Touch attacks: is it just me..?

[takyris]

Well, now we're veering into yet another topic, but what the hey:
No, they aren't. Or, rather, to the degree that they are, i think they are a design flaw. Only really exceptional activities should be restricted to needing a feat.

I'd say that this right here -- the notion that you shouldn't need a feat to do complex fighting maneuvers -- is an important point.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you. Here's why:

Abstract combat system. If my player says, "Okay, I take a big wild swing, sacrificing accuracy for power," and doesn't have Power Attack, then I say, "Sure," and have him roll normally. If he misses, I say, "Your wild swing is, well, wild, and you miss." If he hits but does piddly damage, I say, "Your wild swing is blocked, but the sheer force drives your blade past some of his defense to give him a shallow cut while knocking him back." If he hits and does good damage, I declare that it works -- his wild swing connects solidly.

Expertise: Same deal. They say it, you treat it normally and alter the flavor text.

The kind of game you want could be a lot of fun to run -- I'd certainly love to play a game with all those options built in, along with different attack styles (piercing, slashing, crushing) and different defense styles (parrying, blocking, dodging) that worked differently against different attack styles -- but it's not D&D. D&D doesn't let strict melee combat get that complex until you've sunk some feats into it, because that would make combats longer than they already are.

If I did try to come up with some system like that, I'd come up with it in a low-or-no-magic world, so that people could take all the complex thinking they usually handle for magic and apply it to their fighting strategy.

 

[bardolph]

What you say is perfectly true. But, let's talk about what constitutes "more randomness". Right now, you always have a 5% chance of hitting (or being hit), but no guarantee of good damage. 2/3rds of rolls will be within 7 points of your average, and the chance of getting +10 [from your average] is 5%. What if we had a die roll that changed that to, say, .01% chance of an instakill hit, a 1% guaranteed-hit chance, 2% chance of getting +10, and 2/3rds of rolls within 3 of your average? is that "more random" or "less random"? And, if you've read te whole thread, you'll see that i think the game is *already* too random. I'd actually rather my character get clobbered by the kobold than kill the ancient red dragon. Extremely bad luck can be fun, for me. Extremely good luck tends to ruin the game, for me.

Point taken. A bell-curve system with multiple dice (such as in GURPS) tends to emphasize average results, while de-emphasizing exceptional ones.

1 in 400.

I stand corrected

But, yeah, there are ways to do it, given the interactions between hit, damage, hit points, saves, etc. Which i suppose just points up that, for me, the whole AC/hp abstraction thing causes more troubles than it solves. YMMV.

Hehe, well the first problem it solved was "how do we randomize combat?" In Chess, for example, there is neither a "to hit" roll, nor a "damage" roll. Attacker wins, period. Always.

Since the AC/hp system was the FIRST system in roleplaying games, all other systems are actually attempts to solve AC/hp, not the other way around.

Actually, it's the AC/hp system that prompted Mr. Gygax to declare Strength as a "hit modifier" in the first place, and is what prompted this entire discussion. (You see, Strength allows you to power through Armor, thus increasing your chance to hit, or so it goes...)

But, as much a pain in the butt it can be, I've found it to be the most playable and fun system out there.

Furthermore, the hit point system tends to "flatten out" the randomness inherent in the flat d20 roll, since it takes not one but several hits in succession to defeat any particular foe. Unless a creature is particularly fragile, there is no "insta-kill", but it is possible to get a "hot streak."

None of which is a counter to the complaint that high initiative doesn't have an effect after the first round. At best, you've demonstrated that the perks of going first in the first round are potentially huge, and could have repercussions for the rest of the combat. That is not the same as having *new* effects later in the combat.

Correct, unless there are new Initiative rolls later on. The DMG actually describes this style as a variant option, but realize that it will slow down combat a lot, and it still won't grant higher Initiative with more attacks. Plus, it will create a much greater randomization factor, since sometimes creatures who lose initiative early on will get two turns in a row, plus it becomes extremely difficult to predict how long combat effects will last. Again, this will mean more PC death.

But I think you are putting too much emphasis on Initiative per se. A quick, highly skilled, dextrous fighter has plenty of opportunities to shine, above and beyond the first strike.

First and foremost, there is the AC bonus, then there are Dex-related feats and skills (Weapon Finesse and Tumble come to mind). And of course, there is ranged combat (which seems to be neglected in this thread) and Reflex saves.

If you try to give bonus attacks to High Dex or High Initiative characters, you will quickly find that ALL fighters will be forced into playing only that style, since the advantage will not only be significant, but overwhelming.

In short, let's hypothesize that i get initiative, but somehow fail to press it in the first round (circumstances don't allow it, or something). It pretty much doesn't matter that i have the advantage in init for the rest of the fight.

Understood. But your high DEX will still give you AC bonuses. But also understand that high DEX will also give you bonuses on Hide and Move Silently, both of which will increase your chances of surprise in the first place.

Look. Even fast, quick characters aren't going to win if they can't exploit their advantages. If you win Initiative, but fail to press it, then you don't deserve any lasting advantage! That's the competence factor.

I was unclear. What i meant to say was that getting surprise, but no init advantage is pretty much the same as getting the init advantage, but no surprise.

No. The Init advantage is better. Surprise only grants a partial action

And thus, you could theoretically construct a combat system where the surprise rules adequately handled the "getting the drop on them" trope.

