[Combat] Manoeuvres

[Chris_Nightwing]

With the most recent blog post about narrative combat and various discussions on how to make melee and Fighters more interesting, I thought I would lay down a proposed manoeuvre system.

You use your action to perform a manoeuvre, and therefore cannot also attack unless otherwise noted. I have tried to keep things simple, avoiding fiddly bonuses, and commented on the use of some manoeuvres.

Charge
You may move up to your full speed in a straight line and make an attack. You grant advantage for all attacks against you until the start of your next turn.
A beserker theme might increase damage on a charge, provide extra movement or allow the use of another manoeuvre instead of an attack after charging.

Knockdown
You knock an opponent prone if you succeed an opposed Strength check against them. Given the ease with which one gets back up, this would be to help the party Rogue get a sneak attack in, grant yourself advantage if you have an attack from a surge, or to allow you to flee (if OAs exist in some form).
This probably shouldn't work on creatures larger than you (rather than fiddling with numbers) and having four legs could grant advantage on the Strength check.
An offensive sword and board theme might allow you to attempt this after a normal attack, could make it harder for opponents to get back up or could add your shield bonus to your Strength check.

Trip
You knock an opponent prone if you succeed an opposed Dexterity check against them. As above, including the size/legs proviso.
Crazy polearm/spiked chain theme could do much the same as the offensive S&B theme.

Disarm
You knock an opponent's weapon to the ground if you succeed on an opposed attack roll against them. Does not work on larger creatures or natural weapons, defensive advantage for a 2-handed weapon (though not offensive advantage, that seems too powerful).
A two-weapon fighting or duelist theme might allow you to attack after a successful disarm, might knock the weapon further from the feet of your opponent or remove the advantage of 2-handed weapons.

Sunder
You damage an opponent's weapon on an opposed attack roll, reducing it's damage di(c)e by 1 step OR you damage an opponent's armour on a successful attack with disadvantage against their AC, reducing their AC by 1. Not sure if it should work on larger creatures or not.
No theme should let you do this as well as attack (I don't think - it's quite powerful), but could certainly make it easier or more effective. Generally a difficult manoeuvre to construct.

Push
If you succeed on an opposed Strength check against your opponent, push them by a number of feet equal to 1 + the amount you succeeded by. Does not work on larger creatures, and four legs grants advantage on the check.
The S&B theme could allow this with an attack (Tide of Iron!), perhaps combine Push with Knockdown or increase the amount you push by your shield bonus.

Feint
If you succeed on an opposed Wisdom (Intelligence? Charisma?) check, you trick your opponent into leaving themselves exposed and you gain advantage on your next attack against them. Does not work on mindless creatures.
Tricky to decide which ability to use, but Wisdom is my best guess from recent discussions about Rogues..
A free-hand, duelist type theme could allow the advantaged attack immediately or perhaps open up the advantage to the next attack to anyone.

Grab
If you succeed on an opposed (Str|Dex) vs. (Str|Dex) check, you grab and immobilise your opponent. Does not work on larger creatures. They can attempt to escape by the same means as an action.
However this works, let's make grappling as easy as possible to understand mechanically. No pinning, no damage dealing, you just hold them in place.
Themes of course, could introduce damage dealing to grabbed opponents.

Dodge
I don't like the flat +4 to AC bonus provided at current. I suggest instead that you be allowed to select one opponent and attacks made by them against you have disadvantage (or perhaps just one attack of your choice) until your next turn. Could be enhanced by a theme.

Parry
Probably not a base manoeuvre, but it would allow you to apply disadvantage to one attack against you as a reaction. Accessible through a duelist theme.

So there are some ideas - manoeuvres that I think should mostly be accessible by all, but enhanced by themes. Improvisation is fantastic, but these should be outlined in the PHB/DMG to make it clear what sort of effects are acceptable in exchange for an attack.

I also want to say that I thoroughly dislike the 'called shot' theory (penalty to attack, gain some effect) - balance is tricky and involves fiddly numbers. A penalty to damage (or rather, convert damage to effect after the fact) may function better. I'd rather see them embrace ability scores again though, and avoid digits like the plague!

 

[HeinorNY]

What about when you roll a 20, you can trade the extra damage for a maneuver. You roll for normal damage and the maneuver just takes effect.

 

[SKyOdin]

This idea is not particularly interesting and downright underpowered in my opinion.

First of all, there isn't a whole lot of room to scale the effectiveness of these maneuvers up to match what other classes such as the wizard can do. Most notably, a D&D wizard is expected to graduate up from sleep to hold person to petrification to disintegration as it goes up in level. Since these maneuvers are strictly defined by the end status condition they inflict, there is no room to scale their effects as level increases.

