D&D 4E 4E Dogfighting

[RyvenCedrylle]

I've recently picked up Star Wars Saga Edition and found a mechanic that really should have been in 4E for the Fighter in my opinion - the Dogfight.

The short version is that you make an opposed Pilot check to your target (I'm excluding all the modifiers for expedience). If you win, you have engaged the foe in a dogfight. Each turn, both you and the opponent must make an opposed Pilot check as a standard action; if you win on your turn, you may attack with your pilot-manned weapons as a swift action. If you lose, you can not attack and any of your gunners take a penalty to hit. You can not move from your square or attack other targets until you disengage (another Pilot check, but as a move action).

This sounds like a beautifully 'sticky' Fighter option. I am thinking about a houserule for my next 4E game (whenever that is) allowing Fighters to do this as a class feature. I don't think it needs any use limitations (daily or encounter) because its clearly a bad thing to do with swarms of minions around, and is thus inherently situational. It would look something like this:

Class Feature - Combat Entanglement

As a standard action, make an opposed Athletics check at a -3 penalty. Your opponent may not be any more than one size category greater or lesser than yourself. If you succeed, you lock with your opponent in a dazzling display of strikes, parries and feints. Each round, you and your opponent must each take the Entanglement option, making an opposed Athletics check. If you succeed on your turn, you may attack your opponent as a minor action. If you fail, you may not attack your opponent with your weapon, although you may use an area-effect power, like the dragonborn's breath weapon. You may not attack other targets while Entangled unless they are also in the radius of an area-effect Power that includes your opponent. You may not move, but you are allowed to shift. You may break the Entanglement by making an opposed Athletics check as a move action, at which point you may move up to your speed as a free action without provoking opportunity attacks from your opponent. Forced movement from outside also breaks the Entanglement; forced movement from yourself or your opponent is ignored.

Your thoughts?

 

[Paul Strack]

This seems too good to me to be a new class feature. I would make it a power instead. Also, I would make it behave more like a Grab maneuver. I would suggest something like this:

Combat Entanglement [Fighter Attack 1]

You lock with your opponent in a dazzling display of strikes, parries and feints.

Encounter • Martial, Weapon

Standard Action, Melee 1

Prerequisite: Trained in Athletics

Target: One adjacent creature

Attack: Strength vs. Reflex

Hit: Until the end of your next turn, you and the target can make a melee basic attack against each other as a minor action. In addition, you and the target cannot take any move action other than a shift or a teleport.

Sustain Minor: The power is sustained, and you make a melee basic attack against your target.

Special: Your enemy can end this effect with a successful Escape action, as if escaping from a grab. Any other ability that allows an escape from a grab will also end this effect. Furthermore, if you do not make a melee attack that includes your enemy as a target on your turn, the effect ends.

 

[CapnZapp]

Good suggestions.

Keying this to a skill (especially one that the Fighter/Pilot is trained at) doesn't work in D&D because you can "engage" any kind of character directly, while in SW, you engage spaceships, who presumably has a trained pilot at the helm too.

The equivalent of a Fighter doing this to a Wizard (or Artillery, if a monster) would be the Pilot somehow being able to directly target the enemy ship's Engineer, or Data Expert. You see what I mean? People who aren't trained in Pilot/Athletics.

Besides, I don't think skills should play that large a role in D&D.

Which brings me back to Paul Stracks suggestions.

The reliance on Athletics has been reduced to you being required to have trained in it. The enemy "only" has to have a decent Reflex defense, which is much more universal. Well done.

Regarding how the enemy breaks out of the "dogfight" I'm not so sure. Escaping a grab does bring back skills again. I see why it was proposed, because of the similarities between dogfight and grab, but in this case, shouldn't combat prowess be the thing to use to get out of the dogfight, or to turn the tables.

Besides, if Escape is used, I think the whole action becomes too similar to Grab. "Dogfighting" someone in melee... isn't that just Grab? In this way, I'd probably dump the entire rule.

I guess I'd rethink the basic idea. Starting with this (well expressed by PS: "You lock with your opponent in a dazzling display of strikes, parries and feints.") I'd probably make it voluntary.