What exactly are you looking for here? An automatic win? You get a free attack against flat-footed characters! Plus, if you are a tactically savvy team, you can use the surprise round to surround the enemy in such a way that they can't maneuver without invoking Attacks of Opportunity.

Not necessarily. Given foes of an equivalent power level, i see lots of balanced strategies (in the abstract). Certain combat archetypes shouldn't get hit by appropriate-level challenges

I couldn't disagree more. What's the point of combat, without risk?

--the swashbuckler/martial-artist/speedster--but if they do, they're down. Others aren't particularly good at dodging--bruiser/knight/viking--but you just can't put them down.

This is also not true. A DEX-based fighter still rolls the same hit die as the STR-based fighter. But the STR-based fighter doesn't have the same DEX bonus on his AC to protect him...

Both of these, of course, scale for the character/setting/powerlevel. So, for the former archetype, dashing into combat nad then back out again should be a piece of cake--but charging a formation, going toe-to-toe, or clobbering the Big Bad woul be hard or impossible.

I don't see how "dashing into combat and back out again" should be a "piece of cake" for any but the most experienced of combatants. What you want is a character who can take free pot-shots at the enemy at NO RISK TO HIMSELF. If that's what you want, why not make an archer?

For the latter archetype, all those things are easy, but dashing in-and-out just isn't an option. D&D3E instead assumes a scale, wherein the bruiser strategy is easier than the swashbuckler strategy--the former can be accomplished at low levels and with no feats, the latter takes feats and/or higher levels.

I don't get your point. First of all, the in-and-out IS an option (albeit it takes two turns). It's not without risk, but that's an occupational hazard. Besides, if you took a FIGHTER instead of a monk, you can get Spring Attack as early as 4th level!

Additionally, what makes you think that "bruiser" characters aren't risking THEIR lives, too? Their d10-hit-points-per-die is going to run out just as fast as your swashbuckler, except they're just going to get hit more often!

To be honest, even Tanks have to take feats in order to be effective. Power Attack, Cleave, Dodge, Expertise, and of course Weapon Focus and Specialization are all staples of any Tank worth his salt.

Um, what simultaneous systems? AD&D1, AD&D2, and some variations in Players' Option all had initiative counts, with each person going in turn. The only changes to this are (1) rolling init for the encounter instead of the round, and (2) giving people all of their actions at once, instead of all the first attacks, then all the second attacks, etc. If anything, actions were *less* simultaneous in previous editions, because they had variabl durations.

That's not the AD&D that I played. According to the rules, all characters must (1) declare their actions (INCLUDING movement), (2) THEN roll initiative, (3) THEN the DM narratively recounts the combat round, (4) calling PC's to roll the appropriate attack die when called for.

Oh, and one nice thing about the speed factors was disrupting spellcasting. In D&D3E, as near as i can see, the only way to clobber a spellcaster is by readying or having simultaneous initiative (unless you're close enough for an AoO, of course). In AD&D2, most spells took more than one segment to cast, so there was such a thing as having an attack happen during the casting of a spell.

Yes, but if the DM actually invoked that rule (in 1e/2e), the PC's would mutiny, since about 50% of all spells would get interrupted. Remember, since in 1e/2e you had to declare actions FIRST, and roll initiative SECOND, you get a roughly 50% chance of losing initiative and therefore losing your spell (unless your spell had a long casting time, in which case you were virtually guaranteed to lose!). It was such a ridiculous system that every DM I've ever played with threw it out, since it made it virtually impossible to play a spellcaster.

i think they [feats] are a design flaw. Only really exceptional activities should be restricted to needing a feat. Most basic and not-so-basic combat maneuvers should be available to anyone, without a feat, and without being a fighter-type class. Everybody should have the option of spring attack, just as everyone can charge, shield-rush, or fight defensively. The problem with assigning these sorts of things to feats is that it builds in a presumption that you can't do them without the feat (speaking specifically of actions that aren't in the core PH rules--like swinging from a chandelier to attack). Combat-maneuver feats can all-to-easily eliminate options, rather than create them, because it's not "fair" to those who take the feats to let others do the thing without the feat.

But considering that these options did not exist until 3e introduced Feats, I would counter that they added options, instead of removing them.

As far as stuff like Spring Attack is concerned, I would consider that to be Extraordinary. Think about it: characters with Spring Attack is so fast and so nimble that they can approach an enemy close enough to attack, attack, and run away all without an enemy ever getting a chance to react. If that's not extraordinary, what the heck is?

Besides, characters without Spring Attack can still "move in, attack, and spring away." They just can't do it all in one turn. Remember, the Bad Guy can still miss!!

Yes, customizing fighting style is a worthy use of feats. But not at the expense of "reserving" all the cool stuff for those who spend feats--use the feats for more extraordinary abilities, not basic maneuvers.

There's plenty of "cool stuff" open to characters without feats. Feats let you go "above and beyond" the core combat mechanics, and to ignore penalties that other characters have to suffer. That's Extraordinary, if you ask moe.

Huh. I never had a problem in AD&D2 letting everybody do most of the combat-related things that feats allow in D&D3E. All it took was a list of simple modifiers on 4 axes (-4 init, +2 to hit, +0 damage, +0 AC, perhaps) to characterize all sorts of maneuvers. No one seemed to have a problem with them, and it meant people didn't have to plan ahead (by selecting a feat, and thus a fighting style)--they could just do it when the need arose.