Second, giving up you damage entirely for a round in order to inflict minor inconveniences on your opponent hardly seems like a good bargain. I am not convinced that giving up an entire action just to get Advantage on the next turn is a good trade. After all, an action is the single most valuable element in the player's consideration of their tactical resources. Normally, I would say that giving up an action is at least worth double average damage with the subsequent action.

Third, many of these options are designed with human opponents only in mind, or are otherwise significantly less useful against anything non-humanoid. This isn't Dungeons & Duelists we are talking about, it's Dungeons & Dragons. Any maneuver list needs to keep in mind that many (if not most) of the enemies that a player will face in D&D will be non-humanoid monsters. As such, mechanics such as penalties to pushing something with four legs are detrimental.

 

[BobTheNob]

The opposed stat test is very good. In my mind its the best suggestion I have heard so far for nailing the probability down.

I dont mind the aspect that fantastic monsters can change this up, like knocking down a dragon, or an ooze?? Ok, of ones hard and the other is impossible, so be it. A small tip of the hat to believability isn't out of the question.

Action economics has a part to play in this. If, for instance, the "knockdown" is all you could do with an action, well...Not too great. Not many people are going to give up that much potential damage. Perhaps if there was some capacity that on exceptional results you could, say, follow it up with an attack, or allow an ally and attack. For instance, do the knockdown and (because you rolled over a certain threshold) follow through with an attack. It gives it a bit more "oomph" and allows for growth of capability, so a fighter could increase this threshold over the course of his career and end up practically certain to follow the knockdown with a free attack (or even better, a free surge?).

 

[HeinorNY]

This idea is not particularly interesting and downright underpowered in my opinion.

I agree. the problem with those maneuvers in the past editions is that sometimes the simplest way to disarm an opponent was to kill him and then take his weapon.

 

[SKyOdin]

Okay, I just finished running the numbers on Anydice.

Assuming a fighter who can hit on a 13 or better, crits on a 20, and does 2d6+4 points of damage on a hit, across two rounds of combat the fighter will average 15.7 points of damage.

Now, let's assume that this fighter has an ability that lets him sacrifice a turn to do double damage on his next attack if it hits (and still has a chance to do double critical damage). In that case, the fighter will also average 15.7 points of damage across two turns, with a notably different probability curve. This attack is statistically on par with two basic attacks, and thus has some situational utility.

This time, let us presume our theoretical fighter also has an ability that lets him give up a turn, with no opposed roll or chance of failure, to gain advantage on his next attack. In this case, the fighter will average a measly 9.93 points of damage. Furthermore, this difference in average damage is still just as significant even if the fighter can only hit on a 19! This ability is strictly worse than just making two basic attacks and thus has no strategic value. Adding an opposed roll will make this bad choice even worse.

In order to make giving up an attack to gain advantage even worth considering, you need to give the fighter a significant damage boost with the attack. According to the math, you need to more than double the fixed damage dome by the attack (in this case, go from +4 to +10 damage) in order to bring this maneuver to parity with making two basic attacks.

If you want to check my work, just go to Anydice (as linked above) and input these lines of code:

output ([count {11..20,20} in 1d20] *2d6+4) + ([count {11..20,20} in 1d20] *2d6+4)
output ([count {11..20,20} in [highest 1 of 2d20]]) * 2d6+4
output ([count {11..20,20} in 1d20] *2d6+4)*2

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

What about when you roll a 20, you can trade the extra damage for a maneuver. You roll for normal damage and the maneuver just takes effect.

This is definitely a good idea - and I would consider adding the special effect on top of the extra damage, for Fighters or the right theme at least.

This idea is not particularly interesting and downright underpowered in my opinion.

First of all, there isn't a whole lot of room to scale the effectiveness of these maneuvers up to match what other classes such as the wizard can do. Most notably, a D&D wizard is expected to graduate up from sleep to hold person to petrification to disintegration as it goes up in level. Since these maneuvers are strictly defined by the end status condition they inflict, there is no room to scale their effects as level increases.

It is my hope that whilst the Wizard can disintegrate at high level, they aren't still in possession of all their low level spell slots - so they can blast away once, but not constantly. Besides, the idea of these manoeuvres is that they are supposed to have a single simple effect. By taking the right themes or class abilities you can improve them.

