How basic should basic attacks be?

[B.T.]

The 4E power system is not the only way to provide interesting options for martial types. Vancian wizards are bad enough; I'm not playing another game with Vancian fighters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is only a problem in the post-encounter-strutured editions of D&D (3e and 4e). D&D needs to return to a focus on exploration and adventure, not on the combat encounter. Every class needs to bring something special to the game. When your game is based around the combat encounter, every class needs to have something special to do in combat. When your game is based around exploration, every class needs to be able to do something in the adventure.

As the adventure is much broader in scope than the combat encounter, this opens up a lot of opportunities for diversity that don't involve powers. For instance, if the fighter were the only class that was really good at combat and the rogue was the only class that was good at thief-related exploits (stealing, sneaking, snooping, spying, and so forth), you'd see a lot more opportunities for everyone to shine in an adventure. You wouldn't need to have AEDUs for non-casters because they could contribute in a lot of ways that were more meaningful than 2[W] + Strength damage.

That being said, I am not opposed to non-casters have powers. Not in the least. I just don't like that they use the same mechanics as spellcasters. I'd much prefer they were given encounter powers and at-wills while the spellcasters had daily spells. Naturally, some people will complain that it's impossible to balance the game when classes are on different power schedules. That doesn't matter to me. As long as the game avoids the 3e "casters do everything better" syndrome, I'm fine with it.

 

[Lanefan]

The difference between combat maneuvers and at-will powers is the first one penalizes you for trying something more interesting than "I hit it with my axe" (IHIWMA). The second makes the assumption that you are always doing something more interesting than IHIWMA.

You are making a huge (and wrong) assumption here: that IHIWMA is not interesting in and of itself. I've been hitting things with (imaginary) weapons for a very long time now and it never loses its appeal.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that WotC and most players of D&D expect casters to do something more interesting than IHIWMA each round

Only until they run out of spells, then they join the clobberin' brigade.

It's all the powers and extra gype that make combat take so long.

Lanefan

 

[Libramarian]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is only a problem in the post-encounter-strutured editions of D&D (3e and 4e). D&D needs to return to a focus on exploration and adventure, not on the combat encounter. Every class needs to bring something special to the game. When your game is based around the combat encounter, every class needs to have something special to do in combat. When your game is based around exploration, every class needs to be able to do something in the adventure.

As the adventure is much broader in scope than the combat encounter, this opens up a lot of opportunities for diversity that don't involve powers. For instance, if the fighter were the only class that was really good at combat and the rogue was the only class that was good at thief-related exploits (stealing, sneaking, snooping, spying, and so forth), you'd see a lot more opportunities for everyone to shine in an adventure. You wouldn't need to have AEDUs for non-casters because they could contribute in a lot of ways that were more meaningful than 2[W] + Strength damage.

That being said, I am not opposed to non-casters have powers. Not in the least. I just don't like that they use the same mechanics as spellcasters. I'd much prefer they were given encounter powers and at-wills while the spellcasters had daily spells. Naturally, some people will complain that it's impossible to balance the game when classes are on different power schedules. That doesn't matter to me. As long as the game avoids the 3e "casters do everything better" syndrome, I'm fine with it.

Agree. Also: design adventures to challenge the player rather than the character. If the players spend most of the session talking and thinking rather than choosing powers and rolling dice, it matters a lot less whether their classes are perfectly balanced.

 

[Kzach]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is only a problem in the post-encounter-strutured editions of D&D (3e and 4e).

I have to strongly disagree here; the fighter/wizard dichotomy has plagued my games since I started playing 23 years ago. If I started a game at low levels, virtually everyone played a thief or fighter. If I started at mid to high levels, virtually everyone played a spellcaster.

This had absolutely nothing to do with what any character could do out of combat.

Agree. Also: design adventures to challenge the player rather than the character. If the players spend most of the session talking and thinking rather than choosing powers and rolling dice, it matters a lot less whether their classes are perfectly balanced.

