Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Combat] Manoeuvres
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5961144" data-attributes="member: 882"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chris_Nightwing, post: 5961144, member: 882"] 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Combat] Manoeuvres
Top