Why I'm not worried about Fighter "options"

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Either way, things like power attack and expertise model real life much better in my opinion anyway.

Well, sounds like you'll enjoy playing 5e with the "tactical narrative" module: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[Melhaic]

"That's exactly what I'm talking about" is in reference to your desire to closely model a highly fantastical form of combat. I want to abstractly model a more mundane/realistic form of combat.

 

[Melhaic]

The tactical narrative module sounds like a nice jumping off point. As long as the players are cool with liberal application of rule #0 (as with the rest of the game) I'm good.

 

[Remathilis]

But isn't a maneuver just a different form of narrative control? Why is that then the one form of narrative control that violates your verisimilitude? I don't seen any difference at all between your two defined groups of abilities.

A maneuver is something the character knows he can do. For example, if he does "Come and Get It" he KNOWS he shouted at his foes, who charged him and got administered a good whacking. He could try it again next round, but it won't work. He could try it EVERY round for the rest of combat, and it will never work again. The "magic" of the moment is lost. Until he rests. Then the next time he gets into a fight, he can shout and watch his foes run up for a good whacking, then never pull the stunt again until he rests.

Such a maneuver defines the character's action. He shouted and enemies ran, and he whacked them. Something like Power Strike, which doesn't define an action per se (its not a specific maneuver, just an adjunct to an attack) and it just means your next attack hit a little harder than normal. The PC didn't do anything more special than swing his sword, but the player calls for a bigger hit and the PC gets a benefit: delivers a solid blow, hits a weak spot, whatever.

I don't want limited abilities tied to specific attacks (I can use a maneuver to trip an opponent, but only 1/encounter) but I don't mind riders to attacks (I take a penalty to hit, but if I hit I get a free chance to knock prone along with damage).

 

[SKyOdin]

"That's exactly what I'm talking about" is in reference to your desire to closely model a highly fantastical form of combat. I want to abstractly model a more mundane/realistic form of combat.

What? I was drawing a comparison to the mechanical difference between a "weak attack" versus a "strong attack". In Street Fighter, that means the difference between a jab and a right hook, or between a karate chop and a drop-kick. I didn't even make reference to anything fantastical!

And to say that Street Fighter is "highly fantastical" compared to D&D is rather silly. Other than the Ki stuff, it is pretty much guys throwing punches and kicks at other human beings. D&D involves Wizards flying through the air shooting lightning bolts at 50ft tall Dragons while the fighter downs a potion to grow into a 20ft tall giant swinging around a sword forged by a god. It is silly to call D&D combat anything other than pure fantasy.

 

[Melhaic]

Depends quite a bit on how you play D&D. We are a bit more...low key.

 

[SKyOdin]

A maneuver is something the character knows he can do. For example, if he does "Come and Get It" he KNOWS he shouted at his foes, who charged him and got administered a good whacking.

That isn't even necessarily true. A maneuver or combat power is just a mechanical effect, the same as a 1/day luck bonus. You could reflavor it in multiple different ways with the same character, just like a basic melee attack, or you could use the same flavor for multiple different combat maneuvers.

He could try it again next round, but it won't work. He could try it EVERY round for the rest of combat, and it will never work again. The "magic" of the moment is lost. Until he rests. Then the next time he gets into a fight, he can shout and watch his foes run up for a good whacking, then never pull the stunt again until he rests.

Again, D&D combat is a really heavily abstracted affair. The 1/encounter limit is a mix of the limits of a player's ability to control the game's narrative with game balance concerns. Since a combat maneuver doesn't strictly correlate with a specific in-world attack, this isn't as silly as you think it is.

Also, 3E Tome of Battle maneuvers could be refreshed in the middle of combat, so your criticisms don't really apply to those.

I don't want limited abilities tied to specific attacks (I can use a maneuver to trip an opponent, but only 1/encounter) but I don't mind riders to attacks (I take a penalty to hit, but if I hit I get a free chance to knock prone along with damage).

And I haven't seen a system built on riders that was actually fun and easy to use. While I don't think 4E's system is the one and only way to do things (or even the best), it was a heck of a lot better than 3E/Pathfinder's system. Fighter's don't strictly need powers limited by encounter or by day, they do need cool powers that only they can do (which can't be performed by non-multiclassed Wizards or Clerics).

 

[SKyOdin]

Depends quite a bit on how you play D&D. We are a bit more...low key.

And low key probably shouldn't be assumed to be the default everyone plays by, since there are a lot of players out there who enjoy over-the-top and fantastical.

How do you play low-key anyways? Do you not have a wizard or cleric on the team? Do you not fight any monsters larger than Medium size?

 

[Melhaic]

We generally play E6 with Pathfinder. It just seems with the more recent editions (3e and 4e) a raft of changes have made thing, on default, more fantastical. It is easier to add over the top stuff than to bring stuff down to earth.

As far as enemies go, humans and such are the most common enemies. Large Monsters are generally more capstone type fights.

 

[SKyOdin]

We generally play E6 with Pathfinder. It just seems with the more recent editions (3e and 4e) a raft of changes have made thing, on default, more fantastical. It is easier to add over the top stuff than to bring stuff down to earth.

As far as enemies go, humans and such are the most common enemies. Large Monsters are generally more capstone type fights.

Alright, you might be trying to go for a more low-key experience, but the stuff I described above: (flying wizards shooting lightning bolts, fighters drinking potions that turn them into giants) isn't really that fantastic or unusual for D&D. We are talking about level 1-3 spells in 3E/Pathfinder, which are available by level 5, so I am talking about fairly low-level, typical stuff for D&D. I am pretty sure these spells have been in every earlier edition, as well.

If you find flying wizards and enlarged fighters to be unusually fantastical, your tastes may be atypical for a D&D fan. This has nothing to do with D&D becoming more fantastic over time. It has always been high fantasy with ridiculously powerful magic.