Combat Superiority and Damage/HP bloat

[Bluenose]

This is an easy one. Everyone can grab, throw, trip, disarm, etc. It just requires their full action, since they're not trained well enough to do that while stabbing someone.

And they can get extra damage . . . if they crit, or roll really well.

Basically, normal people can accomplish this stuff, but if you're trained, you can accomplish it more quickly. If you spend your time learning magic, or tracking, or lockpicking, you won't be spending as much time learning clever combo attacks.

I'm not sure I'd go even that far. I think that the only people who should be able to attempt to trip/disarm/whatever are people who've actually trained a lot to do those sorts of things. Occasionally someone who isn't as trained might do so almost by accident (roll a Crit), but it's not something that people should do nearly as well as someone highly trained in a particular skill. It's not as if just anyone can regularly paint like Titian, sculpt like Michelangelo, run like Usain Bolt, dance like Fred Astaire, or whatever other physical act they want to perform. You have to train for it.

 

[outsider]

It's not as if just anyone can regularly paint like Titian, sculpt like Michelangelo, run like Usain Bolt, dance like Fred Astaire, or whatever other physical act they want to perform. You have to train for it.

Take out "regularly" and replace it with "at all" and I agree.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would like to have a Fighter that in combat can kill at least 2 or 3 times the monsters than any other class can. Now that would be a character that a group of PC may regret not having in the party. I would like to hear the players say now and then "this dungeon is literally full of monsters... we should have had a fighter!". Or alternatively even "hey DM you're being unfair... you know we have no fighters in the group!". This has never happened to me, in any edition.

Because OTOH I have seen groups regret not having a wizard for instance and I've heard many times the words "we should have a cleric in the party, how can we even play the game without a cleric!" or "hey DM you're being unfair with all these traps... you know we have no rogue in the group!"

 

[Sadrik]

Yes, well, calling the increase from CS "hyperbolic" seem to be to be, well, hyperbolic. It is *some* extra damage, but let us keep in in perspective.

My comment is only to point out that I would like to see a smaller ramp up in HP and damage. I'm not trying to say that damage or HP should be hyperbolic and I also don't want completely flat. I want *some* extra damage/HP. So I think our ideas are compatible on that.

I feel like anything in the game that has to do with sword fighting or melee or ranged fighting in general has to also take into account the monsters. Does everyone agree that combat superiority should also be included for all monsters? That is unlikely. However I think most people would agree that monsters should get some form of feats if the system dictated that.

So if combat superiority was a broad-based system that monsters and all melee and range based fighting characters would have, would that feel right? I personally do not think it does. you could draw parallels though all spell casters have spells. I still feel that is not how it should be. What happened to the concept of having a low entry point class. I mean couldn't you tie sneak attack damage dice into the rogue's CS dice? from a design standpoint that makes a lot of sense. Ranger's CS dice could be for favored enemies or only for their quarry. Barbarian CS dice could be for rage. Monk CS dice could be for multiple attacks. So CS dice could be tied not to just one class. It feels like the whole system could benefit from CS dice in this case. All heavy combat monsters could also benefit from CS dice.

To carry this further, I would rather see a system where fighters could utilize feats better than other classes. What about giving everyone combat points, the fighter gets a bunch and the monk gets a bunch, monsters get em too. What if these could be used to power combat feats. I feel like this would be a much broader base than a single class feature. Suppose they get one combat point at first level and add a second and a third point and so on every few levels thereafter. They could take feats and get special benefits from those feats by expending one or more of these combat points. All characters select feats and this is how you power them. All characters and monsters would have combat points. The fighter would have lots of these points and be able to select more combat feats. This would be a better way to implement a system like this rather than to pigeonhole it into one class. Call them hero points or what ever.

I wouldn't mind it if Next abandoned automatically scaling HP with level, but I doubt the devs would be willing to do that, since it's a pretty big "feel of D&D".

