D&D 5E Yahtzee Fighter?

[Rod Staffwand]

What you're suggested in creating a randomized list of possible maneuvers/attacks that can be used it round. This would model the fluid tactical and situational changes in a fight and allow a fun diversity in options. In the Yahtzee example, a player would also be able to pick and choose dice (maneuvers) as well as potentially risk dice trying to get a Yahtzee supermove off. This gives player agency, which is also fun. These are all admirable design goals.

On the downside, Yahtzee turns are typically three rolls, with dice selection in-between. Each turn a player would need to do that--and then resolve with one or more attack and damage rolls. That seems cumbersome and overly elaborate to me.

Then there is the gimmick factor. This mechanic is definitely a gimmick not seen anywhere else in 5e's design. Could it be fun? Sure! Can it work in a home game? Absolutely! Will it ever be seen as a legitimate replacement by a large portion of the gaming community? Nope, never.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, repeat tactics get boring, but there is no reason that a Fighter should only be able to attempt a tactic once per combat or once per day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you say this makes me think you haven't understood the idea being proposed here. Under this system, a fighter is not limited to attempting a tactic once per combat or once per day. They roll to see what tactics are available to them on a round-by-round basis.

There is no die roll telling your archer whether or not he can shoot this round, and no resource only allowing him to shoot once per combat.
The archer rolls to hit just like a guy with a sword.

Actually, whenever I can get away with it I try to roleplay a low attack roll as the archer realizing he doesn't have a good shot this round and not shooting at all. Lets him display Robin-Hood-level precision without having to break the system math. And if I were playing a guy with a sword, who's to say that my roll to hit isn't my character cautiously looking for an opening, and sometimes not finding one? Or maybe a failed Shove attempt just means "Whoa, this enemy has got good footing right now, I have to wait before I can do that."

So now imagine my fighter, supposedly D&D's premier combat tactician, rolling a big fistful of checks at the beginning of each round, one for for every maneuver I know -- not to model actually performing all of them at once, but to model assessing which of them look like they will work under the current circumstances. Then I pick one and do it.

Now abstract that big fistful of checks to a somewhat smaller and more manageable fistful of yahtzee dice.

Does that seem so outlandish to you?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Then there is the gimmick factor. This mechanic is definitely a gimmick not seen anywhere else in 5e's design. Could it be fun? Sure! Can it work in a home game? Absolutely! Will it ever be seen as a legitimate replacement by a large portion of the gaming community? Nope, never.

I dunno, we almost got the combat superiority dice from the playtest as the fighter's core mechanic, which were not entirely dissimilar to the yahtzee idea.

 

[jgsugden]

I think this slows the game down too much. I like the idea of adding stunts to melee attacks with fighters being the king of the stunt, but I think the mechanic needs to be simpler.

I've toyed with a mechanic that allows a stunt when you hit by 7 (or 5 if a fighter). It was also an alternative when you rolled a crit (rather than crit damage). The stunt was drawn from a deck of cards and gave you a few options - extra damage was always one of the options, but you might be able to do a trip attack, disarm the enemy, or give it a bum leg (amongst many other options - some better than others, and many only available if you dealt the right type of damage (bludgeoning to break bones, slashing to bleed someone, etc...). It was a nice counter to GWM and SS.

It was fun, but it slowed down the game too much. My group of players did not like the 'luck of the draw' aspect, either, as cards could be devastatingly strong in one situation, but weak in others.

I tried a new version that eliminated the cards and had the amount you hit by determine the options you had - and having those all be weapon specific, but the constant looking up of the values and pinpointing of AC was problematic.

 

[Wulffolk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you say this makes me think you haven't understood the idea being proposed here.

Actually, whenever I can get away with it I try to roleplay a low attack roll as the archer realizing he doesn't have a good shot this round and not shooting at all. Lets him display Robin-Hood-level precision without having to break the system math. And if I were playing a guy with a sword, who's to say that my roll to hit isn't my character cautiously looking for an opening, and sometimes not finding one? Or maybe a failed Shove attempt just means "Whoa, this enemy has got good footing right now, I have to wait before I can do that."

