The case against Combat Superiority

[timASW]

I like the CS dice as is well enough for any martial class. But I agree that it might be nicer to have the characters have a bigger pool and make them encounter recharge so that they function like a stamina system.

Maybe let characters take a round and go totally defensive to get their wind back and regain a dice mid fight if neccesary but other then that let them recharge after fights.

I would also not make them the ONLY way to do things like trip, bullrush, etc though. Just a way to do those things while also hitting the foe. But if you want to just bullrush someone off a bridge or something you should be able to attempt that within the written rules without using a CS dice.

 

[triqui]

See, I disagree because the exertion of physical combat naturally lends itself to encounter-based resources. Slap a label such as 'stamina points' onto the resource you're spending and I think it would be generally supported

I think it won't be generally supported. It'll be supported by 4e fans, and some 3e fans, but not widely supported by people who dislike 4e.

If you make the fighter to have, say, 5 stamina points to spend in a encounter, and trip, cleave, and parry cost you 1, what does forbid you to do "Trip-trip-trip-trip-trip" in a given encounter, and "cleave-cleave-cleave-cleave-cleave" in other encounter, and "parry-parry-parry-parry-parry" in a third one?
The only difference you have, compared to CS, is that you are limited to 5 (or 7, or whatever number of "stamina" points you have). This only makes fighter weaker in long fights, and have no effect in average and short fights.

To "force" a fighter to use trip-cleave-parry in every combat, you need a "encounter spell list", so once the resource is used, you can´t take it again. But people who find it "dissociative" will cry and shout to WotC for doing such.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Oh, I like the idea of somehow being able to build up dice. I'm not sure of the narrative explanation for it, but the idea of "round 1 kill a mook, round 2 kill a mook, round 3 flip off the railing, land amid 8 mooks, whirlwind attack, grab one dead body and throw it at the main boss" appeals to me.

I prefer the idea of the Rogue building up dice as he studies his target, but the Fighter can over-spend his dice and spend the next few rounds recovering.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Although I don't have a problem with the system as is, here's how one could possibly alter it to allow for more variety of resources. Divide combat abilities into three categories: maneuvers, tricks and stunts(feats would fit better, but alas, that's already taken). All three use CS dice.

Maneuvers can be used at will as presented. No change, other than perhaps the refreshing at the end of the turn suggestion presented earlier(which is a really neat and simple change).

Stunts represent taxing abilities that can tire a fighter out, and work out of a common pool like sorcerer spells. Each time you use a stunt, use your CS dice and mark off one stamina point(which increase with level).

Tricks are more like encounter abilities, and represent maneuvers that can catch an opponent by surprise... once. So unlike stunts, tricks are each an independent resource(though they still use CS dice). This would be best for things that bestow status effects, such as tripping(in which case it should maybe be buffed), disarming, dazing(pommel to the face), temporary blinding, etc. If spellcasters gets Save or Die spells, the fighter could get some similar abilities at later levels that would fall under this category(Vorpal Strike, anyone?).

I think that this would be a pretty good addition to what was presented, giving the fighter some potentially powerful options working off of plausibly explainable categories of limitations.

 

[MarkB]

CS is not flexible enough to become a generic physical combat system across multiple classes.

Good. It's the Fighter's schtick, leave it with him. Explore other options for the later martial classes.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Good. It's the Fighter's schtick, leave it with him. Explore other options for the later martial classes.

The Fighter should absolutely have something of his own. However, using completely different mechanics to allow other classes to pull off similar maneuvers is decidedly inelegant.

 

[Vikingkingq]

The Fighter should absolutely have something of his own. However, using completely different mechanics to allow other classes to pull off similar maneuvers is decidedly inelegant.

You know what would be elegant? Different mechanics and different maneuvers for different classes.

 

[Zustiur]

You know what would be elegant? Different mechanics and different maneuvers for different classes.

No, what would be elegant, would be having mechanics and maneuvers for each class that make sense, and weren't put there to conform with some rediculous ideal.
i.e. Don't force 'all must use the same mechanic' and don't force 'all must have individual mechanics'.

Describe what the class should be able to do, then come up with mechanics to mimic that as best as possible. If that mechanic happens to look like another one, so what?

 

[GX.Sigma]

No, what would be elegant, would be having mechanics and maneuvers for each class that make sense, and weren't put there to conform with some rediculous ideal.
i.e. Don't force 'all must use the same mechanic' and don't force 'all must have individual mechanics'.

I admire this way of thinking, but I think they are dead-set on "all must have individual mechanics," at least for one thing per class. Though check out this post on "multisysteming" from a few months ago:

Suppose that instead of just a superior base attack bonus, we offered the fighter—and none of the other core four classes—an option to enter a subsystem of combat-related abilities. This gives the fighter more of a distinct mechanical identity, and it also gives the fighter more choices of things to do each round.

This also allows us to mix and match the subsystems that are unique to the core four classes. The ranger, for example, could give access to some of the fighter’s subsystem and to some of the rogue’s skill system. The druid could offer both divine spells and skills. These classes would then feel mechanically like blends of two core classes.
...
We have talked about building the paladin with a combination of the cleric’s divine spellcasting and the fighter’s combat abilities, which rings correct to me...

 

[Vikingkingq]

No, what would be elegant, would be having mechanics and maneuvers for each class that make sense, and weren't put there to conform with some rediculous ideal.
i.e. Don't force 'all must use the same mechanic' and don't force 'all must have individual mechanics'.

Describe what the class should be able to do, then come up with mechanics to mimic that as best as possible. If that mechanic happens to look like another one, so what?

Because if the class concepts are distinct, maneuvers that mimic their concepts would also be distinct.