Attack riders in the sky?

[Sunseeker]

I've been thinking about my upcoming 4e game and one thing I find annoying is the idea of "at will" powers AND basic attacks. If these are "at will" powers, then aren't they pretty much your basic attack? I mean unless there's some specific reason that a power won't work, you're going to be using your "at will" power instead of your basic attack at all times.

So this got me thinking, we know there aren't going to "at will" powers in 5e in the way there were in 4e, but there's still one thing about at will powers that is superior to basic attacks. They DO SOMETHING. This got me thinking about how Paizo designed their Paladin's Lay on Hands and Auras. Aside from their normal features, these powers do more than one thing. And they grow in things they can do as you level up.

What further got me thinking was that, with the return of a laundry list of "conditions" in 5e, this was one of the major lacking features for Fighters. Just about any spell worth it's salt after 5th level put conditions on enemies, stunned, dazed, weakened, deafened, blinded, you name it, but fighters? Even if they hit you with every one of their iterative attacks couldn't do any of these things.

So I'm thinking: Why can't basic attacks follow this premise? If fighters are supposed to be the best in combat maneuvers, why not let them use them as riders on their basic attacks? You attack, and you attempt to disarm, no extra action cost, you are trained to be the best at these things. It might cost other guys other actions to make a disarm attempt, but for you, you just do it with your normal strike.

As you advance in level, not only do you get to more proficient at doing these maneuvers(resulting in greater penalties), but you can also do more of them. At 10th level perhaps you can trip and disarm in one fell swoop. Perhaps you can hit your foes so you hard you daze them, perhaps you scrape your sword on the ground and throw dirt in their eyes and blind them.

This concept can be applied to any martial class who doesn't get any particular bonuses to "basic attacks". The Barbarian is a massive muscular guy with a sword the size of his enemy, why can't he push you, knock you prone or heck, pick you up at any time? Aside from Sneak attack, why not let the rogue get in on this action, let them blind, weaken, trip their opponents. They're fighting dirty. Perhaps the fighter could do any combat maneuver as a rider to his basic attack, while other martial classes would be limited to a few of them, say 3.

A big enough or smart enough attack is certainly enough to leave the opponent with some conditions of some kind, why should conditions be limited to magical effects only? I'd say getting hit by a hammer the size of a small elf is certainly enough to leave someone "dazed" with no extra action cost.

--Short story: a "basic attack" by a trained warrior, a massive brute, or a dirty fighter should be able to do more than just "deal damage" at no additional cost/roll, on a regular basis.

 

[am181d]

I was so ready for this to be a thread about flying combat...

*sigh*

I've been toying around with home brew rules that replace proficiency rules with special powers for ordinary weapons (things like first strike, extra crit range, knockdown/trip, etc.) that you can activate with special training.

FYI: The reason Basic Attacks exist in 4th is precisely because you NEED to use them for certain actions. (I think charge is one example. And maybe AoO's? And any time you need to go ranged if your at-wills are all melee. Etc.)

 

[DogBackward]

That's... they are doing that. The idea has been mentioned in several of the preview articles. Fighters well get to do more stuff with their normal attacks than other people, and combat maneuvers were mentioned as one of the things they'd be able to add.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's... they are doing that. The idea has been mentioned in several of the preview articles. Fighters well get to do more stuff with their normal attacks than other people, and combat maneuvers were mentioned as one of the things they'd be able to add.

I don't recall those articles. I was under the impression they were just talking about it like "and you can spend another action along with your attack to do the same thing you did in previous editions". Can you link me to the ones in which they said this?

I was so ready for this to be a thread about flying combat...

*sigh*

I've been toying around with home brew rules that replace proficiency rules with special powers for ordinary weapons (things like first strike, extra crit range, knockdown/trip, etc.) that you can activate with special training.

FYI: The reason Basic Attacks exist in 4th is precisely because you NEED to use them for certain actions. (I think charge is one example. And maybe AoO's? And any time you need to go ranged if your at-wills are all melee. Etc.)

I get the last part, but with classes that are expected to be charging a lot, which is almost every martial class, there's always 2 or 3 "at will" powers that say "Special: you can use this while charging". Because really most of the powers have no logical reason to not be able to be used while charging.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't recall those articles. I was under the impression they were just talking about it like "and you can spend another action along with your attack to do the same thing you did in previous editions". Can you link me to the ones in which they said this?

I think [MENTION=50642]DogBackward[/MENTION] might have been thinking of this:

Rule-of-Three: 03/20/2012
Rodney Thompson

How important is it to the team that different classes have different mechanics? What kind of ideas would you like to explore to give different classes a different feel?

The important thing about class mechanics is not simply that they be different, but that the mechanics of a class produce the best and most iconic experience of playing that class. It's OK to re-use mechanics between classes; for example, our current vision for both the fighter and the rogue includes access to a system of combat maneuvers. Clerics and paladins both should have access to divine spells. That's something the classes need to have because they are different; it's not a choice made simply so that they would be different.

