[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.