Touch attacks: is it just me..?

[woodelf]

I'm curious...in your opinion, does speed trump everything else? That is to say, in most situations, do you see the swift, lightly armed fighter as winning more often than other concepts (and I'm talking conceptually, here, not based on an individual game's mechanics)? Or do you simply feel that the mechanics of D&D suffer from too much 'bonus inflation' for any mechanic, whether it be the specialized zwei-hander barbarian, 'turtled-up' melee tank or the deft, swift rapier battler?

Nope. I see the swift, precise warrior as being just as viable as the slow, powerful one--i don't think the game should favor either mechanically, if they are equally maximized. [realistically, one may be preferable, at least at a given technology level--i really don't know. But if you look at the lit of the genre, there's a Grey Mouser for every Conan.] And i don't think the bonuses are too big in D&D--i think the die roll is too big. Or maybe the raw stats (skills, BAB, etc.) are too small. I'd *prefer it* if a 10th level character was simply untouchable by 1st-level character, at least in her area of expertise. If the very poorest attack roll the Ftr10 could make (perhaps excepting fumbles) was better than the very best attack roll the Ftr1 could make--even with the circumstances heavily in the Ftr1's favor. (I'd also like it if, say, the worst spellcasting-related roll a focused wizard could make was better than the best attack roll she could make.)

IMHO, the problem with initiative as it stands is that it has so little effect--i don't want it to trump power, just be a viable alternative. As i see it, you can't under the current rules make a swashbuckler who's as effective as a tank--sure, you get to go first in every combat ('cause you've jacked up your init bonus), but after the first round this basically doesn't matter, and you don't get to strike any more times than the tank, and you do less damage when you do hit. The less damage thing is part of the archetype--but it's "supposed" to be a tradeoff for better accuracy and/or more attacks. And since D&D doesn't differentiate the two combat styles in most other areas, a lot of the things that might give the swashbuckler a leg-up (weapon focus, improved crit) make just as much conceptual sense for the tank.

 

[hong]

ramble ramble ramble

IMHO, the problem with initiative as it stands is that it has so little effect

You know, I've said to you twice now that this is nonsense. Cease and desist, or I will be forced to use harsh language.

 

[WizarDru]

I'd *prefer it* if a 10th level character was simply untouchable by 1st-level character, at least in her area of expertise. If the very poorest attack roll the Ftr10 could make (perhaps excepting fumbles) was better than the very best attack roll the Ftr1 could make--even with the circumstances heavily in the Ftr1's favor. (I'd also like it if, say, the worst spellcasting-related roll a focused wizard could make was better than the best attack roll she could make.)

Well, here I think you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too. The genre is also full of plenty of scenes in which just such a scenario occurs, that is that the 'one in a million' strike defeats or wounds the otherwise unstoppable foe. The natural 20 models this, to some effect. You also get a completely different problem, that of verisimilitude going right out the window. If the only way a 10th level fighter can be touched by 80-90% of mankind is for him to fumble or be asleep, then you've got a completely different problem, IMHO.

As i see it, you can't under the current rules make a swashbuckler who's as effective as a tank--sure, you get to go first in every combat ('cause you've jacked up your init bonus), but after the first round this basically doesn't matter, and you don't get to strike any more times than the tank, and you do less damage when you do hit. The less damage thing is part of the archetype--but it's "supposed" to be a tradeoff for better accuracy and/or more attacks. And since D&D doesn't differentiate the two combat styles in most other areas, a lot of the things that might give the swashbuckler a leg-up (weapon focus, improved crit) make just as much conceptual sense for the tank.

Well, see here's the thing: I don't think you're envisioning your swashbuckler correctly, under the rules. A couple of thoughts:

Your goal seems to work to two different ends: that of a swift fighter, and that of a precise fighter.

A swift fighter will do less damage, and emphasize both mobility and speed. You correctly suss that, from a movement perspective, D&D does not favor this character in respect of hitting more often, which I was I think you're really talking about with initiative issues. You need to dissassociate these concepts. A swift fighter will have light or no armor, a high DEX, will use things such as Dodge, Quick Draw, Run, Spring Attack and Tumble to move about the battlefield. He may have two weapon fighting and weapon finesse, so that he can strike more often. He will do less damage than the barbarian with the two handed-weapon or the fighter with the flail and shield. By design, as those opponents cannot keep up with his mobility. This type of fighter needs to utilize the environment to his advantage, and deny his opponents the benefit of thiers. The fighter and barbarian's greatest advantage in this scenario are their superior BAB...but if have to move around to get you, they sacrifice iterative attacks. Keep that in mind, we'll return to it in a second.

