D&D 5E Legends & Lore Article 4/1/14 (Fighter Maneuvers)

[Balesir]

As for which edition had the 'fakest' combat, I don't think 4e was any worse than 3e.

With the grid and minis out, opportunity attacks flying, proning, flanking, 5' stepping, full attacking – combat in both editions devolved into a complicated, counterintuitive board game – certainly not anything resembling a fantasy simulation of an actual battle.

Totally agree - no edition of D&D has approached anywhere near an accurate simulation of real combat. I sometimes say that 4E is better than 3.x; I would stand by that to a degree, but it is a bit like saying ice hockey is better than golf for simulating basketball...

 

[SkidAce]

Totally agree - no edition of D&D has approached anywhere near an accurate simulation of real combat. I sometimes say that 4E is better than 3.x; I would stand by that to a degree, but it is a bit like saying ice hockey is better than golf for simulating basketball...

Well of course it is...ice hockey is a team sport like basketball and golf is a single player games. Duh!




...hehe...sorry...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd rather call it different outsets. 3e still clings to the story-telling tradition in which words and terms have meaning and can be interpreted.

4e eschews this archaic formula and embraces abstraction. Prone is an abstract term used in the system. It doesn't matter that it sometimes doesn't comply with any real-world reading of the term. It just means a function within the game system.

This change in perspective is a real problem as is illustrated by the infamous discussion relegated to the temporary sub-forum.

I think this is part of where 5e is breaking with what 4e held. It seem to be banking hard into a "terms have meanings in the world" mindset. But it seems to be eschewing 3e's "a rule for everything!" baseline in favor of a more flexible "this is what DMs are for" baseline as well, which bodes better.

 

[Balesir]

Well of course it is...ice hockey is a team sport like basketball and golf is a single player games. Duh!




...hehe...sorry...

Ah, yes - but in golf you aim to put a ball into a sort of "hoop" in the ground, so it's obviously closer!

Um, yeah.

 

[SkidAce]

Ah, yes - but in golf you aim to put a ball into a sort of "hoop" in the ground, so it's obviously closer!

Um, yeah.

nice....

 

[Remathilis]

I think this is part of where 5e is breaking with what 4e held. It seem to be banking hard into a "terms have meanings in the world" mindset. But it seems to be eschewing 3e's "a rule for everything!" baseline in favor of a more flexible "this is what DMs are for" baseline as well, which bodes better.

If this works out, it will be my perfect edition.

 

[ren1999]

I think some martial maneuvers (feats) (escalation dice) (whatever), should have encounter limits.

For example, disarm should be allowed once per encounter.
If the martial character disarms all the monsters, it becomes comical.
I think that we should use the spell slots normally reserved for casting characters, to set the limit of martial feats.

i.e. Disarm Your Opponent costs 1 action and you spend 1 slot on it. In your spell slot section under 1st you have 1/1. After you Disarm, the 1st spell slot becomes 1/0 until you take a rest.

TLDR Martial characters should use slots too for their feats.

 

[Klaus]

I think some martial maneuvers (feats) (escalation dice) (whatever), should have encounter limits.

For example, disarm should be allowed once per encounter.
If the martial character disarms all the monsters, it becomes comical.
I think that we should use the spell slots normally reserved for casting characters, to set the limit of martial feats.

i.e. Disarm Your Opponent costs 1 action and you spend 1 slot on it. In your spell slot section under 1st you have 1/1. After you Disarm, the 1st spell slot becomes 1/0 until you take a rest.

TLDR Martial characters should use slots too for their feats.

Fighter maneuvers *do* have an encounter limit: they're fueled by superiority dice, which the fighter only gets a few (based on the last open packet, you start with 2, and end up with what, 5?). So the Fighter is never going to "disarm all the monsters".

If you give slots to Fighters, we're back to all classes using the same mechanic for their abilities, which was one of the more common complaints levelled against 4E.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fighter maneuvers *do* have an encounter limit: they're fueled by superiority dice, which the fighter only gets a few (based on the last open packet, you start with 2, and end up with what, 5?). So the Fighter is never going to "disarm all the monsters".

I've got a player who regards limited-use martial abilities as doing a violence to their verisimilitude (even on the encounter level), so I'd personally be interested in adopting some of these maneuvers as "baked-in," so that the only limited resource the fighter is spending is the action economy. Though I don't imagine that'd be for everyone. And I don't even imagine it'd be that hard to bake-in, as by the sounds of it, the fighter perhaps spends the dice on damage, not on the manuever per se.

For example, disarm should be allowed once per encounter.
If the martial character disarms all the monsters, it becomes comical.

...or awesome, as the chivalrous knight knows that her enemies want to do the right thing, and disarms them all, giving them a chance to surrender.

y'know, opinions differ.

I think that we should use the spell slots normally reserved for casting characters, to set the limit of martial feats.

While it's not set up that way, it probably wouldn't be hard to translate it into that. Slots are daily resources, but sorcerers and warlocks might give you a model for more encounter-based resources. There's probably some quick math you can do for #dice/slot that will meet your needs.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I've got a player who regards limited-use martial abilities as doing a violence to their verisimilitude (even on the encounter level), so I'd personally be interested in adopting some of these maneuvers as "baked-in," so that the only limited resource the fighter is spending is the action economy. Though I don't imagine that'd be for everyone. And I don't even imagine it'd be that hard to bake-in, as by the sounds of it, the fighter perhaps spends the dice on damage, not on the manuever per se.

Being able to do special maneuvers over and over again goes against my verisimilitude, even with my novice level understanding of sword-fighting, if someone repeatably tried to do the same kind of maneuver many many times in such a short period, I'd catch on after the 3rd or 4th attempt and take steps to avoid that, generally making their attempts far less likely to happen. Even though I'm quite aware the verisimilitude really isn't one thing that one should even go for in the system, given that abstraction and ease of play are also major factors in the game, and it never was meant to be a realistic simulation of anything.