The anti-CS sentiment feels very "fighters can't have nice things." As far as I'm concerned, CS strikes a nice balance between "simple fighter" and "complex fighter"--it's easy enough to pick up, the options aren't difficult to understand, and the dice pool makes it easy to track. I like it so far.
The case against Combat Superiority
- Thread starter Chris_Nightwing
- Start date
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
No! I really do think Fighters should have nice things. I'm just not confident in the current implementation. I think the dice pool mechanic works fine for one class, but I think it is inelegant if extended to other classes, which it may or may not be.
In fact what I really want is a unified physical combat system, much as there is a unified spellcasting system. Spells are discrete entities with levels, you gain them and cast them in different ways. Maneuvers could also be discrete entities with associated costs, or indeed levels, and you could gain and use them in different ways. The distinction (in my mind at least) is that there would be no maneuvers recovered on a daily basis.
Sadrik
First Post
Fighters should not have a unique wacky system all unto themselves. Why? It is simple, the system as thrown together now symbolizes their advanced training and is a BROAD understanding of fighting, but picking specific techniques from a vast array of techniques. I'll use the barbarian to contrast. The barbarian has 1 fighting technique - rage. Therefore, it can be specific to one class. The game designers can say rage is so specific that everyone who picks up this technique has to be a barbarian. However in the fighters instance the designers are saying, here are an immense number of special abilities representing basic fighting maneuvers that only the fighter has access to. It is a function of specific =/= generic.
My biggest fear with the mechanic is damage bloat and as a consequence how that trickles into the system - HP, spell damage, sneak attack, etc. Sneak attack is +2d6 damage at 1st level as a direct consequence of the fighters +1d6 damage to all attacks. I say no.
My preferred way to handle maneuvers is in the combat section. Allow them all to be used. Taking feats makes them better. This includes the rogues sneak attack feature!
Vikingkingq
Adventurer
I disagree on how basic these fighting maneuvers are. We already have a suite of maneuvers that anyone can attempt (Attack, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hustle, Improvise), and we're going to get some more when we get the Tactical and Narrative Combat Modules.
These Fighter Maneuvers go beyond this - although it may be the case that some of the names could be made a bit more "special abilities." Parry might sound basic, but the ability is actually a last-second turning aside of a blow that non-Fighters just haven't trained to react fast enough to accomplish, etc.; anyone can just poke at their enemy with a sword, but only the Fighter has the trained coordination to Jab while they're simultaneously doing something completely different.
The Barbarian doesn't get access to these, because the Barbarian hasn't gone through the years of formal training. Instead, the Barbarian relies on their natural abilities and learns instead to harness the berserker rage - they don't learn the precision needed to pull off a Deadly Strike that cleverly slips through their opponent's defenses, because instead they use their insane strength to just power through their enemy's defenses.
Sadrik
First Post
I don't mean to be dismissive vikingkingq but it appears that you are trying fit fluff to make your argument. So all fighters now have formal training and barbarians are completely untrained? Conceptually special maneuvers should be open for anyone to take. Heck I think rage should be open to take. And blasphemy sneak attack too.
Remathilis
Legend
Would you allow clerics to take fireball and wizards cure light wounds?
I mean, they're just spells...
Vikingkingq
Adventurer
Fluff, nothing. The Fighter Design Goals document describes the class concept as:
What makes the Fighter a Fighter is skill, training, and experience. By contrast, ever since they absorbed the AD&D 2nd edition Berserker kit in 3rd edition (and even in 2nd, the Barbarian Ravager kit was described as "to many, the Ravager represents the consummate barbarian-a savage, nearly invincible warrior who fights with unrivaled ferocity" and given the first Rage mechanic), the Barbarian's class concept has been the berserker. In 3.X, they were described as "brave, even reckless warriors...where the fighter has training and discipline however, the barbarian has a powerful rage." In 4e, they were a Primal, rather than Martial Class, whose abilities came from supernatural rage, as opposed to martial training.
Now, let me be clear - I'm not opposed to a Veteran Specialty that gives a Fighter equivalent of Magic-User or Acolyte (maybe giving you a d6 CS die and two level 1 maneuvers), because that represents past experience. If a Barbarian enlisted in the Imperial Auxiliaries, or the Paladin came to the church after a battlefield conversion, or if the Rogue or Ranger is a deserter from the army, then it makes sense that they have some martial skills they've retained. At least then it still represents an investment of time and effort in training, and it keeps the class mechanics themselves distinct. And there's always multiclassing.
But outside of specialties and multiclassing, having a Barbarian use Fighter Maneuvers or a Paladin using Sneak Attack goes absolutely against good design for a class-based game, and it's absolutely the opposite of what the devs are going for. Listen to the panels - their whole drive is to ensure that a Ranger feels and plays very distinctively differently from an Archer Fighter with a woodsy Background and a decent Wis score; which means you don't let class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it.
Sadrik
First Post
Yes I can.
If fireball is on the fire domain spell list. Wizard getting clw is. A little trickier though. But if there is an apothecary specialty then I can see it happening for sure.
When I say anybody can get it that does not mean it is easy to get. For instance coup de grace and sneak attack have a lot in common conceptually. Both are meant to hit unaware defenders and dispatch them in some quicker way. Many modern RPG's have this type of ability is a built-in thing that you can do. Hitting an unaware defender should dispatch more quickly. It should be a maneuver that anyone can do much like the coup de grace. The rogue should have a special ability that enhances this. I have no problems with letting other classes get this capability as well but they have to spend the resources on it which would make it so they do not get something else. it is an interesting notion to take DND down this modern road. The system may not be able to do it due to balance considerations. Idk. Ymmv.
Vikingkingq
Adventurer
What you've described is a rather fun-sounding fantasy RPG that's designed around a classless system, but not really D&D.
Sadrik
First Post
Nope I'm not describing a classless system. Rogues would still have many other features that a fighter who took sneak attack as their specialty would not have.
If the fighter is two specialties and a background and the rogue is two backgrounds and a specialty they are fundamentally different. In the 3e arcana unearthed Book they had an option for a fighter with sneak attack dice instead of bonus feats this is no different than that. I like options and little tweaks like that classes make them much more enjoyable. Ymmv.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Combat Maneuver and Traditions from multiclassing