That is, you only "lock with your opponent in a dazzling display of strikes, parries and feints." if that opponent is using that same method of attacking, and feels confident enough to accept your "invitation".

This way, we're not just creating a new way to hose spellcasters.

Well, that's my thoughts so far.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Except that anyone with a high enough Strength can Grab someone. It’s not unique to the Fighter. Also, while the Grab prevents movement, it doesn’t prevent the grabbed opponent from attacking anyone, albeit with a penalty. The whole point of the Defender role is “You can’t get past me” or at least “It’s a bad idea to attack anyone but me.” The Paladin gets to laser you without a roll for ignoring him, even at some distance. The Swordmage stops your damage or teleports next to you. The Fighter has to succeed at rolls to get his ‘stickiness’ and damage or rider-type effects. The other two can rail someone else while keeping you in check.
I realize the Fighter is supposed to be the ‘pick-up-and-go’ class for new players. It should be less complicated. Point taken. I just find the Fighter’s mark underwhelming, even with the immediate interrupt for shifting. IMHO, the Fighter ought to be able to really lay into someone once and keep them busy without a need for rolls to do - even if it’s just once per encounter. I’ll have to think about this some more. Thanks for the good feedback.

 

[Starfox]

The dogfight rules are an abstraction of how fast-moving vehicles can engage each other in a system where movement is normally measured in miles. Its not appropriate in a system where we already have detailed movement rules - such as in DnD personal combat. We already know in detail how the fighter and his adversary move around.

This said, you could be inspired by the mechanic of the dogfight or the spirit of the dogfight - or both - when making a new maneuver.

Being inspired by the mechanic of the dogfight sounds like what you did above - you used a similar mechanic as the basis of a 4E power. But this is not a dogfight, this is using the same mechanic for something else.

Being inspired by the spirit is like Chinese martial arts moves - Roar of the Dragon, Strike of the Crane, and Bite of the Fox does not emulate how these animals fight in reality, but is inspired y it and by mythical contexts around it. You could make a "Dogfight Lock" maneuver that really has very little to do with a real dogfight or how it works out mechanically, but somehow captures the "spirit". Of course, this would e far more likely to happen in a game world where there are actually dogfights. Which there might be, with all the flying creatures around.

Or a dogfight could just be how dogs fight - by tangling up, biting, and holding on - which works out to pretty much the same game result you are looking for. (I did a quick Wikipedia check, seems this is NOT the etymology of the word Dogfight).

 

[CapnZapp]

Or a dogfight could just be how dogs fight - by tangling up, biting, and holding on - which works out to pretty much the same game result you are looking for. (I did a quick Wikipedia check, seems this is NOT the etymology of the word Dogfight).

No, not directly. But yes, ultimately.

dogfight
"aerial combat," World War I air forces slang, from earlier meaning "riotous brawl" (1880s); from dog (n.) + fight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogfight

 

[Mengu]

In my campaign, I have a situation that is very similar to dog fights. I have a lot of fights involving flying mounts. I'd like to figure out some mechanic that involves opposed checks. I don't want to make the players spend a feat or train a skill. They all know how to ride their aerial beasts (in this case pterodactyls), but I haven't been able to come up with a good mechanic to resolve opposed conflict. I don't have access to SW Saga, how does it handle things like evasive maneuvers, ramming, etc?

 

[the Jester]

I just find the Fighter’s mark underwhelming, even with the immediate interrupt for shifting. IMHO, the Fighter ought to be able to really lay into someone once and keep them busy without a need for rolls to do - even if it’s just once per encounter. [/COLOR][/FONT]

Really? In my campaign, I find the fighter's combat challenge and combat superiority and marking abilities to be crushingly powerful. We're up to 9th level now, and the fighter has shone at locking enemies down the whole time.

I definitely think your lock down ability is too strong for an at will. Maybe an encounter power... able to attack as a minor action is pretty crazy strong, you're getting two extra basic attacks after using this on your turn, then three more during your next turn, in exchange for giving your enemy three, so you're basically gaining two basic attacks against him... I think this ought to be at least a 3rd-level encounter power.