D&D 5E If 5e does maneuvers right, it will add authentic medieval maneuvers

[SKyOdin]

Bah, i've never seen anything I could call historically authentic in any tabletop RPG I have ever played or read, be it rulebook or setting. What D&D calls "medieval fantasy" is all one big horrible mish-mash of poorly understood medieval trappings pasted onto a non-sensical, anachronistic framework of modern nation-states, pseudo-greco-roman polytheism, and a shocking amount of eurocentrism, all held together by the most tenuous of logic.

If there is not even the smallest iota of medieval authenticity in D&D, why the heck should we be expected to have authentic medival combat maneuvers? Particularly when none of those maneuvers were designed to fight dragons! Trying to pretend that D&D settings are anything but pure fantasy is rather silly.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

HARN is probably the most "authentic" I've seen, but even that has some degree of abstraction. True realism is nigh impossible to achieve without a bulky, awkward system that in the end would probably not be that fun to play.

HARN was tedious, thanks to many items of book keeping to constantly adjust skill values (in percentiles), and some 20 hit locations.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

There ARE guns in the core rules: they're called magic.

"Realistically" speaking (and I use the term VERY loosely), a fantasy world in which access to magic is so easy (as most D&D worlds are) would see most everyone ditch heavy armor for essentially the same reasons it was ditched in Europe's Renaissance: heavy armor doesn't protect you against magic AND it impedes on your mobility and agility.

But then again, when you have a system in which the heavier the armor, the better the defense, the point is rather moot...

Did they not say that AC would benefit you vs magic in D&D Next? i.e. instead of of saves, you need to get hit by a magic attack vs your AC (except Magic Missile, obviously)

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Link to an excerpt from Reclaiming the Blade.

I want to see things like the murder-stroke, parries, ripostes, etc. One can only hope.

That would be really cool. Realistic maneuvers could lead to less abstracted combat than previous iterations of D&D, but it doesn't have to.

I think something like this could work:

Choose one maneuver per round. Other combat action occurs during this period but this maneuver is a focus of your efforts.

Beat: When using this maneuver, make an additional "to-hit" roll. If this roll succeeds it does no damage but you receive receive combat advantage next round with regard to one opponent.

Riposte: If an opponent attacks you this round and you hit him by a margin of 5 or more, roll an additional d6 and add to your damage.

... and so on ...

I think this would be mainly a fighter schtick, and higher level fighters could get access to more advanced maneuvers, improvements to base maneuvers, or multiple maneuvers per round.

I do see two difficulties with such a system.

First, available maneuvers should vary significantly by weapon type. I wouldn't really expect to parry with a bow unless I'm playing Legolas. It would be a lot of work to come up with all of the maneuver charts.

Second, some maneuvers wouldn't make sense in all situations. Frex, if a giant swings a club at you, a human just doesn't have the mass to go corps-a-corp. Many real life maneuvers are specifically for blade to blade combat, which is only a part of D&D combat. There would have to be some pretty extensive rules to disallow silly results.

I've also seen a combat system I liked where there was a kind of maneuver map. What maneuvers were available in a current round depended on which ones you had performed last round, and there were a bunch of different trees for different fighting styles.