Again, plenty of these options exist to characters without feats. There's "fighting defensively," "charging", "disarm," "sunder," "bull rush," "trip," "tumble," "all-out defense," plus the intricacies of Attacks of Opportunity, cover, concealment, striking from above, mounted combat...

What more do you want? It just looks like you're complaining because there are no free handouts for your particular character.

I was just about always the GM when i was playing AD&D2. And i used armor vs. weapon type modifiers (in AD&D2--just 3 types, same as D&D3E) and weapon speed. Neither is at all difficult.

well, kudos to you. It was a big pain in the a$$ for me.

For the weapon type thing, you just record 3 ACs on your character sheet, and when the GM says "she swings her sword at you" you give the slashing AC, and when she says "the archer fires a flaming arrow at you" you give the piercing AC--and so on.

Well, I consider it "complicated" to have three AC's listed on every character sheet.

For weapon speed, it's no harder than attack rolls are now: you record the total init modifier for a given weapon, right along with your attack bonus and damage with that weapon, and then add the number to your init roll.

That IS harder. It's one more modifier you have to add to everything else. But hey, if you liked it, I won't begrudge it to you.

...I don't know. Think of the Initiative roll as a skill roll. It's an opposed check to see who gets the "right to first strike," and it uses a d20 roll just like every other mechanic in the game. It's fair, because first strike gives a significant (though arguably not overwhelming) advantage in combat, though it does not ALONE determine combat, the way it can in other systems.

The rest of combat goes like this: one round, one turn. And the order is predictable, since it is the same as every round before it. I'd call that "fair," and it makes IMHO a great system.

 

[woodelf]

Correct, unless there are new Initiative rolls later on. The DMG actually describes this style as a variant option, but realize that it will slow down combat a lot, and it still won't grant higher Initiative with more attacks. Plus, it will create a much greater randomization factor, since sometimes creatures who lose initiative early on will get two turns in a row, plus it becomes extremely difficult to predict how long combat effects will last.

Um, if a one-round effect is invoked on initiative count 13, it lasts until 14 of the next round. What's so hard about that? Now, mind you, the rest of your complaints about initiative-every-round are absolutely true. And round-by-round init would *not* change the situation one bit, WRT my particular complaint--init count 25 followed by 20 is functionally identical to 5 followed by 20. *That's* my complaint: a good init doesn't matter after the first round (regardless of the degree to which first-round actions carry through to later rounds).

But I think you are putting too much emphasis on Initiative per se. A quick, highly skilled, dextrous fighter has plenty of opportunities to shine, above and beyond the first strike.

Actually, this started the other way 'round: i basically said that init is unimportant, and several people jumped on me, saynig it was very important. My views have been somewhat modified, but if i have made an error, it's undervaluing, not overvaluing, init.

Look. Even fast, quick characters aren't going to win if they can't exploit their advantages. If you win Initiative, but fail to press it, then you don't deserve any lasting advantage! That's the competence factor.

That's why i said "circumstances don't allow it"--i'm postulating a situation where you do the best you can with the initiative, and that best is insignificant. (Say, you get init when you spot the enemy out in the open within bow range, but have no ranged weapons, while the enemy is an archer. You'll spend round one trying to close or wishing you had somewhere to get cover, and the first attack made will be by the archer who lost init. Voila--you simply can't press your advantage.)

No. The Init advantage is better. Surprise only grants a partial action

Not identical, "pretty much the same"--either gives you a chance to act before your opponent does, but has no direct benefit after that first round. The fact that one allows more complex actions is an artifact of the specifics of the system, and could be trivially altered.

What exactly are you looking for here? An automatic win? You get a free attack against flat-footed characters! Plus, if you are a tactically savvy team, you can use the surprise round to surround the enemy in such a way that they can't maneuver without invoking Attacks of Opportunity.

I'm not asking for more, i'm asking for different. I don't *want* those advantages--in fact, the more people convince me of the power of first-round initiative, the more i think it's a bad thing, and would prefer the advantage to be metered out over the duration of the combat.

I don't see how "dashing into combat and back out again" should be a "piece of cake" for any but the most experienced of combatants. What you want is a character who can take free pot-shots at the enemy at NO RISK TO HIMSELF. If that's what you want, why not make an archer?

Actually, what i want is a character who can sacrifice all offensive ability in return for not risking AoOs, and thus, say, dodge past the guard *instead of* fighting him. the tumble skill helps with this, but it takes a lot of points--and thus a significant level--to pull it off reliably. Or, a character who can reliably dash in and out with little or no chance of being hit, yes--and little or no chance of hitting the opposition, either, and not much damage when she does.

But, mostly, i just simply want flexibility. I generally prefer defensive characters, and there's really no way to do that in D&d3E, because defense is mostly passive. Other than a few modifiers (Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, Dodge), all of which tend to be small in comparison to the overall totals, there's nothing i can *do* to avoid getting hit. I mean, i can give up all attacks and all active defense in order to quadruple my movement; i can give up all movement in order to get 2 to 5 extra attacks; but the best i can do for defense is add 4?

Besides, if you took a FIGHTER instead of a monk, you can get Spring Attack as early as 4th level!

So...if i want to play a highly-mobile, acrobatic warrior, i should use the fighter class, instead of monk? Seems to me that this is yet another case where the system isn't at its best when representing an archetype.

