D&D General Half Formed Thought On Martial Control

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So D&D isnt good at modeling the way fighters push eachother around, use footwork and body language to basically herd eachother in a constant dance for advantage, even things like bowling someone over, stop someone from advancing, or forcing an opening for someone.


What if stuff like that used your movement, rather than actions?

Basically when you are using your body mass and body language and footwork to manipulate the battlefield, you spend movement to do so.

This is a very half formed idea, but I think it might result in an actual dance of movement in D&D combat, and a lot of fun moments.

Thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
i don't dislike the idea, it has potential, but similar to something i said in one of the recent martial threads i think there needs to be more variance in movespeeds in the various classes, with more martials having higher movespeeds that would enable them to expend more of it in this area of their supposed strength, 'you can spend 5ft of movement when you make an attack, if it connects you can push the target 5ft, trip them or provide an opening for an ally, if you use this ability with multiple attacks the effects are applied together after damage'
 

We can build a martial system that will be much more complex than actual spells and spell slots management. It should not be hard to make fighter turn twice as long as wizard turn because the player will have so many things to manage and evaluate.
Defensive stance, bait, feint, management of stress, anger, fear, pain.
use of different weapon size, speed, space, the martial process can be of infinite complexity.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
These are the kinds of systems that I think are better off under the purview of different RPGs... ones that are built from the ground up to take these specialized systems into account.

So for instance, The Riddle of Steel is an RPG that is entirely built around a much more precise interpretation of sword fighting. For anyone who wants that kind of in-depth tactical attack and parry fencing game play... using a system like TRoS, rather than trying to jerry-rig something onto the D&D chassis would ultimately give better results methinks.

Of course, for all I know someone probably already has designed something like this for 5E... so a person would just need to go searching for it on DMs Guild or other places.
 

We can build a martial system that will be much more complex than actual spells and spell slots management. It should not be hard to make fighter turn twice as long as wizard turn because the player will have so many things to manage and evaluate.
Defensive stance, bait, feint, management of stress, anger, fear, pain.
use of different weapon size, speed, space, the martial process can be of infinite complexity.
Level Up has it where the martial classes can gain proficiency in at least two Combat traditions and perform various combat maneuvers and stances. They're suppose to be the martial equivalent of spells (they're more feat-like IMO).
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
TBF, 5e is bad at that sort of thing. 4e did lots of it, 3e did some, and depending on the DM, you might've gotten away with it in the TSR era.

Using movement to manage that in 5e is a good idea. 5e lets movement be freely broken up before and after your action or between attacks w/in an extra attack action, and already has the idea of spending movement on things other than strictly moving, like standing up.

Presumably there would be some sort of checks involved? The effect could be predicated on a hit or miss, an ability check (w/proficiency, depending - I'd warn against contested checks as I found, in 3e, they're very swingy, as we use the term, and 5e BA already showcases the d20s randomness), or even a save (like some BM maneuvers).
 

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
Level Up has it where the martial classes can gain proficiency in at least two Combat traditions and perform various combat maneuvers and stances. They're suppose to be the martial equivalent of spells (they're more feat-like IMO).
We're using those and many involve heavy use of movement, whether advancing or controlling others. While it spends "exertion points" rather than movement, it gives solid options. But, as @Krachek points out, it's also slowed our game down a bit while the fighter tries to look through his "spell book" of advanced maneuvers, remember the basic ones, and remember if he has any features that trigger.
 

We're using those and many involve heavy use of movement, whether advancing or controlling others. While it spends "exertion points" rather than movement, it gives solid options. But, as @Krachek points out, it's also slowed our game down a bit while the fighter tries to look through his "spell book" of advanced maneuvers, remember the basic ones, and remember if he has any features that trigger.
Level Up does have a Combat Maneuvers Card deck. This might help. Level Up: Combat Maneuvers Card Deck (A5E)
 

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
Level Up does have a Combat Maneuvers Card deck. This might help. Level Up: Combat Maneuvers Card Deck (A5E)
Player printed his own (deck is definitely of use), but he doesn't have memory usually of what the maneuvers do as they're often multi-featured with opposed rolls. So he stalls searching the text to find the one that lets him do something with 20' movement and a reaction.

Cycling back to the OP, using movement would be tricky (are faster creatures better at maneuvers, or heavily armored beings worse in that they can do less, etc.), but the idea of combat maneuvering is definitely worth it. As above, I think simpler is generally better, which is counterintuitive as I invested in an "advanced" version.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Oh, if you're going to make movement the currency of certain sorts of maneuvers, you should, of course, give martials in general, and fighters in particular, more of it. Perhaps with a proviso that they cannot actually move past their basic limit without the dashing. Thus if you lose movement to armor/encumbrance or a condition or effect, the distance you can moved is capped lower, but you could still use the rest of your movement to push an enemy around, or whatever...
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top