[Combat] Fighting Styles

[ren1999]

Ren I like weapon speed a lot, also I used to play Earthdawn and it was great to be able to parry and riposte. The way you raised your attacks and parries separately allowed me to make a fighter who was better at defensive fighting then attacking which really allowed me to simulate a fighting style and make my fighter stand out. I think D&D needs to find a way to allow skilled fighting styles as well as brute styles.

I never heard of Earthdawn and am looking for RPG material that uses multiple actions. I'll have to check that out.

 

[ren1999]

Two-handed weapons deal 2x damage.

Two-weapon fighting attacks twice, once with each weapon.

Fast weapons attack twice, with the same weapon.

Shields offer protection.

Etc.

I'm all for it as long as the multiple actions are a part of an action economy that keeps all actions per turn to a maximum number per level. I think it will fit in nicely with the off-hand weapon rules that existed in previous editions.

 

[ren1999]

I have a sword. I flail it at your face repeatedly in 6 seconds. I have enough brain processing power to make one or two of those flailing movements be a threat to you.

I have two swords. I might be able to flail them at you each as many times in 6 seconds as I could with one sword, but I've only got so much brain processing power, so I can't really make twice as many effective attacks.

So yeah, in my mind, two weapon fighting should NOT grant extra attacks.

I could see a character engaging in a windmill style attack at 20th level able to hit with a main weapon then an off-hand weapon the first foe, then swing around and hit again in the same fashion for a total of 4 attacks per turn.

The momentum of the game works best though if everyone is allowed only 1 reaction though. And it becomes really fun when the player has to interrupt the DM to take that reaction.

Example,
DM: The sneaky little Kobold tries to zip right under you to get at the old man with the little stick.
Player: I trip it! The player rolls quickly.
DM: The DM rolls! The Kobold falls flat on his face!

Player: It's my turn and I stomp the Kobold on his neck while throwing this dagger in his friend's eye. Then I shoot the old hag in the crotch with this handcrossbow of mine. Rolls.

DM: O.k. You said that very quickly. I'll allow that.

 

[ren1999]

You are missing one crucial factor:

It is a lot of fun to hit things with multiple attacks.

I say this as a man who is playing a thri-kreen monk/ranger in 4e with minor-action attacks and free-action damage and a quick weapon and who gets 4 + melee attacks (one for each arm, and few for the bites and the legs, too!) in the right circumstances.

It is a lot of fun. Whap. Whap-whap-whap. Whappitty-whap-whap-whap-whap.

Thus, within reason, it is something that I think we WANT. Making sense or no. Two attacks don't break the game (or shouldn't, anyway).

It adds a new level of fun and sophistication to the game. The Dodge Action for example is great as it is now effective. But I think that we have to be very careful about how many actions per turn a character can have. We also have to be careful to normalize the damage to 1[w] per attack with many actions per turn. The game becomes too lethal for characters otherwise.

 

[Khaalis]

Another possible way to look at it would be to use the Multiple Die roll mechanic as a benefit of a form of "Specialization".

Examples:

Two-Weapon Fighting: When making an Attack Action of this type...
* Roll your attack twice and choose the best result
* Gain either a +1 bonus to AC OR +1 bonus to the attack rolls.


Two-Handed: When making an Attack Action of this type...
* Roll your damage twice and choose the best result
* Gain a +2 bonus to these damage rolls.


Sword and Board:
* Roll your attack twice and choose the best result
* Gain a +1 bonus to AC from your Shield.

Etc.

 

[Stormonu]

Player: It's my turn and I stomp the Kobold on his neck while throwing this dagger in his friend's eye. Then I shoot the old hag in the crotch with this handcrossbow of mine. Rolls.

DM: O.k. You said that very quickly. I'll allow that.

Sorry, not this ever. I don't care if the player can talk as fast as the micro machines guy, unless his character has multiple action s available, this isn't going to fly at my table.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree with you on the logic front, but I think the extra attack is pretty much a Holy Bovine.