Additionally, what makes you think that "bruiser" characters aren't risking THEIR lives, too? Their d10-hit-points-per-die is going to run out just as fast as your swashbuckler, except they're just going to get hit more often!

Good point--because of the way in which AC, hps, hits, and damage are all tangled up together, you'd have to lower the hit die for a swashbuckler, too.

To be honest, even Tanks have to take feats in order to be effective. Power Attack, Cleave, Dodge, Expertise, and of course Weapon Focus and Specialization are all staples of any Tank worth his salt.

To be effective, maybe. But not to just do it at all. If you were to run a feat-free game (with no other changes), being a tank would still be a viable option, while being a swashbuckler would not.

That's not the AD&D that I played. According to the rules, all characters must (1) declare their actions (INCLUDING movement), (2) THEN roll initiative, (3) THEN the DM narratively recounts the combat round, (4) calling PC's to roll the appropriate attack die when called for.

Depends. AD&D1 determines actions as you use them. DMG1, p61: "1. Determine if either or both parties are surprised. 2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties. 3. If both partyes are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine initiative for that round. 4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:... 5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative..." (oh, and it goes into using individual, instead of group, init on the next page, as well as multiple attacks [all first attacks, all second attacks, etc., in init order]).

AD&D2 does demand that you decide your actions, but only generally, first, and then determine init and execute them in order. However, it does acknowledge that you're allowed to change your actions--and that could easily include completely altering what you're doing, depending on the GM. DMG2, p54: "Player Determination:...This does not have to be perfectly precise, and can be changed somewhat,..."

I confess that i'd already been playing for years when AD&D2 came out, and must have glossed over the combat round rules, because we always had everyone declare and resolve their action at once, when their turn came around (just like AD&D1 with individual init). It wasn't until just now that i discovered that is, strictly speaking, a houserule.

Yes, but if the DM actually invoked that rule (in 1e/2e), the PC's would mutiny, since about 50% of all spells would get interrupted. Remember, since in 1e/2e you had to declare actions FIRST, and roll initiative SECOND, you get a roughly 50% chance of losing initiative and therefore losing your spell (unless your spell had a long casting time, in which case you were virtually guaranteed to lose!). It was such a ridiculous system that every DM I've ever played with threw it out, since it made it virtually impossible to play a spellcaster.

Huh. I always used that rule. Never had a problem. It just meant that some of the warriors would generally protect the spellcasters (especially wizards) during a fight. No big deal. It worked in the PCs' favor a *lot* more than it hindered them--i can still remember a wonderful climactic battle, trying to stop the wizard before she cast *yet another* summoning spell. And it's not as simple as "the guy who goes first wins" in AD&D2. If you've already taken your action when the spellcaster's init comes around, it's too late to clobber her--i don't think there is anything like "holding your action".

But considering that these options did not exist until 3e introduced Feats, I would counter that they added options, instead of removing them.

Sure they did. They were just much vaguer. And it was trivial to add even more options.

As far as stuff like Spring Attack is concerned, I would consider that to be Extraordinary. Think about it: characters with Spring Attack is so fast and so nimble that they can approach an enemy close enough to attack, attack, and run away all without an enemy ever getting a chance to react. If that's not extraordinary, what the heck is?[/quote]

It's a kludge, because of the freeze-frame initiative system. The basic principle ("i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away") is not at *all* extraordinary. And, actually, i haven't been arguing against AoOs in this particular scenario (notice that the above does not say "i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away, all without the enemy even having a chance to touch me"). [i just reread Spring Attack, and noticed that it specifically immunizes you against AoOs during the action--that's not the part i'm going for, just the split movement.] My complaint is having to run up, smack him, then stand around for a round while the entire combat situation changes, and *then* retreat. I'd like to be able to use strategic feints within the game--things like running up to the edge of something nasty with the enemy in hot pursuit, and then at the last minute dodging back, hoping her momentum and lack-of-foreknowledge sends her into it. I can't do that because i complete my movement--complete with avoiding the danger--before the enemy even begins hers, so she already knows where i'm going to end up, regardless of the route i take. That's a fairly basic maneuver in support of the mobile-warrior archetype, which the game renders impossible.

Besides, characters without Spring Attack can still "move in, attack, and spring away." They just can't do it all in one turn. Remember, the Bad Guy can still miss!!

Again, *you* introduced the "without getting hit"--my complaint isn't that i might get hit, it's that i can't do it all at once.

There's plenty of "cool stuff" open to characters without feats. Feats let you go "above and beyond" the core combat mechanics, and to ignore penalties that other characters have to suffer. That's Extraordinary, if you ask moe.

Yep. The disagreement is about what should be "core combat mechanics" and what should be "above and beyond."

Well, I consider it "complicated" to have three AC's listed on every character sheet.

You mean like "Touch", "Flat-footed", and "regular"?

That IS harder. It's one more modifier you have to add to everything else. But hey, if you liked it, I won't begrudge it to you.

Huh? D&D3E: add the number in the box labeled "initiative bonus" to a die roll. That's your initiative total. The person with the highest init goes first, followed by the next-highest, etc. AD&D2: add the number in the box labeled "initiative modifier" to a die roll. That's your initiatiev total. The person with the lowest (IIRC) init goes first, followed by the next-lowest, etc. How is it "one more modifier"?

 

[bardolph]

Um, if a one-round effect is invoked on initiative count 13, it lasts until 14 of the next round. What's so hard about that?

