Could Martial Feats/Powers/Maneuvers be based on situations and conditions?

[jshaft37]

I know there are quite a few people who have a hard time reconciling the idea of AEDU powers for martial characters, which makes sense. When I DM 4E, I always trying to narrate such powers as "seizing the opportunity" or "taking advantage" or "pushing themselves to the limit" or whatever other cheesy thing comes to mind.

Taking a martial combat mindset would it be possible for feats/powers/maneuvers be granted by situations and conditions? Maybe (some of) these powers are available to all martial characters at level 1? Then they can select feats/powers to improve on and expand these abilities, maybe in an ability tree or requisite system.

I would hate to slow down combat by analysis paralysis, but if these powers/feats/maneuvers are based on the situation a quick decision should be made by the PC, since it's a reaction to the surroundings, rather than deciding which at-will, encounter, or daily power they should use this turn.

For example, in a typical boxer's repertoire, they know how to jab, hook, cross, and/or uppercut. After a bit of training they improve their head movement, footwork, and situational awareness. Some boxers are better at jabbing and moving, some have great footwork, and some have heavy knockout punches.

MMA fighters, have boxing elements, kicks, takedown, grappling, submission holds, choke holds, various defenses, etc. Often MMA fighters excel in one discipline, some others have a strong all-around game but don't excel in any one area.

Fencing has simple attacks, combined (compound) attacks, feints, parry, riposte (I admittedly don't know too much about fencing).

All combat sports have similar powers/feats/maneuvers that are appropriate to be used in different situations.

I'm not sure if this would manifest as talent trees, or maybe as a requisite system, or how it might affect game play at the table, but maybe it has some merit to be considered?

FWIW, I am all for more abstract combat that doesn't rely on the battlegrid. So if this concept was incorporated, I wouldn't want it to have all the triggers, interrupts, conditions*, etc that 4E has.

*I don't mind some conditions but I hate when every attack results in a condition. Its hard to keep track of 6 creatures when one has a -2 to attack, another is dazed, one has vulnerability 5, one has ongoing 10 poison damage, and another grants +2 to damage on the next hit, etc

 

[BobTheNob]

Have had the same thought at times. I tried putting something together to do this very idea (on the back of 4e as an alternate to AEDU). What I found happening was that as the number of powers I adapted increased, so did I need to battlefield conditions to leverage. I started coming up with new conditions battlefield dynamics to support this and just got myself into more trouble and let it go (4e already had enough).

What I ended up with was little effects that characters could carry like "Unbalanced" and "Winded", and then powers that could take advantage of creatures in a Unbalanced or Winded state. Then, use of certain powers could leave you in a unbalanced or winded state, making using the powers a hard call...people dont use them not because they have "run out of uses" but because they dont know whether they want to expose themselves to risk. Then other things like powers not being usable whilst in these states (like not being able to use power attack whilst winded)

Dont know how it would have panned out as I never completed it, and I did myself no favors trying to tack it onto 4e. Would have been better off if it was a vanilla system and gone from there.

I think its a possibility.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, it can work. I built my combat system for my 4E hack around this concept.

 

[Mengu]

Didn't 2e assume that you were doing all those things? You parry, riposte, dodge, shout a warning to a friend, push an ally out of harm's way... Back in the day these things didn't translate into game mechanics, you were assumed to be doing it all.

With 3e and later 4e, we started to ask for more interactivity, more situational abilities, powers, and in its ultimate form immediate actions to respond to an enemy right then and there. We've also seen it gets clunkier, the more we want to interact with what's going on around us, and the more players we have around the table.

If it was one player and one DM, interactivity could be taken to new heights, and it wouldn't be overwhelming. But the challenge is for 1 DM to be able to interact with up to 6-7 players. When the evil wizard tosses a fireball on the party, 6 people shout at the same time, asking for immediate actions, and chaos ensues.

I don't really have a solution for keeping tactical combat in the system, making it fast, smooth, and manageable, but I hope they manage to figure out a way. Maybe the game recommendations need to change and we need to start having more split parties and dual DM games, where each DM is in charge of 2-3 players. Or maybe we need two modes of combat, non-tactical combat, which would encompass the majority, and tactical combat, which would be the one highlight combat of a session, so we could be prepared to spend more time on that combat encounter.