Improvised Combat

[dkyle]

Now you see, basically that isn't cool any more. I have to pass two skill checks (I probably ought to be trained in both) and I get a charge out of it? Not worth it!

Well, yes, you'd probably need to be trained in both. Is that wrong? Isn't that what training should mean? That you're good at doing those kinds of things? And that if you don't have training, you probably shouldn't be doing those sorts of things?

But the DCs needed aren't that high. Is it wise for a 1st level character to do it? Probably not. But why should it be? If someone wants to be good at that sort of stuff, it's not hard to get to the point where the checks automatically succeed.

As for the benefit, I'm not sure what kind of benefit should be expected. It's a +1 to-hit, and possibly other stuff (4E is rife with bonuses on charges). What more should swinging from a chandelier be granting?

Now, hopefully 5E goes in the direction where in fact it's easier to hit the Balor because it's huge and clumsy. The difference being that it won't notice the damage, whereas the kobold would go splat.

"Hitting" has always meant more than simply "make content". Otherwise, heavy armor is completely nonsensical. Making contact is what Touch AC was in 3.X.

It may be easier to make contact with the Balor, but it's a lot harder to do something to him that does real damage.

The silver platter is basically a shield, yes. I guess shields are just a bit lame - they should do more against arrows.

Yeah, they are kind of lame. But a silver platter certainly shouldn't be doing more than a shield.

 

[LostSoul]

What was frustrating about 4E powers in my mind was that they set a bar for doing cool things - do you have a power that slows someone down because you shoot an arrow in their leg? No. Well you can't. If I let you then you won't take the power that does let you do that. I'd rather that most of these maneuvers be available by default rather than by specific choice.

I think D&D combat was, pre-WotC D&D, pretty abstract: 1-minute combat rounds, all weapons dealing 1d6 damage, that sort of thing. In a system that abstract it doesn't really make sense to get into the little details.

3E and 4E did get detailed but, at the same time, kept a lot of the abstraction. Instead of saying what your character does and resolving that action, we have a number of rules "modules" that players choose from - be they feats, special attacks, or powers. These are abstract in the fact that we don't know exactly what the character is doing, but very detailed in how you resolve said action.

So instead of resolving an "improvised" action, players look to see which abstract rules module they want to apply to get the desired effect, and then colour in the details of the action as informed by the rules. Since we aren't asked to think about what the characters are actually doing, but instead what rules to use, we tend not to think about the fictional details that act naturally as a springboard for improvisation.

My thinking is that you should either stick with abstract combat or write a system that resolves the detailed actions characters take in combat without abstraction. In the former case improvisation doesn't matter much (combat is abstract, resolves quickly, and is mostly about resource management); in the latter case, improvisation should take care of itself, since all actions can be considered "improvised".

Resolving detailed improvised actions need not be complicated, though will require someone to make judgement calls at the table.

 

[Hassassin]

I suggest that the key principle ought to be 'the more significant an outcome you want, the more difficult it is' - with limits determined only by the DM.

Tying difficulty to outcome is, IMO, the primary reason the 4e chart on page 42 is annoyingly fiction breaking. Just because the player wants his character to attempt something that you feel is difficult (so you choose a higher DC), the attempt shouldn't deal more damage.

Now if it is possible to make it work one way, but not the other... It may be a good idea. For example, the standard for stunts might be one rider per 5 points. You swing the chandelier, beat the DC by five and the DM tells you you get a free attempt at either bull rush or trip. However, the base DC should still be up to the DM to decide based on the action and environment.

 

[Mattachine]

Tying difficulty to outcome is, IMO, the primary reason the 4e chart on page 42 is annoyingly fiction breaking. Just because the player wants his character to attempt something that you feel is difficult (so you choose a higher DC), the attempt shouldn't deal more damage.

Now if it is possible to make it work one way, but not the other... It may be a good idea. For example, the standard for stunts might be one rider per 5 points. You swing the chandelier, beat the DC by five and the DM tells you you get a free attempt at either bull rush or trip. However, the base DC should still be up to the DM to decide based on the action and environment.

The DM isn't obligated to choose a high DC and higher damage. Those are guidelines. In addition, at higher levels, characters usually have options that are better than improvisation--it might be trivial for a high-level swashbuckler to swing across a chandelier and kick someone, but that same character will likely have a better move-and-attack attack already available.

In any case, it seems I am about the only one who bought and read the 4e DMG2. It's a shame, because it's a great book, and it included some things that were better than in the initial 4e release. I hope the new edition learns two lessons:

1. Don't rush a product out, and then release your refined rules 18 months later.
2. Provide guidelines for improvised combat, including possibly a chart (p.42) and examples (DMG2).

 

[Buugipopuu]

Now, hopefully 5E goes in the direction where in fact it's easier to hit the Balor because it's huge and clumsy. The difference being that it won't notice the damage, whereas the kobold would go splat.

Balors aren't clumsy. They have Dex 25.

 

[billd91]

If I tell the player that he needs to use Athletics for grabbing the chandelier, then Acrobatics for swinging, and Acrobatics for landing, then an attack roll. I've just made it completely unlikely that he'll succeed or even worse attempt the action. I just crushed the campaign expectation (swashbuckling) at the altar of "verisimilitude."

If on the other hand I make the entire action one roll, for example an Acrobatics check against the creatures Reflex, I've just encouraged the player to not only attempt the action but also given him a likely chance to succeed. By doing it this way I also took into account the skill of the opposition because the defense is tied to the creatures combat capabilities. So I'm back to the swashbuckling campaign expectation.

I'm not sure that's entirely within the expectations of the swashbuckling campaign. I'd recommend watching The Three Musketeers from 1973. Early on, d'Artagnan (played by Michael York) tries to buckle his swash and has some spectacular failures. I think the possibility of entertaining failure should be in there. I would recommend two die rolls - one for the fancy maneuver and one for the attack. That allows for two different sets of failure results - failure at the fancy roll and failure at the attack if successful the maneuver.

Frankly, I would generally recommend that the attack roll nearly always be separate from any maneuver roll. Swinging from a chandelier really should be a different process from stabbing the enemy.

 

[Derren]

Imo there should be no rules at all for combat stunts. Because either they end up too weak and no one uses them or they are too strong and everyone tried to do them every time.
And while I am not to keen on stunts in general, prefering a more gritty combat, I don't think that others who do like such stunts would be very happy when the players only use them after number crunching the advantage they get.

The DMG should have a small passage on combat stunts and general suggestion on how to reward them, but there should be no hard rules.