A precise fighter is one that strikes hard with a relatively light weapon...his goal is to deliver a penetrating attack that badly wounds his foe, and owes it to his mastery of his weapon and where the deliver the blows to do the most damage. Such a fighter is not as concerned with moving around, merely with meteing out damage as effectively as possible. He would choose feats like Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and, of course, Weapon Finesse or Power Attack, depending on his weapon of choice. More importantly, he takes a few levels of rogue (for sneak attack damage), and master the art of Feint (and Improved Feint), and takes feats like Expertise.

I personally think that the disconnect is that you're thinking a little too linearly about how to construct a combatant effectively enough. Consider that a well designed fighter/rogue, ranger/rogue or barbarian/rogue can achieve the design you're looking for, and is a completely viable contender to the brute or the tank...moreover, they can much more versatile.

Now, let's return to that iterative attack idea and the initiative's value. I mentioned above (in a prior post) how significant Init is in both early and late levels...let's return to that, now. You mention that you don't see Init ats meaningful, and show that by explaining that you might get the first hit...in a 'so what?' implied response. I think that misses a major factor, particularly of high-level battles, but true all around: he who starts the battle, sets it's tone. If the deep-wood sniper leads off the battle and does over a hundred points of damage in the suprise or first round to one character, you've suddenly been put on the defensive. The whole party's tactics change. If the enemy sorceror puts a wall of force around the fighters, or casts a prismatic spray that turns the cleric to stone...you're in reactive mode. The cleric suddenly drops that dimensional anchor to cast a heal, or the wizard suddenly decides to 5' step and Dim Door to safety, removing a big gun from the battle.

This ties into the mobile fighter concept in the denial of Full Attack options. The mobile fighter only goes to his opponent when he can deal a killing blow, take adavantage of a weakness or dash-in and bounce out. If the enemy warrior has to run 60' to reach the mobile figher, he's sacrificed his best ability, iterative attacks. The mobile fighter steps in, attacks, and then retreats, possibly setting up for AoOs. That's what he does. Remember, D&D 3E pretty much makes it that a higher-level fighter or monster rarely misses on the first hit. After that, it gets much dicier. Add effects like Power Attack, and you can see that it doesn't actually get as good for the heavy hitter as it first appears. Folks have run the numbers for that two-handed power-attacking barbarian in other threads, for example: power-attack doesn't always benefit him, because of the loss to his attack bonus on the iterative attacks. Extra damage is meaningless if it doesn't actually get dealt.

Now, you may contend that the D&D 3e doesn't mold itself to a swashbuckling style, as much. This is true. The design of combat is not meant to simulate what you're after. However, I would point you to Dragon Magazine a few months ago, where a set of feats for actual parrying and more swashbuckling swordplay was introduced. This would probably give you the options you're looking for to make an effective Dumas'-esque rapier fighter who could stand toe-to-toe in single combat with Conan.

You might also consider GURPS for a more realistic combat model, but I'd give you two warnings about it: one, it is a very gritty, realistic system with a higher level of lethality about such things and two, the system, which is about what you're looking for in terms of design, tends to favor a single combat option, specifically the high-skilled parry fighter. We literally had a session where two master swordsman fought for thirty minutes (real-time) in a duel, and neither one managed to land a single strike. The actual combat only lasted about 20-30 seconds of game-time (1 round=1 sec.). It was mnay things, but the fun factor started to bleed out by round 10. YMMV.

 

[woodelf]

Well, here I think you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too. The genre is also full of plenty of scenes in which just such a scenario occurs, that is that the 'one in a million' strike defeats or wounds the otherwise unstoppable foe. The natural 20 models this, to some effect. You also get a completely different problem, that of verisimilitude going right out the window. If the only way a 10th level fighter can be touched by 80-90% of mankind is for him to fumble or be asleep, then you've got a completely different problem, IMHO.