True, but you don't know who will get a chance to act before that segment, and who will act after that segment.

init count 25 followed by 20 is functionally identical to 5 followed by 20. *That's* my complaint: a good init doesn't matter after the first round (regardless of the degree to which first-round actions carry through to later rounds).

Fair enough. I believe that's a good thing. I think that the "first round advantage" is substantial enough as it is, without needing to add further insult to the injury of losing Initiative on the first round.

Actually, this started the other way 'round: i basically said that init is unimportant, and several people jumped on me, saynig it was very important. My views have been somewhat modified, but if i have made an error, it's undervaluing, not overvaluing, init.

What I meant is not that you are valuing Initiative too much, but that you are expecting too much payoff from winning it. Initiative gives you the first opportunity to act, and it gives the loser a penalty to his ability to defend. That's enough. Other opportunities can be created as the opportunity arises, but no, I don't think that high Initiative should give free actions above and beyond the First Strike.

That's why i said "circumstances don't allow it"--i'm postulating a situation where you do the best you can with the initiative, and that best is insignificant. (Say, you get init when you spot the enemy out in the open within bow range, but have no ranged weapons, while the enemy is an archer. You'll spend round one trying to close or wishing you had somewhere to get cover, and the first attack made will be by the archer who lost init. Voila--you simply can't press your advantage.)

And that's exactly the type of situation where you shouldn't get some kind of handout just because you have a high initiative. The truth is, regardless of your high score, you were caught unprepared.

However, winning Initiative in that situation is still useful, because you can use it to defend yourself more adequately against the archer, who would otherwise be tearing you a new arse.

Not identical, "pretty much the same"--either gives you a chance to act before your opponent does, but has no direct benefit after that first round. The fact that one allows more complex actions is an artifact of the specifics of the system, and could be trivially altered.


I'm not asking for more, i'm asking for different. I don't *want* those advantages--in fact, the more people convince me of the power of first-round initiative, the more i think it's a bad thing, and would prefer the advantage to be metered out over the duration of the combat.

I just believe that, after that first round, your advantages should come from your actions, rather than your initiative.

There are alternate systems out there, but most of them rely on giving "high initiative" characters extra attacks, or extra information about the opponents actions (in "reverse polish turn declaration" style). I think the former is unfair, while the latter is a headache.

As far as "metering out" the first-round advantage, I don't quite know what you mean. Either you attack first, or you don't. How do you meter that out?

Actually, what i want is a character who can sacrifice all offensive ability in return for not risking AoOs, and thus, say, dodge past the guard *instead of* fighting him. the tumble skill helps with this, but it takes a lot of points--and thus a significant level--to pull it off reliably.

Exactly. That's the whole purpose of a level-based system. Low-level characters are less skilled than higher level ones. You might have also noticed that low-level characters have a much harder time hitting reliably, too.

Or, a character who can reliably dash in and out with little or no chance of being hit, yes--and little or no chance of hitting the opposition, either, and not much damage when she does.

But, mostly, i just simply want flexibility. I generally prefer defensive characters, and there's really no way to do that in D&d3E, because defense is mostly passive. Other than a few modifiers (Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, Dodge), all of which tend to be small in comparison to the overall totals, there's nothing i can *do* to avoid getting hit. I mean, i can give up all attacks and all active defense in order to quadruple my movement; i can give up all movement in order to get 2 to 5 extra attacks; but the best i can do for defense is add 4?

I suppose this gets more to the point. And yes, this is an artifact of the rules, and the game we're playing.

Briefly, though, the full attack only gives you 1 to 3 extra attacks, not 2 to 5, and these only come at higher levels -- unless, of course, you are using Feats. But then, we should be counting defensive Feats, as well.

But here is where the abstract Hit Point system can be used to your advantage. Remember, "hit points" can also represent near misses and minor scrapes from otherwise lethal blows. So, while you can't completely avoid being hit, your hit points allow you to avoid going down.

Of course, the two best methods to not get hit are (a) not get into the fight, and (b) kill the enemy first.

However, there are things you can do, beyond the "All Out Defense." You can disarm, trip, sunder, fight with reach weapons, and of course you can use defensive Feats. Oh, and one more thing: you can just take the hits. That's why you have hit points.

So...if i want to play a highly-mobile, acrobatic warrior, i should use the fighter class, instead of monk?

Yes.

I thought you wanted a "swashbuckler." Monk is a poor choice for making a swashbuckler.

I think you have a certain stereotype in your mind whenever you think of "Fighter." Not all fighters are slow, dull brutes. You have to think outside of the ol' box. Fighters have grown up since AD&D.

Good point--because of the way in which AC, hps, hits, and damage are all tangled up together, you'd have to lower the hit die for a swashbuckler, too.

Not at all. See my point about "hit points," above.

However, if your swashbuckler were built as a Fighter/Rogue, you would have fewer hit points than a Fighter of equal level.

I strongly believe that if you just sat down and built a Fighter/Rogue using the core 3.x rules, you will get exactly the character you are envisioning, without needing to create some alternate "core class."

If you were to run a feat-free game (with no other changes), being a tank would still be a viable option, while being a swashbuckler would not.

If you were to run a feat-free game, you wouldn't be playing D&D 3E. Feats are intrinsic to the game.

"Swashbuckler" was never a viable option in AD&D, either.