Second, giving up you damage entirely for a round in order to inflict minor inconveniences on your opponent hardly seems like a good bargain. I am not convinced that giving up an entire action just to get Advantage on the next turn is a good trade. After all, an action is the single most valuable element in the player's consideration of their tactical resources. Normally, I would say that giving up an action is at least worth double average damage with the subsequent action.

Well, it all depends on what you do with the inconvenience. If 3rd level Rogues deal 3d6 sneak attack damage, then the optimal thing to do might well be knocking an opponent over with your action every turn, no? Or maybe you want to give the Wizard a chance to escape without provoking an OA? Please don't use damage as the only currency of D&D combat, or we will have a very boring game indeed.

Third, many of these options are designed with human opponents only in mind, or are otherwise significantly less useful against anything non-humanoid. This isn't Dungeons & Duelists we are talking about, it's Dungeons & Dragons. Any maneuver list needs to keep in mind that many (if not most) of the enemies that a player will face in D&D will be non-humanoid monsters. As such, mechanics such as penalties to pushing something with four legs are detrimental.

Yes, this is deliberate. How often does an ant knock you over? Or a small dog? Trip you up, perhaps, but if you had four legs I doubt it would bother you. I freely confess to being more simulationist than gamist in this matter.

Okay, I just finished running the numbers on Anydice.

In order to make giving up an attack to gain advantage even worth considering, you need to give the fighter a significant damage boost with the attack. According to the math, you need to more than double the fixed damage dome by the attack (in this case, go from +4 to +10 damage) in order to bring this maneuver to parity with making two basic attacks.

Right, now, if you read the italicised piece under each manoeuvre, I suggested that themes would make them more effective. As above, I will also remind you that sometimes it's not just about your attacks, but those of your allies. Knocking someone down in order to give three allies advantage in melee, possibly including a rogue, can be more effective than just doing a basic attack.

Let's say you took an offensive Sword and Board theme (rather than Guardian) and the first feat gave you the ability to make a knockdown attempt after you hit with an attack. Now it's pretty damned useful, by your pure damage logic. I'll reiterate again that these manoeuvres are designed to be performed by anyone, but will be enhanced by being a Fighter, or having the right theme - they are not 'powers' by 4e terminology. I've also avoided basing them on grid combat, and fiddly numbers (except for sunder which I don't know how to adjudicate).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would not make maneuers hinge on critical hits. But I could see them being dependent on having advantage.

If you have advantage, you can forego rolling two dice and instead make a normal attack plus make a maneuver. Either that maneuver is automatic or requires a contest (But I am not a big fan of contest, they are too random IMO. But it seems I have no one on WotC championing my cause right now ).

Maybe some maneuvers everyone can do, but several only the Fighter can use.

Basic Maneuvers could be stuff like:

• Bullrush: Move target with you, double movement cost.
• Grab: Target cannot move away from you unless it bullrushes you or escapes the grab.
• Outmaneuver: You can move through one of the enemies squares after the attack.
• Feint: Target grants Advantage for your next action.
• Parry: You can make an opposed attack roll against the next attack by the target. If you succeed, the attack misses.

These are intentionally rather "weak" maneuvers. 3E pretended Bullrush and Trip were identical in worth,but they really weren't. The penalties for being prone were much worse usually than Bullrush.


People can also choose to use a basic maneuver instead of a normal attack.

Advanced Maneuvers could be stuff like:

• Knockdown: Target drops prone
• Disarm: Target drops item or weapon
• Sunder: Target's weapon/item also takes damage
• Pin: Grabbed target cannot take any action except to escape the pin, afterwards it is still grabbed.
• Feint and Riposte: Like Feint, but you can make an attack as a reaction if the target misses with its next attack. If it hits, you can still make an attack as reaction, but lose your next action.

Even more powerful maneuvers could be

• Deadly Strike: If target's hit point are less than twice the fighter's level after the attack, target dies, otherwise it takes extra damage equal to the fighter's level.
• Stunning Blow: Target must make a constitution save at start of its turn or cannot act. If it saves, it still has disadvantage for the action and can only move at half speed.
• Live Cover: As Grab, but the next time you are attacked by someone other than the target, yu direct the attack against the target instead.

The advanced maneuvers are Fighter only by default. Some other classes or feats may give access to a few maneuvers as well. A Monk class could probably use Stunning Blow or Knockdown, and Assassins could use something like Deadly Strike.


