Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll. I saw this most recently reading through Adventurer Conquerer King. In that iteration, the attacker takes a -4 penalty to the attack roll AND the defender can make a saving throw to avoid the effect (for most manoeuvers). D&D 3rd ed. has a similar penalty for most manoeuvers as well.

My question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty? Would it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

My concern is that combats in earlier editions of D&D are often quite static and dull, with combatants simply trading attack rolls back and forth. I would like to encourage fights to be really dynamic, with lots of pushing and shoving and running around. Offering incentives for combat manoeuvers rather than penalties might encourage this.

Dynamic combat was never really part of D&D. It is an abstract combat system that has the advantage of being resolved quickly. For more detailed combat another system would serve better.

Its hard to bolt on dynamic action to an abstract framework without the end result being a mess (see 4E) .

Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

But what disadvantages do you see to removing the penalties for trying things like push, trip, bull rush, etc.?

EDIT: Or can I read your comment to say that removing the penalties, and encouraging the players to use those option more would slow fights down with no appreciable benefit?

Using 3E I've both removed the penalties and nixed the AoOs. It works just fine: Make Trip and opposed grapple check and allow give people a Reflex saving throw if the forced movement would cause them to fall. (If you pick up Legends & Labryinths, you can set the Reflex save based on character level or monster HD and streamline things even more.)

If there's one valuable lesson from 4E it's that forced movement is fun, makes combat more dynamic, and adds tactical depth to the system. Locking that stuff behind byzantine and punitive modifiers doesn't seem to be necessary.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203My question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty?

It would the decision to try for the normal damage or to risk missing for the chance at something unusual and perhaps better.

QuoteWould it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

I wouldn't mind the first but don't see much point to it, but multiple rolls for things slows down combat, and I loathe things that slow combat unnecessarily. (Remember, I take combat that averages over ten minutes real time as a sign that the game system either isn't for me or that the combat system needs streamlining with house rules to speed it up.)

QuoteMy concern is that combats in earlier editions of D&D are often quite static and dull, with combatants simply trading attack rolls back and forth. I would like to encourage fights to be really dynamic, with lots of pushing and shoving and running around.

Combat in my games tend to be more planning and maneuvering before the first blows even happen to maximize the chance that the enemy dies/is forced to retreat/surrender before they have a chance to get a blow in. However, when this doesn't work, the combats usually aren't all that static. Players describe their characters as doing all sorts of interesting stuff to try to get an advantage beyond simply trading attack rolls. In about 35 years of running games, I've had very few players put of of trying something they thing would help them win a fight because of a few points of penalty on their attack rolls. Note: I run combats abstractly without minis, battlemats, or the like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516228Dynamic combat was never really part of D&D. It is an abstract combat system that has the advantage of being resolved quickly. For more detailed combat another system would serve better.

Its hard to bolt on dynamic action to an abstract framework without the end result being a mess (see 4E) .

Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

I agree, with one caveat:  in 40-odd years of the hobby, I am not sure there are any detailed combat rules that can be said to work 'smoothly', although some are certainly better than others.

As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.  Which, as you say, ends up being rather a mess, as in 4e and later supplements to 3.x.  Guidelines to adjudicate these things are fine, but codifying them doesn't expand options, it only increases handle time.  This is the fundamental cause of 90min combat sessions to deal with a half dozen orcs.

Quote from: RandallS;516271

QuoteMy question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty?

It would the decision to try for the normal damage or to risk missing for the chance at something unusual and perhaps better.

The bold is what you meant, right? The decision is still there, with or without the penalty. Either do damage or perform a manoeuver. Or do you mean that making that choice to perform a manoeuver more tempting is a harm?

Quote

QuoteWould it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

I wouldn't mind the first but don't see much point to it, but multiple rolls for things slows down combat, and I loathe things that slow combat unnecessarily. (Remember, I take combat that averages over ten minutes real time as a sign that the game system either isn't for me or that the combat system needs streamlining with house rules to speed it up.)

That's a fair point. Another roll is another thing to lookup, confirm, and process.

QuoteCombat in my games tend to be more planning and maneuvering before the first blows even happen to maximize the chance that the enemy dies/is forced to retreat/surrender before they have a chance to get a blow in.