Note that you said "one in a million"--not "one in twenty". The problem is that the system errs, IMHO, too far in the direction of making things common, and thus un-special. Now, if the die roll was open-ended, that'd be great (roll a 20, roll again and add), 'cause then you could have those 1-in-10000 chances, and the like. Right now, it's pretty much 5%, or 0--nothing in between. So if it's possible at all, it's fairly frequent, in the grand scheme of things. [i suppose you could argue that there is support in the following sense: say a creature has DR20, and the person attacking does d8+5, and needs a 20 to hit. The odds of actually doing damage would then be ~.09%, which is a reasonably small number. It'd also be a horrible combat to actually play through, unless the creature also only had 5 or 10 hps.]

Now, i accept that such long odds need to be less-long for RPG purposes--you're not gonna make a million attack rolls against Great Wyrm dragons during your entire RPing career, so one-in-a-million odds may as well be zero. But you still need something a fair bit rarer than 5% for those long-shot odds. Heck, i probably make 20 rolls in a single session--and i'm sure the group, in aggregate, does--so 5% means it's gonna come up at least every night, on average. Hardly fits the trope of "one-in-a-million."

Well, see here's the thing: I don't think you're envisioning your swashbuckler correctly, under the rules. A couple of thoughts:

Your goal seems to work to two different ends: that of a swift fighter, and that of a precise fighter.

Yes, and no. That is, i'm aware that those are two distinct things, but i think they go together, in terms of archetypes. I'm thinking of the swashbuckler/fencer, martial artist, maybe knife fighter--they use a combination of precision and mobility/speed to get the job done, rather than just raw force. That said, i see your points--some of what you suggest, i *hadn't* thought of, or didn't think of interpreting it that way. Other parts i disagree with (on which more below).

A swift fighter will do less damage, and emphasize both mobility and speed. You correctly suss that, from a movement perspective, D&D does not favor this character in respect of hitting more often, which I was I think you're really talking about with initiative issues.

Sort of. I want some sort of difference between the guy with high init and the guy with low. With the cyclic init, the advantage disappears after the first round. That advantage could be more attacks (it's how i'm currently tackling it in one system). It could be having a real advantage to going first (such as actions/conditions lasting to the end of the round, or end of the next round, rather than until your initiative count on the next round). Even having strict declarations would be an improvement and give the high-init guy some advantage (that is, the person with the lowest init declares what she's going to do, then the next-lowest, and so on, up to the highest, so that the fastest person gets to plan based on what everyone else is doing, to simulate faster reaction time). I'm sure there are others i'm not thinking of right now, or have never thought of. So, more attacks isn't the only solution, but it is my favorite (reverse-order declarations are a pain in the butt; variable-length conditions gets a bit wonky from both a verissimilitude standpoint and a balance standpoint).

You need to dissassociate these concepts. A swift fighter will have light or no armor, a high DEX, will use things such as Dodge, Quick Draw, Run, Spring Attack and Tumble to move about the battlefield. He may have two weapon fighting and weapon finesse, so that he can strike more often. He will do less damage than the barbarian with the two handed-weapon or the fighter with the flail and shield. By design, as those opponents cannot keep up with his mobility. This type of fighter needs to utilize the environment to his advantage, and deny his opponents the benefit of thiers. The fighter and barbarian's greatest advantage in this scenario are their superior BAB...but if have to move around to get you, they sacrifice iterative attacks. Keep that in mind, we'll return to it in a second.

um, did i miss something? If you're moving, you don't get multiple attacks either--and that means no point to TWF. Even with Spring Attack, you can't run in, hit with both hands, and then run out.

A precise fighter is one that strikes hard with a relatively light weapon...his goal is to deliver a penetrating attack that badly wounds his foe, and owes it to his mastery of his weapon and where the deliver the blows to do the most damage. Such a fighter is not as concerned with moving around, merely with meteing out damage as effectively as possible. He would choose feats like Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and, of course, Weapon Finesse or Power Attack, depending on his weapon of choice. More importantly, he takes a few levels of rogue (for sneak attack damage), and master the art of Feint (and Improved Feint), and takes feats like Expertise.