The important thing for me is that the Fighter must need a degree of control on when he can use the maneuver, and it should be clearly benefitial. The opportunity cost of maneuver or attack is often too high.
Also, I think it's good if maneuvers require a setup, e.g. you must do some work to fulfill a pre-condition before you can even use maneuvers. Currently, the combat system only gives us advantage, which is not very varied, but it's a good start. A "tactics" module may start turning advantage into several subcategories, say "flanking advantage" or "surprise advantage" or "prone advantage" or something like that and specify maneuvers for each.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Going by Chris_Nightwing's post, a further, more complex variation could be to have a series of maneuvers that must be executed after each other to setup more powerful stuff.

What I think is important here is that in this case, just spending the action for that specific maneuvers should probably be enough, and we should not require a series of succesful attacks. I don't think many NPCs stay arond long enough to afford this.

A 3-component maneuer requiring 3 rounds probably already means that it takes half the combat just to pull that off.

Agrippa's Defense

• 1st (requires Advantage): Enemy suffers disadvantage against you if succesful.
• 2nd Attack: Enemy suffers disadvantage against you if succesful. If his next attack misses, you can make an attack as reaction against hi.
• 3rd Attack: Make opposed roll with advantage - if you succeed, enemy is disarmed and knocked prone.

Kirk's Full Body Lunge

• 1st Action: Make Charisma/Intimidate Check against all opponents. Firs attack of opponents you beat deals only half damage but rips your shirt.
• 2nd Action: Take action to gain temporary hit points equal to your Starfleet Officer level
• 3rd Action: Make attack with advantage against two adjacent enemies. If you hit, target is knocked prone.

 

[FJammet]

I agree. the problem with those maneuvers in the past editions is that sometimes the simplest way to disarm an opponent was to kill him and then take his weapon.

This is what is so sad with Dnd fighting : nothing is ever better than doing damage, so combats are not very interesting or cinematic.
Not changing that except in allowing one maneuver on top of any attack, or in making maneuvers much much more efficient.
Mustrum's ideas are very interesting in this regard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The original idea is like a clarinetist - it simultaneously sucks and blows.

It sucks because giving up your attack to perform a maneuver sucks. Your attack stacks with all other attacks to help kill your enemy. So by providing maneuver rules you are reducing the space to be effective in the combat.

It blows because it's spamtastic. If the fighter doesn't get a free trip with the attack then they are the least likely to want to maneuver because they are giving up the best basic attack. If they get the trip for free then they are the most likely to want to trip because tripping is a good bonus every round. There's no balance or tradeoff so the decision whether to trip fundamentally isn't interesting. Recharge mechanics (whether Bo9S or AEDU style) and genuine options at will are what's needed to prevent spam.

And Mustrum Ridcully points out the flaw his combos in his own post - few monsters last three rounds in a D&D fight. It's not inherently bad - just not suited to D&D in any edition. His other post prevents the maneuvers sucking for the fighter - but does nothing to prevent the spam.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I have long been in favour of a stamina mechanic (instead of encounter powers). You want to attack and manoeuvre? Spend a point of stamina. Rest later.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have long been in favour of a stamina mechanic (instead of encounter powers). You want to attack and manoeuvre? Spend a point of stamina. Rest later.

That's starting to get somewhere as long as stamina points can't be used on a second attack.

Give everyone con-mod stamina points (all recoverable on a short rest) with the rogue getting 3 bonus and the fighter 6 bonus. Using a maneuver in a fight costs 1 stamina point for each time you will have used it since the last short rest (so your first trip costs 1, your second 2, ...) and you get your Int as a bonus to maneuvers.

Which reduces spam due to the escalator. It gives the rogue some free feints and hides. And it spreads your stats around.

 

[SKyOdin]

It is my hope that whilst the Wizard can disintegrate at high level, they aren't still in possession of all their low level spell slots - so they can blast away once, but not constantly. Besides, the idea of these manoeuvres is that they are supposed to have a single simple effect. By taking the right themes or class abilities you can improve them.

...

Let's say you took an offensive Sword and Board theme (rather than Guardian) and the first feat gave you the ability to make a knockdown attempt after you hit with an attack. Now it's pretty damned useful, by your pure damage logic. I'll reiterate again that these manoeuvres are designed to be performed by anyone, but will be enhanced by being a Fighter, or having the right theme - they are not 'powers' by 4e terminology. I've also avoided basing them on grid combat, and fiddly numbers (except for sunder which I don't know how to adjudicate).

I think the approach of having some basic tricks that anyone can use, and then using themes and class abilities to upgrade those tricks, is a fundamentally flawed and all-around terrible approach. Most notably, it encourages one-trick pony fighter builds that do nothing but spam their one good trick all day long (i.e. the trip master who does nothing but trip every enemy he sees, since he can't do anything else), who subsequently get hosed when they run into any of a slew of enemies their trick doesn't work against, and who still are generally sub-par compared to other characters with more versatile class features. That isn't a very fun class to play in my opinion.

