D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

[Remathilis]

The dagger vs. greatsword debate reminds me why D&D had speed factors. A dagger added 2 to your init, a greatsword 15! So your dagger guy might only do 1d4 damage, but he's going to hit you first. The greatsword guy might do 1d10, but he isn't killing anything before it had its chance to strike.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In this case, throughout your argument, it seems like you (and [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], too) conflate "most realistic" with "best".

Not to quibble, but I was arguing against this. Sorry if that wasn't clear, for some reason; I'll try harder next time so that people know I'm not advocating a "best" way to do something. (I go into this more when I spoke about mechanics that I like that slow the game down, and how they're not necessarily the "best" rules for the majority of people.) As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

Not to quibble, but I was arguing against this. Sorry if that wasn't clear, for some reason; I'll try harder next time so that people know I'm not advocating a "best" way to do something. (I go into this more when I spoke about mechanics that I like that slow the game down, and how they're not necessarily the "best" rules for the majority of people.) As always, play what you like

Sorry, it sounded like you were in favour of "Armour Damage Subtraction" (that we used in a "variant" D&D system some time around 1980) as a more "realistic" system.

As it happens, though unpublished, that was a fun system - if nowhere near "realistic", in hindsight.

 

[Ratskinner]

Regarding weapon damage dice...

....and emphatically not continuing the argument.


It occurs to me that (at least in a module) weapons could be differentiated by offering different things to do with your CS dice. Thus, the knife fighter gains access to different moves (or at different cost, I suppose) than the 2H-swordsman.

Of course, all of this brings me to a real question....

...should D&D combat be (very) abstract like in the old 1 minute round days, or should it keep the shift to a more detailed (I will not say realistic) model? Because it seems to me that keeping HP kinda argues against the detailed end of things and lends to an "energy bar above your head" feel when combined with it.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

...should D&D combat be (very) abstract like in the old 1 minute round days, or should it keep the shift to a more detailed (I will not say realistic) model? Because it seems to me that keeping HP kinda argues against the detailed end of things and lends to an "energy bar above your head" feel when combined with it.

I find a 6s round not more or less realistic than a 1 minute round. But I like the 6s round better because the number of active actions performed in the 1 minute round made it feel rather 'empty'. And 1 minute rounds were lacking the feeling of a fast paced fight, YMMV.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Interesting that BECMI D&D rounds are 10 seconds.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I just realized that this system can give Fighters something similar to daily and encounter powers in a better way than 4e.

Imagine if Fighters can overspend their CS dice--getting a powerful, multi-effect attack now, but having to spend the next few rounds recovering CS dice (or not being able to use CS dice at all until resting).

Then if Rogues/Assassins get a similar system, they can do the opposite--spend a few rounds "saving up" CS dice by studying their target, then unleash them all in a lethal sneak attack.

 

[MarkB]

The numbers get really big really quickly, I still think they should scale up less quickly than 'Surprise attack'.

If you have Xd6 CS dice to spend, does that mean you can do x different actions as well as your regular attack in a single turn?

So far, we don't really know how big the numbers get, or how fast. I've seen several suggested progressions, but really, for all we know, it could be 1d4 at 1st-4th level, 2d6 at 5th-9th, 3d8 at 10th-14th and 4d10 at 15th-19th.

And, aside from the reactive options, I get the impression that CS dice are intended more to be spent on adding options to an existing action rather than granting additional actions.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sorry, it sounded like you were in favour of "Armour Damage Subtraction" (that we used in a "variant" D&D system some time around 1980) as a more "realistic" system.

As it happens, though unpublished, that was a fun system - if nowhere near "realistic", in hindsight.

My stance on what's the most "realistic" is divorced from what's "best" -which is what you commented on. I wasn't saying what's "best" and was, in fact, saying why people may not like certain things that are "more realistic" (such as damage reduction, armor penetration, etc.), even if I like and use those things.

Basically, regardless of my views on what's "most realistic" (which might just mean "intuitive" or "doesn't break my suspension of disbelief"), I was trying to explicitly state that it doesn't mean that it makes for the "best" mechanic for the majority of players.

Thanks for the reply. As always, play what you like

 

[Sadrik]

No no no no. I do not like it, a fighter does not need to have unique niche abilities. A fighter needs to be solid reliable and without a lot of decision points. Magic items and an occasional appropriately penalized maneuver are all the fighter needs. Simple tough and deadly. Book of 9 swords/4e silliness is not what I think the fighter needs. Good luck.