Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Tony Vargas]

Not attack rolls, per se, but the capability of utilizing Int or Cha, or being stat-neutral, for the bulk of combat action.

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't see emphasizing a secondary stat, even to the point of prioritizing it over a primary stat, as making the secondary stat primary. Just a build that eschews the usual priorities. For instance, in 5e, you don't really need your wizard to have a very high INT. You'd have to more or less live without spells that required attack rolls or forced saves, but there's no great shortage of such spells. You could do that with a sufficiently flexible martial class, too, if it had maneuvers that didn't require a weapon attack, from you, or had significant benefits that didn't depend on your attack hitting.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't see emphasizing a secondary stat, even to the point of prioritizing it over a primary stat, as making the secondary stat primary. Just a build that eschews the usual priorities. For instance, in 5e, you don't really need your wizard to have a very high INT. You'd have to more or less live without spells that required attack rolls or forced saves, but there's no great shortage of such spells. You could do that with a sufficiently flexible martial class, too, if it had maneuvers that didn't require a weapon attack, from you, or had significant benefits that didn't depend on your attack hitting.

Yea, that's pretty much what I'm looking for. A class that supports both Str 16 Int 10 or Str 10 Int 16 (and possibly replace Str with Dex and/or Int with Cha) and both of those combinations are viable builds. Wizard is a pretty good comparison point. Since every class in the game can do decent weapon damage with a high Str or Dex, they have a class resource that's leveraged via another stat entirely. And, some of that class resource (spells, obviously) is also stat independent. That makes going full Int totally viable, and only using spells, or you can go for higher Str/Dex and also be a good weapon attacker. Heck, you can make a totally viable Int 8 wizard. I'd like to see that same stat versatility on a hypothetical warlord.

 

[Bluenose]

You don't need to define what a martial character is capable of because it's apparent: you can do what is reasonably physically possible based on a lifetime of living in the real world. You do need to define what magic does because it's not as automatically apparent.

All right. It doesn't need defining since it's apparent, so how difficult and how effective is the 'Thunderclap Strike' that I want my warrior to perform? Since it doesn't need defining in the books because of a lifetime of living in the real world you should have little problem with doing that. And no, it's not anime or wuxia; it appears in medieval German fighting manuals.

 

[Jester David]

All right. It doesn't need defining since it's apparent, so how difficult and how effective is the 'Thunderclap Strike' that I want my warrior to perform? Since it doesn't need defining in the books because of a lifetime of living in the real world you should have little problem with doing that. And no, it's not anime or wuxia; it appears in medieval German fighting manuals.

Okay, 5-seconds on Google shows me that "thunderclap strike" is the common move where you cup your hands and strike your enemy on one or both ears. I imagine if any player was trying to do that, they'd be able to explain as much.
Seems simple. I imagine anyone trained in martial arts or unarmed fighting knows the move.

It's described as basic self-defense. So it really shouldn't be an advanced move you need a particular class feature to use. It'd be silly to say "You physically cannot slap someone on the ear unless you have the Cupping Ear Slap maneuver".

I'd treat it as an unarmed strike that does no damage but forces the target to make a saving throw or be stunned for a round. Until the end of their turn. If that seems to strong in play I'd change it to unable to take reactions and disadvantage on attacks and Perception checks.
Bam. 30-seconds of DMing.

-edit-
This is actually a pretty good example of rulings over rules.

You can't possibly have rules for every martial arts move ever. Otherwise we need rules for a punch to the solar plexus, knee to the groin, fist in the throat, kick to the knee, elbow blow to the face, heel of hand to the nose, headbutt, headlock, sleeper hold, etc. There's a near infinite amount of moves.
Limiting them all to feats or special tactics either means having a giant list of moves anyone can do but has to be referenced (and means there are good moves and inoptimal trap moves) or having a giant list you can only attempt with training.

Plus there are the niche cases. I ruled above that I wouldn't allow damage. It was strictly stun or damage (like a push w/o a maneuver).
But what about the monk? If anyone should be good at that move, it's the monk. And if I was just making a hard, written rule I would have omitted the monk. Ostensibly, "thunderclap strike" is just stunning strike and already in the game and they're just flavouring it (really, cupping the hand could just be a way to flavour an attack and just deal damage, and the stunning is just my changing the effect). But, arguably, you could have the monk just deal fist damage but not ability damage and stun (or vise versa) and still stun. But even if a book did include a monk exception, what happens if in six months the game includes a "brawler" fighter or a "knuckleduster" barbarian? Then you need an exception to the exception. Or the rule has to be that little bit more complex or carefully worded to include other classes.
But since it's a ruling not a rule, I can just change by ruling if "stunned" is too good, if new content is added, or if I forgot to account for existing content.