Such a system is really hard to balance. If the basic versions of the maneuvers are too weak, they are traps for players to walk into. If basic versions are actually viable to use, the upgraded versions become so strong that the fighter's best option is to spam them with every attack, which leads to the situation out-lined above.

Furthermore, an approach that combines basic maneuvers, talents, and class features is a very messy, inelegant system that requires cross-checking and memorizing rules from various different sources just to use one ability, and could lead to unwanted rules bloat.

Finally, I just don't think any of these maneuvers you suggested sound fun to use, particular compared to alternative systems. Where is the ability to attack multiple enemies at once, knock an enemy senseless for a few rounds, or leave an enemy bleeding badly? The number of effects you give are very limited in breadth (most of them are designed to at best hinder an enemy) and effect (most only work until the enemy recovers on their turn).


Any good maneuver system is going to need four fundamental qualities:
1) It encourages the player to use a variety of different maneuvers in one fight.
2) The maneuvers must be simple to use in play and otherwise not require cross-referencing multiple sources.
3) The maneuvers must give the Fighter options to keep up with the versatility of other classes.
4) The maneuvers must be cool and fun.

To be honest, I don't think your system satisfies any of these qualities.

 

[TwinBahamut]

This is what is so sad with Dnd fighting : nothing is ever better than doing damage, so combats are not very interesting or cinematic.

This actually isn't true. There are plenty of things in D&D that are much, much better than doing damage, especially if we are talking about 3E. Pretty much the entire realm of save or suck and save or die effects are much better than damage. The same thing goes for abilities that can completely negate an opponent's options. Basically, anything that can shut down an enemy for an entire encounter or eliminate a threat permanently is far more effective than raw damage.

The problem with D&D (prior to 4E) is more that Fighter are exclusively given the ability to deal damage and the pool of miserably weak effects that are worse than damage, while spellcasters tend to be given damage and the pool of effects that are much stronger than damage.

In fact, you could randomly determine a Wizard's spell list and get a better spell list than a pure damage-dealing Wizard. A 3E Wizard who focuses only on doing damage is playing the class very suboptimally, and will be much weaker than a Wizard who focuses on spells like sleep, glitterdust, flight, and save or die spells.

Even in the 5E playtest material so far this has been true. The Wizard's at-will ray of frost both deals damage and immobilizes targets. Immobilization is actually a fairly powerful effect, so that at-will is flat out stronger than anything being discussed in this thread. If Fighters are going to get maneuvers, they have to be at least as good as the Wizard's ray of frost for the Fighter to even catch up to the Wizard's at-will combat ability, let alone the full strength of the Wizard's spellcasting.

 

[FJammet]

Pretty much the entire realm of save or suck and save or die effects are much better than damage. The same thing goes for abilities that can completely negate an opponent's options. Basically, anything that can shut down an enemy for an entire encounter or eliminate a threat permanently is far more effective than raw damage.

Yes, I was speaking mainly of non magic-using classes. That's why I'm interested in a better system of maneuvers than in 3E.

I agree with Neonchameleon too that if one maneuver is better than doing damage, then melee PCs will always use it... and it will become boring again.
A stamina mechanic is quite a good idea to limit their use. Or maybe they could need time to "recharge" like monster powers in 4E.

Another point is that a maneuvers system could slow down the game a lot by giving players many options to think about. So they have to stay very straightforward and simple.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Let's see how much I can bend this.

Combat Maneuvers

Characters can perform particular maneuvers to do things other than simply damage their foe.

Basic Maneuvers

Basic maneuvers can be performed by any character. A basic maneuver is performed as an action.

The basic maneuvers are

• Push: Make a Strength contest. If you win, you can move 5 ft with the enemy and push the enemy an additional 5 ft afterwards.

• Grab: Make a Strength contest. If you win, you have grabbed your target and the target cannot move unless it pushes you with you, or has escaped the grab.

• Escape Grab: Make a Dexterity or Strength vs Strength contest to escape a grab.

• Feint: Make a Dexterity vs Wisdom contest. If you win, the target has disadvantage on its next attack or contest against you.

• Distracting Strike (ranged and melee): Make a Dexterity vs Wisdom contest. If you win, one ally gains advantage against the target.

Unless noted otherwise, all these manooeuvers require the target to be in melee range.