Depends. AD&D1 determines actions as you use them. DMG1, p61: "1. Determine if either or both parties are surprised. 2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties. 3. If both partyes are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine initiative for that round. 4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:... 5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative..." (oh, and it goes into using individual, instead of group, init on the next page, as well as multiple attacks [all first attacks, all second attacks, etc., in init order]).

AD&D2 does demand that you decide your actions, but only generally, first, and then determine init and execute them in order. However, it does acknowledge that you're allowed to change your actions--and that could easily include completely altering what you're doing, depending on the GM. DMG2, p54: "Player Determination:...This does not have to be perfectly precise, and can be changed somewhat,..."

I confess that i'd already been playing for years when AD&D2 came out, and must have glossed over the combat round rules, because we always had everyone declare and resolve their action at once, when their turn came around (just like AD&D1 with individual init). It wasn't until just now that i discovered that is, strictly speaking, a houserule.

Fair enough.

I found that AD&D was lacking enough to be unplayable without a few house rules. Don't get me wrong, I loved AD&D. However, the rules were a mess.

Huh. I always used that rule. Never had a problem. It just meant that some of the warriors would generally protect the spellcasters (especially wizards) during a fight. No big deal. It worked in the PCs' favor a *lot* more than it hindered them--i can still remember a wonderful climactic battle, trying to stop the wizard before she cast *yet another* summoning spell. And it's not as simple as "the guy who goes first wins" in AD&D2. If you've already taken your action when the spellcaster's init comes around, it's too late to clobber her--i don't think there is anything like "holding your action".

Okay.

So tell me, what mechanic did you use to determine whether or not a blow landed at exactly the right time to interrupt a spell?

It's [Spring Attack] a kludge, because of the freeze-frame initiative system. The basic principle ("i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away") is not at *all* extraordinary. And, actually, i haven't been arguing against AoOs in this particular scenario (notice that the above does not say "i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away, all without the enemy even having a chance to touch me"). [i just reread Spring Attack, and noticed that it specifically immunizes you against AoOs during the action--that's not the part i'm going for, just the split movement.] My complaint is having to run up, smack him, then stand around for a round while the entire combat situation changes, and *then* retreat.

It sounds like you're arguing for an even larger "window" in your particular "frozen frame." Why would you suppose that, while you're doing all that running around, the combat situation wouldn't change? And why do you expect your enemy to be so dumb and slow that he couldn't defend himself while you were doing it?

I'd like to be able to use strategic feints within the game--things like running up to the edge of something nasty with the enemy in hot pursuit, and then at the last minute dodging back, hoping her momentum and lack-of-foreknowledge sends her into it. I can't do that because i complete my movement--complete with avoiding the danger--before the enemy even begins hers, so she already knows where i'm going to end up, regardless of the route i take. That's a fairly basic maneuver in support of the mobile-warrior archetype, which the game renders impossible.

It actually doesn't. You can accomplish that within the core rules, and without using Feats. Here's how it works:

(1) On your Initiative, you spend a Move-Equivalent action to move up near the enemy. You can then "taunt" as a free action (DM can require a Bluff roll if he wants)
(2) Instead of taking a Standard Action, you instead "Ready" a retreat, using the enemy's charge as your trigger.
(3) on the enemy's turn, when he tries to charge you, you interrupt that action with your Readied retreat, getting yourself out of harm's way.
(4) the enemy, however, is committed to the charge. It is up to the DM to decide whether or not he continues running into the other enemy.

Again, *you* introduced the "without getting hit"--my complaint isn't that i might get hit, it's that i can't do it all at once.

But you have to admit that that's a pretty complex action, which requires many steps. It is not unreasonable to assume that such a maneuver would normally take two turns to accomplish. However, unusually talented warriors can accomplish it in a single maneuver, provided (of course) they "pay up" and get the feat!

Yep. The disagreement is about what should be "core combat mechanics" and what should be "above and beyond."

I suppose. But it's not as if Feats are out-of-reach for any character, since all characters get a feat every three levels. I would actually characterize Feats as "specialized training," rather than "extraordinary abilities." For the most part, Feats don't allow anything superhuman or extraordinary, instead, they allow you to do something ordinary "extraordinarily well."

For example, while you can hack at enemies until they all fall, the Cleave feat allows you to do the same thing faster. You can normally disarm and trip your opponents, but certain Feats allow you to do it better.

And while the normal rules allow you to rush in, attack, and then retreat, the Spring Attack feat allows you to do it more efficiently.

You mean like "Touch", "Flat-footed", and "regular"?

Okay, I should have seen that one coming.

First of all, AD&D does have the concept of "no dex bonus to AC," it just doesn't give it the name "Flat-Footed." So, you can either calculate it on the fly, or increase your AC count to six, instead of three.

Secondly, the lack of a "Touch AC" in AD&D was just a gross oversight, and a severe design flaw. AD&D actually expected a wizard to punch through plate mail with his bare fist in order to land a touch spell! Seriously, have you ever seen inflict serious wounds or shocking grasp used successfully in those systems???

Huh? D&D3E: add the number in the box labeled "initiative bonus" to a die roll. That's your initiative total. The person with the highest init goes first, followed by the next-highest, etc. AD&D2: add the number in the box labeled "initiative modifier" to a die roll. That's your initiatiev total. The person with the lowest (IIRC) init goes first, followed by the next-lowest, etc. How is it "one more modifier"?