I don't need all new rules to explain "thunderclap strike" since the rules for damage, unarmed attacks, stunning, disadvantage, and the like are already in the game. And there's the push example that shows you can trade a damaging attack for a status effect. And I don't need the rules of the game to explain to me that "thunderclap strike" is physically possible since I've seen it in dozens of martial arts movies or read of the move being used in books. It's physically possible, so a character can try it.
Unlike magic, where unless there's a spell called "reverse aging" you don't know if a wizard or cleric can make themselves young, despite that being a common trope also seen in movies and books. The rules for restoring ones youth and limits on the magic need to be explained and established, because it's very much not something everyone can do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All right. It doesn't need defining since it's apparent, so how difficult and how effective is the 'Thunderclap Strike' that I want my warrior to perform? Since it doesn't need defining in the books because of a lifetime of living in the real world you should have little problem with doing that. And no, it's not anime or wuxia; it appears in medieval German fighting manuals.

So it's an obscure name for something? Or translation from an German obscure name for something, rather.

The issue isn't the name, but assigning any sort of worthwhile mechanics to something anyone can just try by describing an action in some detail to the DM. By definition, you have something that has to be at-will, and has to be inferior to any/every defined item, class feature, or option in the game ... "or everyone would just do it all the time."

You also get into issues of abstraction, player knowledge, and DM opinion. D&D uses pretty abstract rules for most class abilities - even if a spell describes the components needed to cast it, the player just says he's casting the spell, he doesn't have to describe proper use of the components; when a character attacks he need only choose a weapon to attack with and a target he can reach, he doesn't have to go into his footwork, defensive preparations, how he swings or at what body party; you don't need survival training, yourself, to make a check for your character to survive in the wilderness. An RPG has rules precisely to avoid the kind of bang-you're-dead-am-not-are-too silliness that generally kept RP the realm of childhood play (and other kinds of more adult 'play'), until D&D came along, adapted war game conventions, and made the first RPG. Resorting to the DM arbitrating is valid, but it's equally valid for anything - you can abandon system entirely, if you want. If you are going to use a system, it should apply to everyone.

If you have a system or impose DM rulings that treat some characters or players differently - the system gives some a selection well-defined push-button abilities that work consistently, while others get inconsistent or poorly defined abilities or nothing at all beyond what any character can attempt or the DM rules in favor of one player more often than another - then you have a double-standard.
Innately unfair, of course, and in the context of a game, unbalancing.

 

[Bluenose]

Okay, 5-seconds on Google shows me that "thunderclap strike" is the common move where you cup your hands and strike your enemy on one or both ears. I imagine if any player was trying to do that, they'd be able to explain as much.
Seems simple. I imagine anyone trained in martial arts or unarmed fighting knows the move.

It's described as basic self-defense. So it really shouldn't be an advanced move you need a particular class feature to use. It'd be silly to say "You physically cannot slap someone on the ear unless you have the Cupping Ear Slap maneuver".

I'd treat it as an unarmed strike that does no damage but forces the target to make a saving throw or be stunned for a round. Until the end of their turn. If that seems to strong in play I'd change it to unable to take reactions and disadvantage on attacks and Perception checks.
Bam. 30-seconds of DMing.

Shame that google misled you in terms of what the manoeuvre does, then. I guess five seconds research isn't always enough to make a ruling.

So it's an obscure name for something? Or translation from an German obscure name for something, rather.

The issue isn't the name, but assigning any sort of worthwhile mechanics to something anyone can just try by describing an action in some detail to the DM.

At this point I'd suggest going out and trying some of the more complicated martial arts manoeuvres that you've seen people perform - anyone can just try - except:

1. You won't succeed without loads of practice.
2. There's a decent chance that you'll hurt yourself or some innocent bystander.

If physical action was so easy that anyone can just try and have a chance of success, there'd be a lot less practice involved for professional sports and martial arts.

And yes, the 'Thunderclap' is an obscure term in a Gereman dialect (north Bavarian).

 

[Jester David]

Shame that google misled you in terms of what the manoeuvre does, then. I guess five seconds research isn't always enough to make a ruling.

Then why do you TELL me what it does then instead of dancing around and mocking me for not being able to read your mind.

You're positing an impossible situation.
There is never going to be a time at a game table where a player wants to do a martial arts move and doesn't know what it does, and can't describe it in rough terms. If they don't know what it does, there's no way they'd try to use their action or an attack to do it in combat.