This is the character that, IMHO, is warped by the rules. Specifically, sneak attack damage is really a mobility thing, mechanically, not a precision thing. You don't get sneak attack damage for having a good hit, or high BAB, or antyhing like that, you get it for outmaneuvering your opponent, catching her by surprise. IOW, it conceptually supports the swift fighter you talk about above. Also, i don't think this is the character concept i've been envisioning--this sounds like an archer, not a swashbuckler.

I personally think that the disconnect is that you're thinking a little too linearly about how to construct a combatant effectively enough. Consider that a well designed fighter/rogue, ranger/rogue or barbarian/rogue can achieve the design you're looking for, and is a completely viable contender to the brute or the tank...moreover, they can much more versatile.

Hmmm...maybe. Not familiar enough with all the details to really demonstrate this or counter it. Conceptually, it bugs me, mind you--it's yet another case where the rogue is being used as a "dirty fighter", rather than a deceiver or skillmonkey. But that's another rant, so never mind.

Anyway, back on topic: i'm not a super-expert with D&D3E, but i'm going to toss out an example from soemone who shoul be: Monte Cook seems to think that the system as written doesn't support the light fighter, as evidenced by both his inclusion of the unfettered class in AU, and the ways in which it behaves that no PH class (or multiclass) can mimic.

Now, let's return to that iterative attack idea and the initiative's value. I mentioned above (in a prior post) how significant Init is in both early and late levels...let's return to that, now. You mention that you don't see Init ats meaningful, and show that by explaining that you might get the first hit...in a 'so what?' implied response. I think that misses a major factor, particularly of high-level battles, but true all around: he who starts the battle, sets it's tone. If the deep-wood sniper leads off the battle and does over a hundred points of damage in the suprise or first round to one character, you've suddenly been put on the defensive. The whole party's tactics change. If the enemy sorceror puts a wall of force around the fighters, or casts a prismatic spray that turns the cleric to stone...you're in reactive mode. The cleric suddenly drops that dimensional anchor to cast a heal, or the wizard suddenly decides to 5' step and Dim Door to safety, removing a big gun from the battle.

OK, this i can't argue with. I haven't run into it much, but i see what you're talking about. In short, good tactics, combined with getting the first strike in, can make a significant difference. But, wouldn't surprise rounds be just as effective, even if you lose initiative? As is, because of the highly random nature of init, you can't assure that result, except by getting the advantage of surprise, anyway.

I understand what you're talking about with setting the tone of the battle. Just that in my D&D3E experience, it wasn't necessarily the side that won initiative that got to set the tone. Often the deciding factor didn't happen until the 2nd or 3rd round, and it could be either side that does it. But i can see what you're saying that, often, the mechanics will essentially let the side with initiative do that tone-setting, if they're careful--especially at higher levels.

This ties into the mobile fighter concept in the denial of Full Attack options. The mobile fighter only goes to his opponent when he can deal a killing blow, take adavantage of a weakness or dash-in and bounce out. If the enemy warrior has to run 60' to reach the mobile figher, he's sacrificed his best ability, iterative attacks. The mobile fighter steps in, attacks, and then retreats, possibly setting up for AoOs. That's what he does.

I agree ,conceptually: dash in, attack, dash out. Problem is, the freezeframe init system means that it doesn't matter how fast you are--no Spring Attack, no dash-in-and-out. I was particularly frustrated by this because it makes a classic strategy of the cinema impossible: rush in, piss off the [dumb] bad guy, then back pedal, staying just out of reach, in order to taunt/lead her into a trap of some sort. Because of the timing, my choices are: (1) rush in and bash (on my turn), get bashed (on her turn), bash and retreat (on my turn), or (2) rush in and out (on my turn)--which doesn't provide any incentive for the enemy to follow, 'cause she can already see where i'm going. In short, the strategic feint is essentially impossible, unless you have Spring Attack (at least lvl6 for the monk). In short, i agree that that's what the mobile fighter does, but i think you're glossing over the difficulty of actually creating such a character, especially at low levels.

Remember, D&D 3E pretty much makes it that a higher-level fighter or monster rarely misses on the first hit. After that, it gets much dicier. Add effects like Power Attack, and you can see that it doesn't actually get as good for the heavy hitter as it first appears. Folks have run the numbers for that two-handed power-attacking barbarian in other threads, for example: power-attack doesn't always benefit him, because of the loss to his attack bonus on the iterative attacks. Extra damage is meaningless if it doesn't actually get dealt.