Actually, take another look at that character sheet. You will find several blanks next to each modifier, so that you can add ability modifiers, magical modifiers, etc, to each number. Using "weapon speed" is in fact "one more modifier," and something that never worked appropriately, since Reach weapons were actually penalized on their weapon speed!

 

[widderslainte]

Colour me confused. Why isn't this in the rules forum?

 

[hong]

None of which is a counter to the complaint that high initiative doesn't have an effect after the first round. At best, you've demonstrated that the perks of going first in the first round are potentially huge, and could have repercussions for the rest of the combat.

Exactly.

That is not the same as having *new* effects later in the combat.

What on earth are you babbling about now?

In short, let's hypothesize that i get initiative, but somehow fail to press it in the first round (circumstances don't allow it, or something).

Do you commonly have fights in your campaign start with everyone sleeping?

It pretty much doesn't matter that i have the advantage in init for the rest of the fight.

By this argument the game is perfect, because people can always choose to ignore the imperfections. And since you have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the game is perfect, I'll thank you to cease prattling on about things you clearly know nothing about, and let everyone get back to the REALLY important questions, namely: who would win, Darth Maul or Elminster?

ThaADVANCEnks!

 

[WizarDru]

Colour me confused. Why isn't this in the rules forum?

Three reaons, actually: One, it didn't start out as a rules-based discussion, per se. Two, it's not about an actual rule, as such, but has morphed into a discussion about the design philosophy of combat in D&D. It's just vague enough in it's emphasis on a meta-design issue that it's not about a specific rule, stricly speaking. Three, no administrator has decided that it belongs there. Yet.

Uh, Henry...that'd be your cue.

 

[woodelf]

What you say is perfectly true. But, let's talk about what constitutes "more randomness". [snip]

Point taken. A bell-curve system with multiple dice (such as in GURPS) tends to emphasize average results, while de-emphasizing exceptional ones.

Not that it makes a significant difference to my argument, or yours, but i just noticed a messageboard wierdness, where my post seems to have double-posted (#69), rather than edited (#70). I've fixed it, but noticed you responded to the version that was supposed to be gone (#69).

 

[woodelf]

As far as "metering out" the first-round advantage, I don't quite know what you mean. Either you attack first, or you don't. How do you meter that out?

You can't, or, at least, not easily. That's the problem, IMHO--whatever advantage init gives you is too front-loaded (and possibly also too insignificant--though i'm apparently in a minority of one on that part, so feel free to discount it).

Briefly, though, the full attack only gives you 1 to 3 extra attacks, not 2 to 5, and these only come at higher levels -- unless, of course, you are using Feats. But then, we should be counting defensive Feats, as well.

Attack: one attack, period. Full attack: anyone can pick up a 2nd weapon, but i should've said 1 to 5. Oh, wait, creative math on my part: 20 divided by 5 is 4, not 5. So, 1 to 4 extra attacks (two weapon or double weapon, +20 BAB), without using feats.

I thought you wanted a "swashbuckler." Monk is a poor choice for making a swashbuckler.

I think you have a certain stereotype in your mind whenever you think of "Fighter." Not all fighters are slow, dull brutes. You have to think outside of the ol' box. Fighters have grown up since AD&D.

No, swashbuckler is just a convenient shorthand for the general class of warrior i'm talking about: those who favor mobility (and maybe precision) over power. And my point about monks is that the whole *point* of the martial artist archetype is, IMHO, phenomenal physical control--that should include acrobatics, mobility, dodging, etc. I have no problem with being able to build a mobility-based warrior with fighter, i just think that it should be easier, or turn out better, with a monk.

I strongly believe that if you just sat down and built a Fighter/Rogue using the core 3.x rules, you will get exactly the character you are envisioning, without needing to create some alternate "core class."

I might just try that, as a thought exercise.

"Swashbuckler" was never a viable option in AD&D, either.

I never said it was.

So tell me, what mechanic did you use to determine whether or not a blow landed at exactly the right time to interrupt a spell?

Look at the casting time of the spell, it functions as a modifier to init, just like weapon speed does. But, clearly, it is a duration (by definition). So you must be casting the spell for X segments, ending on the segment the spell goes off. IOW, you start casting the spell on your original initiative (roll + dex mod), and finish on your adjusted init (roll + dex mod + casting time), and if you get hit anywhere in that range, it's while casting the spell. Don't feel like digging the rules out, much less searching through them, so i don't know if this is a standard rule, an official optional rule (in the PH/DMG), a rule from one of the "Complete..." books, a rule from Dragon, or one we came up with on our own.

It sounds like you're arguing for an even larger "window" in your particular "frozen frame." Why would you suppose that, while you're doing all that running around, the combat situation wouldn't change? And why do you expect your enemy to be so dumb and slow that he couldn't defend himself while you were doing it?

Hmmm...now that you put it that way. I dunno. Perhaps it'll only be fixed [to my satisfaction] with a whole new system--the freeze-frame effect needs to be lessened or eliminated.

It actually doesn't. You can accomplish that within the core rules, and without using Feats. Here's how it works:

(1) On your Initiative, you spend a Move-Equivalent action to move up near the enemy. You can then "taunt" as a free action (DM can require a Bluff roll if he wants)
(2) Instead of taking a Standard Action, you instead "Ready" a retreat, using the enemy's charge as your trigger.
(3) on the enemy's turn, when he tries to charge you, you interrupt that action with your Readied retreat, getting yourself out of harm's way.
(4) the enemy, however, is committed to the charge. It is up to the DM to decide whether or not he continues running into the other enemy.