Martial Maneuver Training
Characters with special martial training are more adept at using maneuvers. Classes that have proficiency with martial or exotic weapons can perform basic maneuvers together with a normal weapon attack. To do so, they must have advantage on the attack and sacrifice the extra attack roll. If the attack hits, they can use the maneuver. You have to declare the maneuver you wish to use before you make the attack.

Advanced Maneuvers

Advanced maneuvers are more difficult to master, but are also stronger than the basic maneuvers. Due to the difficulty in performing them, once you have succeeded at a maneuver against a particular enemy, you cannot use it again against him during that combat and the next few hours. If a maneuver allows you to attack multiple enemies, you cannot repeat the maneuver against any of the enemies you targeted with the attack.
Advanced maneuvers must always be performed as part an attack, so they require advantage and martial manoeuver training.

Learning Advanced Maneuvers

Characters usually need a teacher or school to learn a new advanced maneuvers. They are similar in difficulty to master than spells. Maneuvers sometimes have level requirements.
Fighters have a special benefit: The start their career with one known advanced maneuver, and can learn an additional one at 2nd level and every even level thereafter.

List of Advanced Maneuvers (Level 1-5)

• Double Strike (melee and ranged): Make an additional attack against a second target in your melee range (melee) or adjacent to the first target (ranged)

• Feint and Riposte: Like Feint, but if the enemy misses on its next attack, you can make an attack against it as reaction.

• Brutal Strike: Make an attack roll. If that also hits, add half your character level (minimum 1) to your damage.

• Knockdown: Make a Strength vs Dexterity or Strength contest. If you succeed, the target is knocked prone.

• Covering Attack (melee and ranged): Make a Wisdom vs Wisdom ccontest. If you succeed, the target has disadvantage to all attacks against one ally of your choice. If it attacks that target, you gain advantage on your next attack against it.
• Tumble: You can move to one of your enemies squares.

• Pin: Requires a grabbed target. Make a Strength vs Strength or Dexterity contest. If you succeed, the target cannot attack anyone but you and makes all attacks at disadvantage.

• Provocative Maneuver: Make a Charisma vs Wisdom contest. If you succeed, the target suffers disadvantage on all attacks but against you.
• Disarm: Make an opposed Strength vs. Strength contest. If you succeed, the target loses its weapons.
• Sunder: Instead of damaging the target, you damage an item it's wielding or wearing, like a weapon or shield.
  

List of Advanced Maneuvers (Level 6-10)

• Flurry of Strikes (melee) / Manyshot (ranged): Make an additional attack against the intial target, or a secondary target in reach/range. The attack deals normal damage.

• Vital Strike: Deal extra damage equal to a Rogue's sneak attack of your level.

• Ringing Blow: Make a Strength vs Constitution contest. If you succeed, the target has disadvantage on its next action and moves at only half speed.

• Switch: You can switch your position with the enemies position after the attack.

• Dangerous Feint: Allow the enemy to make an attack as a reaction. If he takes it, you can make a second attack with advantage. You cannot use an advanced maneuver on that attack.

• Distracting Strike: Make a Wisdom vs Wisdom contest. If you succeed, choose one maneuver you already peformed against that opponent. Youc an use that maneuver again against him.

• Guarding Strike: Choose one ally adjacent to you. Any attack against that ally has disadvantage. If an enemy makes an attack against that target, you can attack that enemy as a reaction.

• Strike to Wound (Melee or Ranged): Make a Strength or Dexterity vs Constitution contest. If you succeed, the enemy suffers a bleeding wound, taking 3 points of damage on each of its turns. It can make a constitution save each time it took the damage to end this effect.

• Living Cover (requires grabbed or pinned target): If you are hit by an attack before your next action, you can use a reactin to direct the attack against the target.

• Hamstring (Melee or Ranged): Make a Strength or Dexterity vs Constitution contest. If you succeed, the enemy loses 20 ft of its movement speed until it makes a successful strength save. It rolls for the save at the end of its action each round.
• Come and Get It: Similar to Provocative Maneuver, but you make a contest against each enemy that can see or hear you.

List of Advanced Maneuvers (Level 11-15)

• Whirlwind Strike: Make an attack against each other enemy in your melee reach.

• Storm of Arrows (Ranged only): Make an attack against every other enemy in your range.
• Stunning Blow: Make a Strength vs Constitution contest. If you succeed, the enemy cannot act on its next action.

• Deadly Strike / Deadly Shot(Melee or Ranged): If the enemy has less than twice your level in hit points after the attack,it dies. If it has more, it takes extra damage equal to your level.