I only resorted to Google because you're not sitting three feet away from me and can't immediately respond when I say "sounds cool, what does it do?"

At this point I'd suggest going out and trying some of the more complicated martial arts manoeuvres that you've seen people perform - anyone can just try - except:

1. You won't succeed without loads of practice.
2. There's a decent chance that you'll hurt yourself or some innocent bystander.

If physical action was so easy that anyone can just try and have a chance of success, there'd be a lot less practice involved for professional sports and martial arts.

1. Combat in D&D is an abstraction. There's just one weapon move: attack. There's not a separate moves like front swing, back swing, overhand chop, etc. There could be but there isn't.

2. A martial artist can know an infinite amount of moves. They can always practice and learn a new technique. But characters cannot and are limited by class feature options and feats. Feats have to be generic to any possible class, while class features are specialized with limited overlap. There's not something that works equally well for both monks and fighters.

3. Fighters, monks and the like are not overweight gamers or common people. There's no reason they couldn't try untrained. Or if a particular move is super specialized, the DM can rule only the monk can make the attempt, or the attack is done with disadvantage, or both. If the player wants to do the move, it can be assumed the character has practiced.

4. There's a limited amount of design space for martial arts without making them identical or the bonuses irrelevant: damage, move , stun, impose disadvantage, grant advantage, reduce movement, grapple, knock prone, and maybe a couple others. Any martial art move can be reduced to some combination of those. And since the vast, vast majority of 60+ types of kicks just hurt people and bypass certain defenses, they don't really need to exist in the game unless adding a complex counter or block system. As mentioned above, it's super easy to adjudicate that on the fly.


There could certainly be a brand new "Style Fighting" option that allows classes to learn new fighting techniques granting very minor bonuses and different moves. If that's something you want, there's the DMsGuild for that very purpose. But it's not likely to be balanced giving some classes a boost.
But it will be slower, since it will be adding a wealth of at-will options to every martial character, in addition to the stuff they can already do at-will. So it's not something I'd add to my game. And I prefer the freedom of assuming my player's characters are competent and skilled fighters who are able to do incredible things rather than limiting their options to a finite list.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At this point I'd suggest going out and trying some of the more complicated martial arts manoeuvres that you've seen people perform - anyone can just try - except:

1. You won't succeed without loads of practice.
2. There's a decent chance that you'll hurt yourself or some innocent bystander.

If physical action was so easy that anyone can just try and have a chance of success, there'd be a lot less practice involved for professional sports and martial arts.

I suppose that's a potentially valid quibble with 5e's attribute-check based system. It falls to the DM to decide what sorts of actions just automatically fail (or fail with bad consequences, or whatever) rather than getting a roll.

If something is raised to the level of class ability, OTOH, it comes closer to being something the player can depend upon actually working as described (though, really, the DM is still free to overrule it at whim), but it brings with it exclusivity.

And yes, the 'Thunderclap' is an obscure term in a Gereman dialect (north Bavarian).

OK, so we've established that the average man on the street, or even DM, might not be familiar with the term. Point taken.


The catch-22 remains: If it's something a skilled character should be able to count on doing (at least having a chance), it needs to be a class ability, feat or other explicit mechanic that characters either get or don't, which also makes it something no one else can even try to do.

 

[mellored]

It doesn't only apply to martial classes. Anyone could also read a spell book, pray for a miracle, or try to be one with nature. The only class that is really exclusive is the sorcerer since you where born that way. Everything other class is skill and ability.

 

[Jester David]

It doesn't only apply to martial classes. Anyone could also read a spell book, pray for a miracle, or try to be one with nature. The only class that is really exclusive is the sorcerer since you where born that way. Everything other class is skill and ability.

That's really a flavour problem with D&D.
Can anyone just mimic the wizard and cast a spell like anyone can following a cooking recipe and make a delicious meal? Maybe... maybe not. Even if you don't assume that being a wizard is like being a step above a gourmet chef as far as skill is involved, there might easily be some other limitation. Like Harry Potter where you need to train to be a wizard but some bloodline dependent power is still involved.
As for gods, this also assumes every single member of the clergy is a cleric, from the lowliest altar-boy to the high priest. Which *might* be true in some worlds, but I can't think of any setting that assumes the NPC priest is always a cleric. After all, if you could just pray once a day and get superpowers, why wouldn't everyone be a cleric?

It's a pretty fair assumption that being a fighter or monk or paladin takes some exceptional skill, and they should be really good and fighting and martial arts, and able to attempt many things the average person would not.