One desperately in need of becoming Holy BBQ. It's never had any basis in reality but "gamers made up something that sounded right based on total misconception of how two weapons work". It doesn't even have the excuse of a lot of early D&D mechanics that otherwise get called nonsensical, but were based on a clear intention to abstract something more complex. A second attack is something specific, and fits D&D about as well as a called shot does--not at all. This is especially true given what even the six second round represents, as Ranger Wicket explained.

A better bonus for two weapons is a modest bonus to hit. Perhaps you can trade that bonus to hit for a bonus to defense (melee attacks only)?

In fact, that could solve the whole problem of a shield not being treated as a weapon, too. Set it up so that if you go aggressive with Sword & Board (i.e. bash with the shield) you get a bonus to hit at the expense of losing your shield bonus to AC. Set the numbers so that two weapons is slightly better on offense but can be traded for defense while S&B is the other way.

Given that D&D has always made the distinction between "hits" and "effective hits," it also wouldn't hurt in Next to swap all or part of the bonus to hit as a bonus to damage, depending on what the rest of the system needs to work--though this is of course even more abstact.

Then obviously 2-handed weapons get a very modest bonus to hit, too, which equally might be efficiently swapped for extra damage.


That leaves single-weapon/empty hand and complete empty hand. From a weaponry persective, these are distinctly sub optimal, which is why swashbuckling and the like are going to go for a second weapon or buckler whenever they can. To make these styles meaningful, you need:

• Useful things for that spare hand to do in combat that don't directly involve attack or defense.
• Special techniques learned by the character to make up for the sub optimal nature of the weaponry.

If we must have more of that "second weapon gives a second attack" nonsense, put it in a pure gamist optional module where it belongs.

 

[jadrax]

That leaves single-weapon/empty hand and complete empty hand. From a weaponry persective, these are distinctly sub optimal, which is why swashbuckling and the like are going to go for a second weapon or buckler whenever they can. To make these styles meaningful, you need:

• Useful things for that spare hand to do in combat that don't directly involve attack or defense.
• Special techniques learned by the character to make up for the sub optimal nature of the weaponry.

Grabs would be one thing that the rules traditionally have not done very well that could use a free hand.

There is a lot of talk about how a Fighter cannot stop someone moving past him, well if he grabs hold of his opponent with his off-hand stopping them moving is going to become a lot easier. I seem to recall 4th had some basic rules for this, I might have some NPCs try it in my next playtest.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Grabs would be one thing that the rules traditionally have not done very well that could use a free hand.

There is a lot of talk about how a Fighter cannot stop someone moving past him, well if he grabs hold of his opponent with his off-hand stopping them moving is going to become a lot easier. I seem to recall 4th had some basic rules for this, I might have some NPCs try it in my next playtest.

Or broaden that to be both movement enhancing for himself as well as movement denying for the opponents. You can't swing on a rope without a free hand, you certainly can't attack while swinging on a rope unless your weapon is one-handed.

Given the same framework I layed out for the rest of the styles, you could make the above the main thing, then allow some trades for defense. Really, the main advantage of using one hand is that you are not nearly as constrained on posture, and are putting a lot less of yourself in harms way when you move in.

Edit: No doubt someone is operating out there with the assumption that a normal fencing style is more constrained instead of less, not taking into account that the constraints of the fencing style are to maximize defense--not required for the weapon work itself.

 

[Li Shenron]

Whatever the designers come up with, I sincerely hope that they would consult some serious martial arts experts on the topic...

For example, I have absolutely no idea if fighting with 2 weapons should really improve your damage output, your defence, or your speed of attacks... all I know is that if I try to pick up e.g. two sticks and pretend they are swords, I have an unbelievable difficult time using both of them simultaneously (I am not a natural ambidextrous), so for a normal (I guess...) person like me TFW is actually a penalty because I have no training in it, and the feeling I get is that training would be very hard.