• Nailing Shot (Ranged only): Make a Dexterity vs Constitution contest. If you succeed, the enemy is nailed by your weapon to a surface. It cannot move until it makes a strength save and has disadvantage to all attacks.

• Attack on the Run (Melee or Ranged) : Make up to two additional attacks against other opponents. You can move before and after each attack.
• Delayed Damage: You do not inflict any damage now. You can choose to inflict the damage instead at any point within the next 24 hours as a free action.
  

List of Advanced Maneuvers (Level 16+)

• Quivering Palm: Like Deadly Strike but you can choose to inflict the effect at any point within the next 24 hours as free action.
  
• Storm of Death (melee or ranged): Like Whirlwind Strike and Storm of Arrows, but you can move between each attack.
• Vorpal Strike: If the enemy has less than twice your level in hit pints after the attack, it dies. If it has the same or more, it takes extra damage equal to twice your level. If the target had a head and dies from the attack, the attack beheaded the target.
  
• Impaling Strike: You leave the weapon impaled in your enemy. The enemy takes 10 points of bleeding damage at the start of its action and it loses 30 ft of its movement. It can only start making constitution saves against the effect if it takes the weapon out, but doing so inflicts damage equal to twice your level.
  

 

[SKyOdin]

Alright, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I have to come forward and admit that, after double-checking my math from the other day, I apparently made a few calculation errors. Apparently a lack of proper parentheses triggered an order of operations error in my calculations that I should of caught. Furthermore, the target AC I mentioned in my post didn't match the one I gave in the code. I apologize for not catching these problems sooner.

However, while double-checking my code and results, I did learn some new things about the theoretical maneuvers I described. Apparently, giving up a turn for double damage only has an identical average return compared to two regular attacks when the fighter needs to roll an 11 or better. Against an easier to hit target, the average damage of the double-powered attack is better, while against an easy to hit target, the average damage of the two regular attacks becomes better.

Giving up an attack for advantage on the next attack is still a strictly sub-par option, however. Some kind of damage bonus is necessary to make it viable.

Here is the corrected Anydice code for the theoretical situation I described on the first page:

output ([count {13..20,20} in 1d20] *(2d6+4)) + ([count {11..20,20} in 1d20] *(2d6+4))
output ([count {13..20,20} in [highest 1 of 2d20]]) * (2d6+4)
output ([count {13..20,20} in 1d20] *(2d6+4))*2

 

[Li Shenron]

Can't xp you again yet, but these are pretty good ideas!

You use your action to perform a manoeuvre, and therefore cannot also attack unless otherwise noted.

This is a very good approach, simplicity is paramount... the different mechanics for half of the manouvers in 3ed IMHO lead most players to simply ignore those combat options.

Charge
You may move up to your full speed in a straight line and make an attack. You grant advantage for all attacks against you until the start of your next turn.
A beserker theme might increase damage on a charge, provide extra movement or allow the use of another manoeuvre instead of an attack after charging.

At first I thought "what? no benefits from charging?", but actually the benefit is that you get to move AND attack with the same action, while you still have your normal move for your round, so charging means you can cover twice your normal speed + attack in the same round. This is good enough IMHO, it actually makes sense that you would charge exactly first and foremost to close up quickly, and you'd do that only if the distance is clear from obstacles (charging requires straight movement) and enemies.

Knockdown
Trip
Disarm

These also are fine as-is for me.

Sunder
You damage an opponent's weapon on an opposed attack roll, reducing it's damage di(c)e by 1 step OR you damage an opponent's armour on a successful attack with disadvantage against their AC, reducing their AC by 1.

I would not allow to sunder armor. Armor is made exactly to absorb blows, so targeting armor should do nothing IMHO, unless you're trying to hit the armor's weak points, but that sounds so hard to do and require specialist knowledge that (again IMHO) should not be allowed in general.

I'm not sure if reducing the damage dice is a good mechanic but it's certainly interesting... it makes sundering a gradual effect.

Push
If you succeed on an opposed Strength check against your opponent, push them by a number of feet equal to 1 + the amount you succeeded by.

I think using a variable number here is more difficult than worth, and also it has the unreasonable effect that you may be able to move a farther distance when pushing than when moving!

How about just making it so that if you win the Str check, you force the opponent to move with you? (but also speed should be at least halved here)

Feint
If you succeed on an opposed Wisdom (Intelligence? Charisma?) check, you trick your opponent into leaving themselves exposed and you gain advantage on your next attack against them.