Now, you may contend that the D&D 3e doesn't mold itself to a swashbuckling style, as much. This is true. The design of combat is not meant to simulate what you're after. However, I would point you to Dragon Magazine a few months ago, where a set of feats for actual parrying and more swashbuckling swordplay was introduced. This would probably give you the options you're looking for to make an effective Dumas'-esque rapier fighter who could stand toe-to-toe in single combat with Conan.

Which just aggravates the problem, IMHO. Forcing someone to take a bunch of feats to play a swashbuckler is, IMHO, just adding insult to injury. You don't have to take any feats to play an effective tank (just have a high Str and Con). This particular trade off--power vs. mobility--should be better handled by the basic combat rules, IMHO.

You might also consider GURPS for a more realistic combat model, but I'd give you two warnings about it: one, it is a very gritty, realistic system with a higher level of lethality about such things and two, the system, which is about what you're looking for in terms of design, tends to favor a single combat option, specifically the high-skilled parry fighter. We literally had a session where two master swordsman fought for thirty minutes (real-time) in a duel, and neither one managed to land a single strike. The actual combat only lasted about 20-30 seconds of game-time (1 round=1 sec.). It was mnay things, but the fun factor started to bleed out by round 10. YMMV.

Funny you should mention that. I just pulled out my copy of GURPS a couple of days ago, specifically to read the advanced combat rules for ideas. Anyway, GURPS is even more complex, and thus even less desirable to me. I want *less* number-crunching, and *less* mechanical detail--i was reasonably satisfied with the non-tactical AD&D2 combat rules (while they also didn't support this archetype, at least they were less of a pain in general, and combats required less thought and usually went faster).

Now, long drawn-out fights between master swordsmen, especially fencing-style, are very cool--but only if they have the tactical livelihood of te one duel from The Princess Bride. IOW, a 30rd fight in which each combatant used 10 or 12 different strategies (each for a couple of blows), would be interesting. I haven't seen a system yet that supports that, however. Also, at least in GURPS, the fight could easily be over in one blow--30 rds to land a blow is acceptable if, as i said, thefight is interesting as well as suspenseful, and that pretty much decides the fight. If it were D&D style, where it's gonna take you several blows--possibly dozens--to decide the fight (much less end it), then you want to hit every time, more or less.

Oh, and from a cinematic standpoint, favoring the swashbuckler is no better--the complaint would switch to "i want to play Conan--Conan doesn't parry, Conan doesn't work for advantage, he just cleaves right through the guy's defense".

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I have mostly played in levels 1-9 and I think initiative bonus is very important for high offense low defense characters, but negotiable for others. It is less important in larger parties where spellcasters are better protected and wounded fighters will have a safe zone to retreat into.

It can be very bad news for the archer, Rogue or Wizard if the bad guys take the fight to them. Very bad.

In a recent game session, the Rogue (who mysteriously lacks Improved Initiative) got taken down to 2 HPs from full halfway through round 1 because of poor initiative. He did not have a chance to move out of the Fireball Attraction Zone (where PCs were clustered up). A Fireball, a Lightning Bolt and one bad save later, and he was lucky to be alive when his first round initiative came up. If he had Improved Initiative, he could have moved to a safer perch AND gotten a low risk Sneak Attack in the bargain.

A grunt or Cleric can weather the first round if they are designed for the task. Middling level grunts don't care all that much; they probably get their iterative attacks as compensation for getting hit first. But this picture changes radically as more spellpower enters the picture.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

To get back one step:

I think that dex ist overall much more important than str.

First of all, str is a dumping stat for a few classes: extremly so for sorc and wiz. They hardly profit from str at all! But rogue, bards and rangers or fighters who specialize in ranged combat can do very well with low str. High str does help a lot if you're a melee fighting type. Adds to attacks and damage there. But thats all! Carrying capacity is of no importance any more when the party gains their first bag of holding. In our campains this s about level 4-6 at the latest. If you rely on str rather than on dex you'll have to wear heavy armor for AC. But if you do so you'll be almost unable to use the skills tied to str properly! Climb or jump? No need to even mention swim...
In sum: the only real point in str ist melee attack an damage.

