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

[jadrax]

I am pretty keen on allowing free manoeuvres on a crit.

So while you can attempt a Disarm Weapon attack, it will be very very hard to pull of. On a crit however, you can choose to automatically Disarm your opponent instead of doing max damage.

That is obviously just the basis and it would need refinement in terms of mechanics, but the general idea is that you do get to do cool things in combat, but you really have to wait for an opening to do so rather than repeatedly trying to spam a manoeuvre.

 

[Lalato]

I like what Stalker0 is cooking up there. Tricks as an offshoot of advantage/disadvantage is simple and easy to implement. Anyone can do it, but I would require that in order to pull off a trick an attack roll or opposed check is required. Either that or limit it to Melee.

Think of that as the wizard does not get to disarm at will with magic missile rule.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think that special maneuvers ought to be optional attacks, available to anyone, which you choose because certain circumstances make them preferable to just dealing damage. Here's my suggested list of options:

Knockdown (strength vs. strength to knock prone)
Bullrush (strength vs. strength to push according to difference in rolls)
Trip (dexterity vs. dexterity to knock prone)
Lure (dexterity vs. dexterity to pull according to difference in rolls)
Disarm (attack vs. attack to disarm, sunder or shield break if the difference is high enough)
Grab (not sure vs. not sure to immobilise)
Dodge (as rules)

Available through feats:
Parry (opposed attack roll as reaction)
Interpose Shield (as rules)
Feint (to gain advantage on attacks)

Also note that Fighters will be able to 'improved trip' because they have action surge. Pretty cool!

 

[Gundark]

To me whenever you allow these options always have the issue that in certain situations one is better, and in another the other is better. Its not choice so much as recognition of which option to use.

Instead, I would prefer that a fighter is always going for a little extra, but can only do it in specific situations. Here are a couple of ideas for disarm and trip.


Option 1: Whenever a fighter has advantage on an attack, he can choose to lose advantage. If he hits, in addition to the damage, he can also attempt a disarm or trip attack.

Option 2: Whenever a fighter crits, he can choose one of the following options in addition to normal crit damage:

1) Disarm the target
2) Trip the target
3) Add +1d6 extra damage.

I like the direction that you are going , a lot better than this ridiculous CMD concept . I like the idea of doing other stuff in addition to an attack . The problem is that with a lot of games its a better option to always attack than to trip, disarm , etc . I like the idea of doing a maneuver and still getting an attack at a penalty.

 

[Minigiant]

1.) How should combat maneuvers be resolved? Should they be modified attacks, a unique stat (something like CMB/CMD in Pathfinder), or some form of power/feat/ability?

Ability checks vs the target's ability score or AC. One roll.

d20 + Strength Mod vs Strength Score to knockdown.

2.) Should they be limited to fighters, fightery-types, or open to all? If the latter, should fighters get bonuses to be the "best" at them?

Everyone gets access to them. Fighters get bonuses to the actions. Warrior types might get smaller or less universal bonuses. Themes could add more bonuses.

Fighters get +3 to combat maneuvers.
Rangers get +2 to the combat maneuvers to their combat style.
Monks get +3 to unarmed combat maneuvers.

3.) Should they be part of an attack (do damage + trip) or replace the damage?

Replace damage.

4.) How is the best way to resist the effects? Contests? Checks? Saving Throws? or something else?

Make it One roll. Use AC or Full ability score.

5.) Should they be a managed resource (you can use X combat maneuvers per day), be encounter-based (you can trip a foe once per encounter) or be spammable at-will?

Spammable but require conditions when sensible. You can't do them if fatigued. And advanced maneuvers fatigue the user.

 

[YRUSirius]

I like what I'm reading.

I'm coming to the conclusion that currently D&D Next has ALL the rulings needed to handle combat maneuvers.

Everyone can improvise actions. Combat maneuvers fall into that category.

Say you want to trip someone: Because you're attacking an armed enemy with your weapon you make an attack contest. If you win the contest his weapon goes flying.



I especially like the notion of buying additional actions with disadvantage. See reloading for the heavy crossbow: you can reload the crossbow and attack with it with the same action if you impose a disadvantage onto the attack.

Savage Worlds does something similiar: you do more stuff in 1 round but you get penalties on the additional actions.

I would allow buying additional maneuvers with disadvantage so a fighter could try to damage an enemy AND disarm him with the same action. Nice opportunity cost. This is how I'd handle maneuvers.

Higher level class features could grant maneuver features so a guardian might get advantage on actions that try to trip or push opponents (think shield bash). If a guardian would try to damage and trip an opponent with the same action he would lose his advantage but he could still try to do both things. I llllllllllllllike it.


-YRUSirius

 

[vectner]

This is what I am loving about the direction of Next, people are thinking and being creative. The core mechanics are solid enough to build any kind of combat system the DM wants to have at his table. They don't need to write a rule for every possible maneuver, a player can invent one at the spur of the moment and the DM just needs to decide what contest ie. STR Vs DEX, would work best in that situation.

I think the best thing they could do is give a small list of example maneuvers (Trip, Bull Rush, Disarm . . .) so DMs and players get an idea of how to start coming up with their own.

 

[Rhenny]

This is what I am loving about the direction of Next, people are thinking and being creative. The core mechanics are solid enough to build any kind of combat system the DM wants to have at his table. They don't need to write a rule for every possible maneuver, a player can invent one at the spur of the moment and the DM just needs to decide what contest ie. STR Vs DEX, would work best in that situation.

I think the best thing they could do is give a small list of example maneuvers (Trip, Bull Rush, Disarm . . .) so DMs and players get an idea of how to start coming up with their own.

I'm with you on this. It is fluid and seamless.

WoTC should include in the basic rules an optional section with some examples of combat that shows how players "improvise" maneuvers. That will help newer DMs and players. I love reading all of the playtest reports just to see how players improvise maneuvers and how DMs rule them. To me, it seems like a great way to teach the game.

In addition, Fighters will automatically gain advantages as they level, because they have "surge" so they will be able to do a maneuver and then attack. They can knock the foe prone and then attack, etc. They can parry (using an action in advance as an interrupt) and if they have surge they can attack the next round.

I think sticking with the core mechanics makes combat fast, fluid and it will encourage immersion. People will not have to remember specialized rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Anything but option four

 

[Abstruse]

As opposed rolls.

I don't want CMB and I don't want CMD. Rolling a Strength vs Strength check when attempting a bull rush or a Charisma vs Wisdom check when attempting to feint is simple and efficient. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

I like CMB and CMD in Pathfinder. Having said that, I think this probably a better way to handle it, with a list of guidelines for the DM to use for specific actions and slightly more leeway in what attributes are rolled - for example, if you have a character like Sherlock Holmes as presented in the Ritchy/Downey Jr. films, a feint would be a Cha vs. Int roll since he analyses combat rather than just reacting to it. Something like that could be a class or background feature, though. But there should be some room for player descriptions and DM interpretation like the current playtest rules for escaping a grapple (powering out is Strength-based, while wriggling free is Dexterity-based).