" an action and failing, when you could have been doing damage, is usually cost enough. But, if you use the same maneuver multiple times in an encounter, eventually the enemies catch on to your tricks and you get disadvantage on subsequent maneuver check.

-- 77IM

 

[Ranganathan]

The one thing I really want to see is WotC opening up the ability check / contest mechanic as the actual core of the game.

All these maneuvers should be ability checks, contests, or saves. My preference is contests by and large. They should all take an action. Any character can use them, fighters are simply better at them, and fighters should be able to defend against them better. Possibly through advantage.

Mixing and matching the scores to see where things fall is fairly easy, as is the penalty, and how to recover from the maneuver.

Grapple, Str/Dex vs Str/Dex contest. A successful grapple puts the target at disad for all checks, attacks, and skill uses. The grappler (i.e. character attacking with grapple) has disad for all checks, attacks, and skill uses not associated with grappling their target. Target cannot move freely. Hazard: Attacker becomes grappled.

Disarm, Str/Dex vs Str/Dex contest. A successful disarm attack removes a single item the target is holding from their grasp. The item falls next to the original holder. It costs 5 feet of movement to recover an item within reach. Defender hazard: Attacker can place the item up to 10 feet away form the original holder. Attacker hazard: Attacker is disarmed.

Trip, Str/Dex vs Str/Dex contest. A successful trip attack knocks the target prone. Hazard: Attacker is knocked prone.

 

[Stalker0]

To me whenever you allow these options always have the issue that in certain situations one is better, and in another the other is better. Its not choice so much as recognition of which option to use.

Instead, I would prefer that a fighter is always going for a little extra, but can only do it in specific situations. Here are a couple of ideas for disarm and trip.


Option 1: Whenever a fighter has advantage on an attack, he can choose to lose advantage. If he hits, in addition to the damage, he can also attempt a disarm or trip attack.

Option 2: Whenever a fighter crits, he can choose one of the following options in addition to normal crit damage:

1) Disarm the target
2) Trip the target
3) Add +1d6 extra damage.