As for how to give different classes different feels, that's all going to come down to how the systems work. For example, if you substitute maneuvers in for individual attacks, the fighter class plays more like a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped. Spells, on the other hand, are likely to be focused more on big effects, so that the cleric is more likely to cast a single flame strike spell that consumes much of what she does for that round.

Also along with this:

Rule-of-Three: 03/27/2012
Rodney Thompson

Can you give us any more insight into the multiclassing goals for D&D Next?

As with many, many other things, we're just in the earliest stages of design and testing on this, but here's what we have in mind. When you gain a level, you can choose any class and gain a level in that class, much in the same way that it functioned in 3rd Edition. Of course, those of you who play or played 3E know that there can sometimes be issues with this, and if you aren't careful you can build a character that struggles with effectiveness at higher levels. However, there's a lot of good that comes out of this system, including organic character growth, expansive character building options without the need for large swathes of material, and the ability to express your character's specialties through a unique mix of classes.

While there are certainly challenges with this system, a few other changes in the game make it more viable in the next iteration. As I mentioned last week, we're looking at a bounded accuracy system where accuracy (of everything, from attacks to spells) does not automatically go up with level. The discrepancies in base attack bonus between classes in 3E made some multiclassing combinations more difficult to pull off; absent those discrepancies, with the right ability score mix, the fighter and wizard classes mix together without that difficulty. Another thing we're looking at is the way we word certain abilities, making sure that disparate classes work well together. For example, instead of the fighter having to spend a single action to make multiple attacks, we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels.

While this isn't the complete list of all the things we need to do to help make multiclassing flexible and easy, it's an example of the kinds of things we're looking at doing because of what we've learned from the good things and the challenges of previous versions of the game. And, of course, it may turn out to be just one option among several for how multiclassing works in the next version of the game.

I'm not sure if that covers exactly what you're talking about, but it was probably what he was referencing.




*by the way, I get it...DogBackward is GOD. That's cool. Just don't use it as your password...

 

[Sunseeker]

I think [MENTION=50642]DogBackward[/MENTION] might have been thinking of this:



Also along with this:





I'm not sure if that covers exactly what you're talking about, but it was probably what he was referencing.




*by the way, I get it...DogBackward is GOD. That's cool. Just don't use it as your password...

I hope its not quite as 3e-esque as that makes it out to be. Iterative attacks were a joke and making any sort of combat maneuver instead of hitting with a weapon is just as useless, especially at higher levels. That was the innovation of 4e that I'd like to be available in 5e, make the attack AND do the maneuver.

 

[El Mahdi]

I hope its not quite as 3e-esque as that makes it out to be. Iterative attacks were a joke and making any sort of combat maneuver instead of hitting with a weapon is just as useless, especially at higher levels. That was the innovation of 4e that I'd like to be available in 5e, make the attack AND do the maneuver.

Although I can't say for sure (until we actually see the game), it doesn't sound to me like he's talking about 3E-esque iterative attacks, with the cumulative penalties for subsequent attacks (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about...?)

It sounds like you'd be making the extra attacks with your normal BAB (or whatever form it takes in the new edition).

Otherwise, you're right: it would be useless to make all of those other maneuver attempts with the cumulative penalty for subsequent attacks. And likely even more so with the flatter progression they are talking about (slower, flatter BAB progression).

Also, I would love to see the addition of what you're talking about with using more conditions in concert with successful attacks. That would be cool.

 

[DogBackward]

I hope its not quite as 3e-esque as that makes it out to be. Iterative attacks were a joke and making any sort of combat maneuver instead of hitting with a weapon is just as useless, especially at higher levels. That was the innovation of 4e that I'd like to be available in 5e, make the attack AND do the maneuver.

Using maneuvers wasn't a problem, it was the investment required to do so that became an issue. Requiring a good 2-3 feats just to make one single combat maneuver into a viable action is just horrible design. If they allow the fighter to just use maneuvers from the outset, with no penalties or whatever, then they're perfectly viable combat options. I'm talking no OpAttacks for just attempting the maneuver, no penalties, no pointless multiple checks. Roll Str. vs. Str. or Dex., and if you hit, you knock them down, or grab them, or shove them around, or whatever.

Knocking prone, pushing people off of cliffs or into dangerous terrain, pinning a guy so he can't act... these are all very viable combat actions, and they all have great tactical uses. They only become "not worth it" when you have to invest so much just to have any chance of using them. Especially if they give the fighter extra free attacks to do this with, I can easily see it becoming incredibly useful.

Personally, I would prefer to see it all tied into one attack roll that's simply compared against multiple defenses. Hit Dex. and you deal damage. Hit Str. and you deal a maneuver effect (push, prone or grab). Hit Con. and you deal a debuff effect (blind, deaf, slowed, etc...) for a round. Hit all three, and you perform all three. Or maybe apply a -2 penalty for attempting two at once, or -4 for three at once. At level 8, halve the penalties, and at level 15 remove them. But still make it all one single roll.

There are several ways to do it, but the point is that they're already looking into it.