D&D 5E How should combat maneuvers be handled in Next?

[steenan]

First, what I want from combat maneuvers:
- They should be possible for everyone, but significantly easier for appropriately trained characters (fighter, monk)
- Every maneuver should be useful sometimes, but none should be always optimal; their usefulness should depend on tactical situation.
- They shouldn't be spammable (it leads to very strange, uninteresting fighting styles), but also shouldn't have hard, artificial limits (like: once per encounter)
- They shouldn't have too high opportunity cost (do you prefer to just hit, or try to disarm - which has low chance of success, provokes an AoO and does not deal damage?)
- They should be simple to use in play

It's not easy to meet these requirements. The idea I have for implementing the maneuvers is just a sketch, and probably full of holes, but I'd like to share it anyway:

1. You don't declare maneuvers before you attack. They are activated based on the margin of success.
2. When you hit at least (let's say) 5 points above target's AC, or if you roll natural 20, you may add a maneuver to your hit. If you exceed the AC by more, one additional maneuver for each 5 points.
3. Characters trained in maneuvers may activate them with lower margin of success. Some monsters may have vulnerabilities or resistances to specific maneuvers that also affect the required MoS (eg. a huge creature may be harder to trip, but easier to feint).
4. Maneuvers may include things like converting inflicted damage to nonlethal, cleaving through several foes etc.

A character trained in many maneuvers, fighting against much weaker foes, should be able to tie them in knots by stacking maneuvers on each hit - but against a strong opponent, only one or two maneuvers would be successful (that is, mechanically, only one or two hits would allow a maneuver to be performed).

 

[ren1999]

For all of you who say that a wizard should be able to parry and disarm -- I say fine. But fighters should be able to learn spells too!

Sure. Let any character learn any martial feat, spell or prayer. But realize it might not be the best choice when leveling up is going to be stingy about ability scores and many of these martial feats are going to be based on strength, constitution and dexterity. ..something wizard types may not have invested in.

 

[Raith5]

I'd like to start a conversation to see how common combat maneuvers (bull rush, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, etc) should be done.

A couple of ideas...

1.) In AD&D 2nd edition, they were called shots. Basically, you took a penalty to your roll and if you hit, instead of doing damage you inflicted the maneuver. Later, Combat and Tactics set individual ACs to each stunt AND forced opposed attack rolls.
2.) In Basic/BECMI, some of these attacks (parry, disarm, smash) were fighter (or demi-human) only maneuvers. A fighter could take a penalty to hit to add his whole strength score to damage (proto power attack). Thieves, clerics, and Magic-users need not apply.
3.) 3e treated them as modified attacks with specific opposed rolls and penalties, augmentable by feats. They were very realistic, but cumbersome to use.
4.) 4e treated them as powers, some do-able at-will (grab), or as part of encounter or daily powers (3[w] + trip).

Mostly 2 and 4. I want to see the capacity to PCs to use terrain, be inventive etc but also have stances or abilities that can be used to make especially devastating attacks (even if these attacks are limited by your stamina and limited by a per day or some other structure). Ideally I like to see some interaction between these special abilities and the inventive use of terrain.

 

[Shroomy]

I think D&D Next should divide what we're calling "combat maneuvers" here into two categories:

1. The first category is a maneuver that anyone can attempt without specialized training, such as bull rushing, grappling, tripping, etc. These types of maneuvers would be adjudicated via a contest, likely Strength/Dexterity vs. Strength/Dexterity. Melee classes would naturally be the best at them due to their higher physical attributes.

2. The second category would be maneuvers that require specialized training (i.e. a feat or class feature). These maneuvers would be modified/specialized attacks instead of contests and would be more akin to 4e's at-will attack powers. Melee classes would naturally be best at them because their class features already make them better at attacking and because the resources used to acquire them would be geared towards them.

 

[Bluenose]

I think D&D Next should divide what we're calling "combat maneuvers" here into two categories:

1. The first category is a maneuver that anyone can attempt without specialized training, such as bull rushing, grappling, tripping, etc. These types of maneuvers would be adjudicated via a contest, likely Strength/Dexterity vs. Strength/Dexterity. Melee classes would naturally be the best at them due to their higher physical attributes.

2. The second category would be maneuvers that require specialized training (i.e. a feat or class feature). These maneuvers would be modified/specialized attacks instead of contests and would be more akin to 4e's at-will attack powers. Melee classes would naturally be best at them because their class features already make them better at attacking and because the resources used to acquire them would be geared towards them.

What's your basis for thinking that bull rush, grapple, disarm, are easy actions to perform in a fight against someone who is defending themselves from an attack? That they're things you can do that don't require special training for a chance to pull the trick off and that won't leave you wide open to a counter when/if you fail? Why do you think that some 4e-style At-Wills are harder, requiring special training?

 

[Essenti]

What's your basis for thinking that bull rush, grapple, disarm, are easy actions to perform in a fight against someone who is defending themselves from an attack? That they're things you can do that don't require special training for a chance to pull the trick off and that won't leave you wide open to a counter when/if you fail? Why do you think that some 4e-style At-Wills are harder, requiring special training?

Please realize shroomy didn't say those maneuvers were simple to pull off in any way, shape, or form. He said anyone should be able to ATTEMPT them, not that they should be easily accomplished. Just like anyone can attempt an attack against a foe actively defending against attack.

Also keep in mind that "simply" attacking is equally as difficult, dangerous, and prone to opening you up for counterattack from a trained fighter as any of the maneuvers mentioned. And yet, we still allow anyone to attempt to do it in this game, but the chance for success for non-fighters is usually much lower.

 

[LostSoul]

Why does everyone think manoeuvres should be resolved using Contests instead of Saving Throws?

For Contests:

• Paragraph 1, 1st line under Contests.
• 2nd bullet point under Contests.
• 2nd bullet point under Saving Throws.

For Saving Throws:

• Paragraph 1, 2nd line under Contests.
• 1st bullet point under Contests.
• 3rd bullet point under Contests.
• 1st & 2nd paragraphs under Saving Throws.
• 1st & 3rd bullet points under Saving Throws.
• Last paragraph under Saving Throws.

 

[Rhenny]

Why does everyone think manoeuvres should be resolved using Contests instead of Saving Throws?

For Contests:

• Paragraph 1, 1st line under Contests.
• 2nd bullet point under Contests.
• 2nd bullet point under Saving Throws.

For Saving Throws:

• Paragraph 1, 2nd line under Contests.
• 1st bullet point under Contests.
• 3rd bullet point under Contests.
• 1st & 2nd paragraphs under Saving Throws.
• 1st & 3rd bullet points under Saving Throws.
• Last paragraph under Saving Throws.

I would think that most of the time to make it quicker and easier the DM should just set a DC (based on the monster's abilities). If it is ever a situation where it is a player vs. player you'd want to use a contest (rare if ever in my games).

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think basic combat maneuvers should be available to everyone, and be generally worse than attacking. This is already almost present in the playtest rules, with contests (STR vs. STR for push, STR vs. DEX for trip, DEX vs. DEX for disarm, etc.).

Fighters should then be able to take something that makes combat maneuvers a viable tactical option--whether that's 4e style "damage + effect" powers, or 3e style increased bonus to combat maneuver rolls, or something new.

 

[erleni]

I'd like to see 4e style maneuvers or Tome of Battle Warblade stuff.