Dex OTOH is important to virtually everyone. Of course for the archers and rogues but also for dual-wielders. Sorcs and wizs who want to keep the "ranged touch option" also will favor a higher dex. Then there's the ref save which is important to everyone. One point difference may very well mean that you don't have/have to take a lot of damage. Same with AC. There's even a dex-based skill which is important (maybe) for all: ride. And of course there's the Initiative. With a capital "I". Its almost always decisive in our games who wins the init even at lower levels. "first to act = last to stand" - thats true more often that its not. If you happen to be in charging range of a barb as a wiz and HE wins init, you're in dire problems. With a little luck on the barbs side you're done without a chance to act at all. If YOU win init instead this same barb is charmed or even dominated; both scenarios did actually happen in our games. Init is EXTREMLY important and everything that increases it is of great value.

Just for the records: I don't think that its a good Idea to give even more power to dex.

Kodam

 

[WizarDru]

Note that you said "one in a million"--not "one in twenty".

Well, truthfully, in my mind, the archetype would be closer to that 1st level fighter getting a critical against the 10th level fighter, which would require 2 natural 20s, but your point is taken. However, as is being discussed in another thread, the relation between fiction, cinema and game should not be drawntoo closely, as there are necessary differences. But that's another argument. I think this is an example of where an action/hero point system would be a better model, perhaps.

Sort of. I want some sort of difference between the guy with high init and the guy with low. With the cyclic init, the advantage disappears after the first round.

Understood...but how would you address the counter-problem this would generate? That is to say, if high-init charaters are so favored, how do the low-init characters survive? This would essentially force everyone to make DEX their secondary stat, if not their primary. If the wizard, druid and cleric are always penalized unless they have a high DEX, you're going to start seeing a generalized move towards speed, and now the tank and brute archetypes become far less desirable. Which isn't to say that such a system couldn't be implemented, just that you should account for the changes...as much as the monk might need some buffing up, this wouldn't be my preference. Your idea also would reward the archer, who already has a high dex. Enhancing the melee DEX fighter inadvertantly benefits the ranged one, as well, further weakening the melee STR fighter, IMHO.

um, did i miss something? If you're moving, you don't get multiple attacks either--and that means no point to TWF. Even with Spring Attack, you can't run in, hit with both hands, and then run out.

Sure you can. From the SRD: "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." Even with a BAB under 5, you can make the extra attack, and you don't need a full attack action to do so. The disadvantage is that HUGE penalties involved, making it a potentially poor choice. Without the feats, it's -6/-10 when doing the attack, unless you're using light weapons, in which case it's -4/-8. With the TWF feat, it becomes -4/-4 or -2/-2 with TWF AND a light weapon.

Running in, slashing with cutlass and dagger and then backing away is EXACTLY what this is designed to do. A normal fighter could get this ability by 5th or 6th level, iirc. A ranger certainly could do this and get improved two weapon fighting at 6th, I believe.

This is the character that, IMHO, is warped by the rules. Specifically, sneak attack damage is really a mobility thing, mechanically, not a precision thing.

I would disagree. Conceptually, it's meant to represent a strike to the vitals when they're unguarded. Again, from the SRD: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." You see the 'unable to defend himself' clause as the emphasis, I see the 'vital spot' as the more relevant. You could argue it is both with merit, but I cite the fact that only creatures with discernible anatomies and that are living as proof that it's more an issue of precision. If it were a more mobility-based ability, a golem would be vulnearble at the joints or a zombie at the throat, eyes or achilles tendon, and thus technically just as vulnerable. Granted, 3E doesn't model damage that way, but I would still argue that it was intended to model the 'vitals' idea. In truth, a hybrid may be the actual intent.

Anyway, back on topic: i'm not a super-expert with D&D3E, but i'm going to toss out an example from soemone who shoul be: Monte Cook seems to think that the system as written doesn't support the light fighter, as evidenced by both his inclusion of the unfettered class in AU, and the ways in which it behaves that no PH class (or multiclass) can mimic.