Huh. I don't see an immediate flaw in that--it's not perfect, but it *is* a reasonable approximation of what i'm talking about.

I suppose. But it's not as if Feats are out-of-reach for any character, since all characters get a feat every three levels. I would actually characterize Feats as "specialized training," rather than "extraordinary abilities." For the most part, Feats don't allow anything superhuman or extraordinary, instead, they allow you to do something ordinary "extraordinarily well."

Actually, that's where i see one of the flaws in the selection of feats in the core rulebook: they're too ordinary. I think feats should be special, not just doing something a bit better, but doing some cool and fun that you otherwise can't do. And, the flipside of this is that if it's something you should generally be able to do, you shouldn't need a feat to do it (though i can see some latitude for feats that overcome penalties).

First of all, AD&D does have the concept of "no dex bonus to AC," it just doesn't give it the name "Flat-Footed." So, you can either calculate it on the fly, or increase your AC count to six, instead of three.

Well, strictly speaking, i cheated: there are significantly more than 3 AC scores in AD&D. By the rules, you need to track AC, Shieldless AC, Rear AC, Surprised AC, and then the modifiers to all of those (potentially) for weapon type. Or, if you actually wanted them all pre-calced, you'd need to track as many as 12 AC scores. Now, in practice, i don't think shieldless ever came up in my game (very few people used shields, and those who did were rarely without them). And surprised and rear AC were used infrequently enough, compared to the regular or weapon-adjusted ACs, that what we actually did was record "regular" and the 3 weapon-type ACs, and just note the modifiers for the others (Shieldless: subtract your shield benefit; surprised: subtract your dex mod; rear: subtract both).

Secondly, the lack of a "Touch AC" in AD&D was just a gross oversight, and a severe design flaw. AD&D actually expected a wizard to punch through plate mail with his bare fist in order to land a touch spell! Seriously, have you ever seen inflict serious wounds or shocking grasp used successfully in those systems???

Shocking grasp? All the time. But touch-attack spells in general? No. But not because they couldn't hit--because they couldn't defend. The wizards didn't get near enemies to even try and hit them, 'cause they didn't wanna get creamed. (For whatever bizarre reason, i never had any multi-classed wizards in the game--lots of multiclassed everything else, but all the wizards were single-classed (and, for that matter, all but one were specialists, to boot).)

Anyway, touch AC is a kludge, because they weren't willing to kill the sacred cow of AC. Given the way that, for martial attacks, AC is a tangle of dodge, luck, fatigue, and actual damage, the fact that it suddenly becomes an absolute measure of successful contact once the attack only needs to touch to succeed just confuses the issue more.

Actually, take another look at that character sheet. You will find several blanks next to each modifier, so that you can add ability modifiers, magical modifiers, etc, to each number. Using "weapon speed" is in fact "one more modifier," and something that never worked appropriately, since Reach weapons were actually penalized on their weapon speed!

True. A real system of that sort needs to take account of both reach and speed, and do so differently depending on circumstances. Specifically, a weapon's reach gives you an advantage in speed when you're far away (relatively speaking) and closing; a weapon's speed gives you an advantage once you're close enough to eliminate the reach advantage (i.e., within the reach of the shorter weapon)--which is why such rules also should include rules for closing/fending and retreating/pressing, because the guy with the long weapon should want to constanty back away, outside of the reach of the other guy, while the other guy should want to stay in close where the reach advantage is nullified (and, depending on the weapon, it may even incur a problem using the weapon so close).

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I think the situation with the one in a million hit waaaaaay back in the beginning is overstated. In the situation of the tenth level fighter vs the first level fighter, assuming the first level fighter does get a critical hit doesn't change anything. With a non-magical longsword, the best case is 16 points of damage. This is 1 point more than what the fighter can heal with one day of rest. It can also be healed with two days of non-strenuous activity. That could easily be descibed as something other than a dramatic blow to the heart. Maybe the tenth level guy wrenched himself out of the way of the strike at the last possible moment, and now his back will be bothering him, so he favors his left a little for the rest of the combat. If he spends the next day icing it, it'll be fine. It doesn't need to be a big, nasty cut.

Here's a suggestion that might help in the initiative thing: To increase the value of high initiative, make everyone make their decision before any round action starts. Include the villans in on this (in your head, so you can't take unfair advantage of knowing what the players are doing). Now, the people who move first not only get to resolve their actions first, often they'll be dictating the actions of the next round with what they do this round. By the time that anyone gets to react to the fact that the high initiave wizard threw a fireball, he's allready gotten to cast his second spell.

Frankly, I think that mobility based fighters shouldn't be as good in combat as heavily armored strength based combatants. Having a high dex and high mobility offers plenty of other advantages, especially in irregular battlefields like caves and ships. Wearing light armor is also handy when you need to chase someone, or escape from a collapsing structure. Or when characters are in social situations where walking around in a suit of armor wouldn't be acceptable, the mobility fighter retains more of his or her skill.

And a monk would make a fine mobility fighter, he or she just wouldn't get spring attack until level 6.

Finally, Hong, Elminster would win, but only because of some completely unbelievable setup that the writers throw in at the last second that leaves everyone in the theater angry about how Darth Maul got ripped off.