Not really sure... I am afraid of using the advantage mechanic because I think it's already used too often.

Grab
If you succeed on an opposed (Str|Dex) vs. (Str|Dex) check, you grab and immobilise your opponent. Does not work on larger creatures. They can attempt to escape by the same means as an action.[/I]

This is good. The only bit I'm not sure is allowing Dex for grabbing (but it's OK for breaking free).

Dodge
I don't like the flat +4 to AC bonus provided at current. I suggest instead that you be allowed to select one opponent and attacks made by them against you have disadvantage (or perhaps just one attack of your choice) until your next turn. Could be enhanced by a theme.

I think the current Dodge is better because it's simpler and it better allows a mean to retreat from combat.

Parry
Probably not a base manoeuvre, but it would allow you to apply disadvantage to one attack against you as a reaction. Accessible through a duelist theme.

Parrying is probably too much of a complicated concept to be in the core rules IMHO.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the approach of having some basic tricks that anyone can use, and then using themes and class abilities to upgrade those tricks, is a fundamentally flawed and all-around terrible approach. Most notably, it encourages one-trick pony fighter builds that do nothing but spam their one good trick all day long (i.e. the trip master who does nothing but trip every enemy he sees, since he can't do anything else), who subsequently get hosed when they run into any of a slew of enemies their trick doesn't work against, and who still are generally sub-par compared to other characters with more versatile class features. That isn't a very fun class to play in my opinion.

Such a system is really hard to balance. If the basic versions of the maneuvers are too weak, they are traps for players to walk into. If basic versions are actually viable to use, the upgraded versions become so strong that the fighter's best option is to spam them with every attack, which leads to the situation out-lined above.

I've taken time to think about this and I both agree and disagree with you. I think you're right that my proposal would lead to one-trick ponies - I am definitely more in the 'stamina mechanic' camp on that one. I disagree that basic manoeuvres are traps, the effect I'm trying to avoid is players wanting to do things, but finding that they can't because they haven't bought or learnt a specific manoeuvre. Everyone should be able to try to knock someone over, or trip them up, or charge, and so on. Maybe not everyone knows whirlwind attack, or even how to feint for advantage, and yes, improvisation exists, but some things are so fundamental they should have fixed descriptions.

Furthermore, an approach that combines basic maneuvers, talents, and class features is a very messy, inelegant system that requires cross-checking and memorizing rules from various different sources just to use one ability, and could lead to unwanted rules bloat.

Finally, I just don't think any of these maneuvers you suggested sound fun to use, particular compared to alternative systems. Where is the ability to attack multiple enemies at once, knock an enemy senseless for a few rounds, or leave an enemy bleeding badly? The number of effects you give are very limited in breadth (most of them are designed to at best hinder an enemy) and effect (most only work until the enemy recovers on their turn).

I can't see how you can approach a system that gives you lots of options without needing to reference things frequently (or know the rules). You either write them down on paper or keep a book open on the spells *ahem* manoeuvres page. Oh and surprisingly, I wasn't trying to be comprehensive with my first post.

Any good maneuver system is going to need four fundamental qualities:
1) It encourages the player to use a variety of different maneuvers in one fight.
2) The maneuvers must be simple to use in play and otherwise not require cross-referencing multiple sources.
3) The maneuvers must give the Fighter options to keep up with the versatility of other classes.
4) The maneuvers must be cool and fun.

Why should you be encouraged to use different things in a fight? If something works, you should use it. I agree that spamming is bad and think a limit on how many things you can do in a single fight is a good idea, I just don't think they should all be different things (ie: I don't like encounter powers for martial characters). Point 2 is bizarre because any increase in options will require notation in front of you or referencing. Do you memorise your 4th edition powers? Point 3 I can sort of agree with, though I'm not someone who thinks they should be throwing mountains (as the current adage goes). Point 4, well, yes, but not for the sake of it, design them with genuine thought about how combat works: rather than Cascading Catapult Slam (ridiculous name, ridiculous power) you have a simple attack and push someone and if they hit someone else maybe they are both disadvantaged for a turn.

Alright, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I have to come forward and admit that, after double-checking my math from the other day, I apparently made a few calculation errors. Apparently a lack of proper parentheses triggered an order of operations error in my calculations that I should of caught. Furthermore, the target AC I mentioned in my post didn't match the one I gave in the code. I apologize for not catching these problems sooner.

That's nice and all, but quantifying this adds little to the discussion. As I pointed out, there are more reasons to gain advantage than just dealing damage - damage is not the endpoint of all D&D abilities.