Well, Monte disagrees with the other deisgners of 3E on several points. I value his opinion, but I don't always agree with him...any more than I always agree with SKR, Jon Tweet, Andy Collins or any of the others. His opinion is just that, an opinion. That said, I haven't really flipped through the AU book yet, (soon, though). However, my cursory inspection of it shows that Monte is much more concerned with shifting the emphasis on offense in 3E (not a bad thing, IMHO). Considering that the unfettered, snake totem warrior and Warmain can all concievably reach ACs in the 40s, that's not hard to believe. But, quite honestly, this is true in D&D, as well, if that's your goal. Just ask the Arcane Archer in my group, who has a touch AC of about 32 or so.

One thing that shouldn't be ignored about DEX's value is that it provides defense against touch attacks, something DEX-based warriors need to defend against high-level spells. Many spells require touch attacks, and slow tank warriors have very poor touch ACs. The FTR/SOR/AA in my group is light and fast, and she is rarely subject to such spells, whereas the Paladin is a sitting duck for them (although his powerful saves and SR carrry him through). Against spells like Harm, this is important at high levels. Against things like shadows and draining attacks, it's important at all levels.

And while I'm unfamiliar with AU's design, I got the impression that the base combat options were not significantly different from 3E, so that the options you're looking for (such as init working differently, dash-in/out attacks and the like) won't be there, either.

In short, the strategic feint is essentially impossible, unless you have Spring Attack (at least lvl6 for the monk). In short, i agree that that's what the mobile fighter does, but i think you're glossing over the difficulty of actually creating such a character, especially at low levels.

Well, as I mentioned above, it's not impossible. But you're right...it is not easy to do, particularly at low levels. It requires a feat chain to do what you want from even 1st level, potentially, and the system isn't designed to do that. I concede the point that D&D 3E doesn't encourage or easily give you the type of combat you're looking for.

Fair enough. I disagree how well the basic rules handle it, but I agree that forcing a player down a particular path to achieve a character concept is not fun. I would recommend that you read one of the most recent issues of Dragon (310, I believe) with the alternate fighter class variants. There were several versions of the fighter that emphasized the light, dextrous fighter over the standard armored warrior. In most cases, they add an extra bonus feat or ability (such as weapon finesse at 1st level), and subtract things like medium and heavy armor proficiencies, as well as certain other tweaks. I thought they were a pretty elegant solution to the problem. In short, you get an alternate fighter who can match your design intent who is balanced against the normal fighter, but isn't forced into a dedicated feat chain for 10 levels to attain what you want.

But even with this, the system still isn't going to reinforce the intent you have, because certain options simply aren't going to be availble...and won't be made available without making it balanced for every class, not just fighters. It can be done, but requires a lot of work to do so.

 

[Storm Raven]

Sure you can. From the SRD: "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." Even with a BAB under 5, you can make the extra attack, and you don't need a full attack action to do so. The disadvantage is that HUGE penalties involved, making it a potentially poor choice. Without the feats, it's -6/-10 when doing the attack, unless you're using light weapons, in which case it's -4/-8. With the TWF feat, it becomes -4/-4 or -2/-2 with TWF AND a light weapon.

Umm, no. To get extra attacks, you need to take a full attack action. Please actually read the SRD next time:

Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack.

Characters using two-weapons can make more than one attack per round, but they still must adhere to this rule.

 

[WizarDru]

Umm, no. To get extra attacks, you need to take a full attack action. Please actually read the SRD next time:

Characters using two-weapons can make more than one attack per round, but they still must adhere to this rule.

Indeed. I actually misread that. Never having had anyone actually use two-weapon fighting, I've never looked at it that closely. Which may make woodelf's point for him. It's certainly more consisten with Rapid Shot, so I'm not sure where I got the idea into my head that it worked otherwise.

 

[woodelf]

Understood...but how would you address the counter-problem this would generate? That is to say, if high-init charaters are so favored, how do the low-init characters survive?

I'm still working that out. To do it properly, it pretty much requires rebuilding the entire comabt system from the ground up. As it turns out, i'm working a ground-up rewrite of D&D3E, and this is one of the things i'm trying to "fix". At this point, i'm looking at the classes having three combat stats: Base Init, BAB, and Base Defense, with init determining number of attacks, BAB determining effectiveness of attacks, and defense providing dodging. Thus, a character can increase any of the three without necessarily increasing the othres--and the classes have built-in tradeoffs among them (as well as other class features, of course).