Yes, you are wrong. I completely understand the proposed concept from the original post. The comment about my dislike of limited use tactics was in addition to my comments criticizing the use of random tactics.

I like the way that you imagine an archer that fails to hit with an attack. It is not perfect, because shots do actually miss on occasion, but I like the narrative of holding a shot until there is an opening. There is aso a good narrative for melee fighters circling each other looking for an opening, but there are also times that a strike is dodged, parried, turned aside by armor or just plain misses.

I am not arguing that there is no merit to the original post, just that it is not my preference. If you like it that is fine. I am not trying to convince you that you should not work on it. In return, please don't insinuate I am some kind of idiot for not agreeing or that I am wrong for preferring that the Fighter should be able to consciously choose his tactic.

 

[Ristamar]

It's a fun mechanic in Dice Throne, but I don't think it's a good fit for D&D. Randomness is often the bane of many players, particularly as it applies to character aptitude. Even in the Wild Magic Sorcerer, the random effects are mostly a glorified ribbon.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Maybe take inspiration from the DMG variant for Proficiency Dice progression on page 263. After resolving an Attack action that has a least one hit, the Fighter rolls the appropriate die (lets call them Superiority Dice), receive a set amount of Superiority Points to spend on a Stunt table.

*taken from Fantasy Age from Green Ronin, all Stunt require an appropriate save from the target. **Champion also receive +1 to SP generation when they gain their extra critical range.

Move (1+ SP); Move yourself or a enemy 5'' for each SP spent.
Taunt (2 SP); compel an enemy to face you
Knock Prone (3 SP)
Disarm (4 SP)
Rapid Hit (5 SP); extra attack without +mod to damage
Cleave (5 SP); Mod damage to every creatures within 5''
etc etc

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I like the way that you imagine an archer that fails to hit with an attack. It is not perfect, because shots do actually miss on occasion, but I like the narrative of holding a shot until there is an opening. There is aso a good narrative for melee fighters circling each other looking for an opening, but there are also times that a strike is dodged, parried, turned aside by armor or just plain misses.

That's what a natural 1 means.

You do have to be careful interpreting archery this way, because it does affect ammunition use, and can possibly mean a (near-)guaranteed first hit against a stationary, unaware target. In 3E, I made it a feat. In 5E, feats are too big and splashy for this, so I just sort of handwave it, but maybe I'll roll it into a modified Sharpshooter feat or Archery combat style. The melee combat version doesn't really have the same problems, though.

In return, please don't insinuate I am some kind of idiot for not agreeing or that I am wrong for preferring that the Fighter should be able to consciously choose his tactic.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to insinuate that. I just didn't understand why you were talking about limited-use tactics.

 

[Blue]

I am okay with randomness to determine what openings are currently open for a fighter to exploit. Gets around the "I disarm every round" or some other 3.5 issues, and keeps combats dynamic.

That said, I'm a huge fan of keeping combat moving, so I'd prefer a single roll of die or dice, and a limited and unambiguous set of options to take (or not) so there is no option paralysis.

I'm a fan of how 13th Age did their fighter. It's d20, but it pushes "roll then describe" instead of "describe then roll to see if it succeeds, then finish describing". One thing 13th Age does in multiple places is overload the attack roll - use the natural roll to also see something. D&D does this for "1" and "20" in combat, 13th Age allows more. The fighter has Flexible Attacks you select as you level, and they go off on various natural die results. For example, you might have on that can go off on an "Even Hit", or "Any Odd" or "16 of higher". When you roll, you can pick any of your flexible attacks that matches the roll and get that extra result.

Fighter was recently one of the highest rated classes in a recent survey - the flexible attack mechanic gives it a lot of options and cool exploits it can do, with a lot of customization potential, without allowing spamming the same maneuver while keeping combat moving quickly.

The mechanic is used in a number of places, and it's also used for many monsters instead of things like "3 times per combat" - instead maybe something triggers on an "Odd Miss" or "When attacked with a roll of 1-5".

 

[cbwjm]

Something I've thought of doing to spice things up for everyone is manoeuvres that take up a certain number of attacks. This lets everyone learn them but fighters with their 3rd attack at 11th level will gain access to superior manoeuvres that other classes won't be able to learn or utilise.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app