I agree it needs to be a part of D&D it needs to scale. The only question I have is how much scaling do we all want? What if we were to consider this on a track what would the effects be of having the low scaling HP and damage on one end and the high HP damage on the other end. The benefits of the low-end would be you could have a more variable level of monsters be able to fight the PCs without a lot of potential casualties or slugfests. The high-end would be characters would need to fight tighter level appropriate monster because if the level was a little bit higher they would have tons of more points and require a slugfest and if they were lower level then PC damage would outstrip those monsters too quickly. So again, in my mind I like flatter hit points and damage. Their is another a axis to this too, the to hit and miss ratio at different levels. With the game as it is currently set up, it appears that the hit and miss ratio will be a lot tighter so it is not auto hit at high-level and high degree of miss at low level. So the consideration is mostly on hit points and damage.

Please feel free to add your thoughts.

 

[Umbran]

I feel like anything in the game that has to do with sword fighting or melee or ranged fighting in general has to also take into account the monsters.

I don't feel that way. The fact that it is done with a sword does not imply that anyone who picks up a sword can do it. Fighters should be able to do things with a sword that folks with lesser training simply cannot. That's what Combat Superiority does - models their superior training.

however I think most people would agree that monsters should get some form of feats if the system dictated that.

Monsters, I expect, will have special abilities coming out the wazoo. No need to worry on their account

 

[slobster]

I don't feel that way. The fact that it is done with a sword does not imply that anyone who picks up a sword can do it. Fighters should be able to do things with a sword that folks with lesser training simply cannot. That's what Combat Superiority does - models their superior training.

Monsters, I expect, will have special abilities coming out the wazoo. No need to worry on their account

It's nice when someone writes exactly what I want to say. Saves me the trouble.

Fighters get CS because they are uncannily good at fighting. A rogue who has seen his share of action will be handy in a scuffle, but he can't replicate everything his fighter friend can do, because he simply doesn't have the raw talent, experience, or years upon years of training that it took the fighter to get where he is.

Now if that rogue wants to learn to fight like the fighter, there is always multiclassing . . .

 

[Warbringer]

I would like to have a Fighter that in combat can kill at least 2 or 3 times the monsters than any other class can."

why... Is that not just saying I want them to be the new magic-user except with better hit points? ... Eating cake an all that...

I want a kick ass fighter that punishes you for engaging him combat, but I want exploration ANSI social- role play .... That means he doesn't dominate the other classes in the combat pillar , but surpasses them....

One gripe I do have is that when people criticize pre 3 Ed for wizard domination they forget the hp argument ... Which IMHO is why Druids And clerics where broken.... Wizards less so .... And in 1e /2e there wasn't nothing like a poor initiative roll to scare the pants of a mu ....

 

[Warbringer]

I don't feel that way. The fact that it is done with a sword does not imply that anyone who picks up a sword can do it. Fighters should be able to do things with a sword that folks with lesser training simply cannot. That's what Combat Superiority does

I disagree ... It should ba a combat mechanic that fighters are better at, either in terms of dice number or die type (which I hate ) or refresh rate.

The game reason is simple ... Sub systems don't scale n multiclassing; the 3 e bab worked because it was ubiquitous , as did hit points, spell casting failed because it wasn't .... 5e is heading towards the latter on crack ..


Personally, I'd love an action based system, ie cs, that scales but your class determines how you use and accelerate the action pool or economy ... That's modularity ...

 

[outsider]

One gripe I do have is that when people criticize pre 3 Ed for wizard domination they forget the hp argument ... Which IMHO is why Druids And clerics where broken.... Wizards less so ....

Stoneskin and Mirror Image and a host of other defensive buffs existed pre 3e.

 

[Libramarian]

There are lots of other (and much better) ways that high level fights can feel different from low level fights than by simply having larger bags of HP to slog through.

True, but I still wouldn't want to see a perfectly symmetrical scaling of damage and hp.

I like the sound of hp scaling faster than basic damage, but special attack forms scaling faster than special defenses.