Sure you can. From the SRD: "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon."

From the D&D3E PH:
"Attack
"The Attack action is a standard action. You can move and then make a single attack, or attack and then move....
"Multiple Attacks: A character with more than one attack per round must use thefull attack action in order to get more than one attack.
"Full Attack
"...Attacking with Two Weapons: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Note that it only mentions extra attacks from two-weapon fighting in the Full Attack action description. Nonetheless, it *is* a little bit unclear, but the revision seems to have made the words actually say what we always thought was the case:

From the revised D20SRD:
"Full Attack
"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason
you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

I would disagree. Conceptually, it's meant to represent a strike to the vitals when they're unguarded. Again, from the SRD: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." You see the 'unable to defend himself' clause as the emphasis, I see the 'vital spot' as the more relevant. You could argue it is both with merit, but I cite the fact that only creatures with discernible anatomies and that are living as proof that it's more an issue of precision. If it were a more mobility-based ability, a golem would be vulnearble at the joints or a zombie at the throat, eyes or achilles tendon, and thus technically just as vulnerable. Granted, 3E doesn't model damage that way, but I would still argue that it was intended to model the 'vitals' idea. In truth, a hybrid may be the actual intent.

Actually, i wasn't thinking of the ability description at all. I was thinking of the circumstances under which you can get a sneak attack: flanked, feinted, surprised, etc. But, now that you mention it, the fact that it doesn't affect creatures without weak points does point up that it's a combination. Nonetheless, i think that demanding quality hits (i.e., taking a -4 to hit, or having to roll 4 over, or whatever) would make it much more of a "precise strike" sort of thing, feel wise. As is, you merely have to be able to hit the person, as far as quality of skill is concerned, and the primary limitations on its use are tactical.

Well, Monte disagrees with the other deisgners of 3E on several points. I value his opinion, but I don't always agree with him...any more than I always agree with SKR, Jon Tweet, Andy Collins or any of the others. His opinion is just that, an opinion. That said, I haven't really flipped through the AU book yet, (soon, though). However, my cursory inspection of it shows that Monte is much more concerned with shifting the emphasis on offense in 3E (not a bad thing, IMHO). Considering that the unfettered, snake totem warrior and Warmain can all concievably reach ACs in the 40s, that's not hard to believe. But, quite honestly, this is true in D&D, as well, if that's your goal. Just ask the Arcane Archer in my group, who has a touch AC of about 32 or so.

And while I'm unfamiliar with AU's design, I got the impression that the base combat options were not significantly different from 3E, so that the options you're looking for (such as init working differently, dash-in/out attacks and the like) won't be there, either.

Oh, trust me, i don't agree with him consistently, either. I *do* think that AU is a much better version of D&D than 3E is--good enough that i'm contemplating running it. But, you are right that he made almost no changes to the combat system--probably the only part of the game left relatively untouched (early on, he talked about armor-as-DR, but then rejected the idea). And i think it's the only poor design decision in the game. I'd have loved it to follow the Spycraft model, frex. The way in which it supports what i'm looking for slightly better is in the feat selection, and especially the class abilities. Unfettered can do most of what i'm talking about.

But i do figure that he has a better handle on what the system does and why, both by virtue of being one of those behind it, and by having played it a lot more than i have.

I would recommend that you read one of the most recent issues of Dragon (310, I believe) with the alternate fighter class variants. There were several versions of the fighter that emphasized the light, dextrous fighter over the standard armored warrior. In most cases, they add an extra bonus feat or ability (such as weapon finesse at 1st level), and subtract things like medium and heavy armor proficiencies, as well as certain other tweaks. I thought they were a pretty elegant solution to the problem. In short, you get an alternate fighter who can match your design intent who is balanced against the normal fighter, but isn't forced into a dedicated feat chain for 10 levels to attain what you want.

Well, since Dragon is now bagged, care to summarize? I check out an issue of Dragon every now and then (either risk the money if it looks like it's a really good article, or read a friend's copy), but i haven't seen any content worth the cover price in years--i dropped my subscription when they dropped Roleplaying Reviews (which, for the two years prior, was about the only thing of value to me in the magazine).