That's a design philosophy that may appeal to you, but it doesn't appeal to many others, myself included. I'm not playing a game to be challenged, I'm playing a game to immerse myself in fantasy milieu to escape my own reality. The worst possible thing I could think of when playing such a game is to be pulled out of that blissful ignorance of the real world because *I* have to do something like solve a bloody riddle, or charm the king, etc.

Roleplaying is great, but it's my character that should be the star of the show, not 'me'.

 

[RangerWickett]

This was my proposal, presented originally as an April Fool's spoiler for 5e.



Thankfully there’s a basic stunt system. It has three options: deal damage, affect multiple foes, and add condition. The player decides what options he wants to accomplish, and has to make a check of some sort for each option he adds. He can also choose how severe he wants to make the extra effect. Diving into a pair of enemies so you can hit them both might require a moderate check; swinging on a rope and slicing the throats of five guys in your path would be a lot harder. A failure is always a noteworthy setback, and trying for three options but failing all three checks will really mess you up. But the risks and rewards seem balanced.

The most basic example? Make a Dexterity check to approach stealthily, get some extra damage on your attack.

Fighters and rogues would be able to do stunts more easily than mages. So wizards have their reliable but prescribed spells. Fighters have daring gambits and clever maneuvers.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see the majority of attacks be a simple d20 roll vs. defense and deal damage on a hit. The problem isn't so much that it's boring - its only boring when the only thing mentioned is IHIWMW(eapon), instead of the player describing what he is doing and the DM replying with a description of what happens - I know, as that's what I've been doing in my game for close to 30 years.

I'm not against doing stunts or special attacks, but I'd rather not see them as Standard Operating Procedure out of the gate when a combat breaks out - preferably something the PCs/NPCs build up to or can activate only in certain conditions, or perhaps with a bit of reservation/hesitation in performing the stunt.

Besides, the rarer the stunt, often the wilder you can get with the results.

 

[Kzach]

I'm not against doing stunts or special attacks, but I'd rather not see them as Standard Operating Procedure out of the gate when a combat breaks out - preferably something the PCs/NPCs build up to or can activate only in certain conditions, or perhaps with a bit of reservation/hesitation in performing the stunt.

Besides, the rarer the stunt, often the wilder you can get with the results.

The problem with that is that it defies plausibility. Why can't I try to trip someone? It's not exactly something that requires special training. Why can't I bash someone with my shield? Do I need a college degree for that?

Therefore it's better to start off with such things incorporated into the basic system and use them as a base to jump from; add in complexity as the character builds their skill in those areas. You can still make more complex manoeuvres rare but the basics don't have to be so basic that you can't even do basic things.

 

[Stormonu]

The problem with that is that it defies plausibility. Why can't I try to trip someone? It's not exactly something that requires special training. Why can't I bash someone with my shield? Do I need a college degree for that?

To me things like trips, disarms, bull rushes, shield bashes and grapples aren't what I think of as special attacks - more I guess I'd call "alternate attacks" (favoring the CMB method over the Power method for these sort of things). Though I will say that watching someone doing a trip attack every round is about as boring as watching someone play, say, Street Fighter 2 and doing nothing but uppercut after uppercut to get through a round.

When I think of special attacks I think of things like Twin Shot, Come and Get It or others things that might be qualified more as "stunts". So I'm certainly not against being able to, say, trip someone any time during the round - but I'd rather not see someone doing that every round - like anything else, same ploy every round, every combat is both boring and frustrating to adjudicate.

 

[Kzach]

So I'm certainly not against being able to, say, trip someone any time during the round - but I'd rather not see someone doing that every round - like anything else, same ploy every round, every combat is both boring and frustrating to adjudicate.

As is doing a standard, no frills attack every, single, round.

As for whether they do something like a trip every round, though, these things need to be balanced properly in the system. A trip attack, for instance, should come with an inherent disadvantage over a no frills attack, thus giving weight to each type of attack, whether it has an additional effect or not.

 

[n00bdragon]

I love how every one of these arguments devolves into "Well, in MY experience at MY gaming table we haven't had a problem with this and we've been doing it that way for over 9000 years. Not only do I have no problem with continuing to do things that way but I insist that it is in fact the correct way to do things."