Can you think of anything you do at the table to encourage this sort of play? How long does the deliberation usually take? 5 minutes of combat + 25 minutes of players fussing over a plan wouldn't really be an improvement over 30 minutes of combat to my sensibilities.

QuoteHowever, when this doesn't work, the combats usually aren't all that static. Players describe their characters as doing all sorts of interesting stuff to try to get an advantage beyond simply trading attack rolls. In about 35 years of running games, I've had very few players put of of trying something they thing would help them win a fight because of a few points of penalty on their attack rolls. Note: I run combats abstractly without minis, battlemats, or the like.

Can you think of what you do at the table to encourage this sort of thing? Nearly every game of pre-WOTC D&D I've played in didn't use minis or battlemats yet almost always had too much combat that was just "hit roll, damage roll, hit roll, damage roll" for my taste.

Quote from: StormBringer;516275As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.

The trade-off is damage now vs. a bonus later, isn't it? If it works off a straight hit roll, is that too reliable? Hit rolls can be fairly whiffy, after all.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll. I saw this most recently reading through Adventurer Conquerer King. In that iteration, the attacker takes a -4 penalty to the attack roll AND the defender can make a saving throw to avoid the effect (for most manoeuvers). D&D 3rd ed. has a similar penalty for most manoeuvers as well.

In 3.x, a trip attempt is normally made against touch AC (and no AoO if using a trip weapon). A bull rush requires only an opposed Strength roll; you don't have to make an attack roll at all. A Disarm requires an opposed attack roll with circumstance modifiers; winning this could be easier or harder than actually hitting your opponent, depending.
While there is a penalty in the form of an attack of opportunity most of the time, its actually usually easier to hit with a combat manuever than to do damage. I think the problem is that most players can't be arsed.
 
Its also slightly unfortunate that the character with the most chance of actually pulling off any of the standard manuevers, with the least penalty, is a barbarian with a two-handed reach weapon, rather than some sort of swashbuckler type. If you've got a rapier guy in 3E you might be tempted to start doing the swashbuckler thing and trying to disarm people, but you're doing so at a substantial penalty compared to the guy with a greatsword (or the guy with a longspear, who doesn't take AoOs due to being 10' away).
 
Anyway, I'm normally all for completely rewriting the rules but oddly for me, I suppose I'd recommend a re-education program instead: as GM, use NPC tactics and combat manuevers to hand the PCs' asses to them until they learn some tactics.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll.

Are you sure about that?

Bullrush is an opposed Strength check; you suffer a penalty only if you're smaller than your opponent, and if you're larger, you get a bonus. It provokes an attack of opportunity.

Disarm is also an opposed Strength check, and you suffer a penalty if you're using a light weapon and gain a bonus if you're wielding a two-handed weapon. You suffer a penalty if you're trying to disarm someone carrying a non-melee weapon, and gain a bonus if you're larger than the opponent.

Trip provokes an attack of opportunity and requires an opposed Strength versus Dexterity check, with a bonus for being bigger and a penalty for being smaller.

Sunder provokes an attack of opportunity, and there's a penalty again for using a light weapon and a bonus for using a two-handed weapon.

Personally I'm seeing nothing but reasonably intuitive bonuses and penalties in d20, along with attacks of opportunity for trying to get inside the reach of your opponent's weapons, claws, or what-have-you.

In 1e, pummeling, grappling, and overbearing a foe are spelled out, and involve an array of penalties and bonuses depending on a variety of factors, from armor and helmet worn to weight differences to Strength and Dexterity scores (take that, all you who say ability scores don't matter in D&D!). An opponent wielding a weapon has a chance to prevent a grapple or overbear.

So I'm not seeing all these penalties you're talking about.

You and BS Johnson are likely right about 3e. I haven't looked at the 3e rules in a long time, so I could easily have remembered them wrong. As said upthread, the most recent ruleset I looked at was ACKS, which uses a -4 to the hit roll plus a saving throw from the defender (with some of the manoeuvers varying from that rule.) That said, the 3e rules look more complex than I would like--a different rule for each different manoeuver.  I see you and BSS each gave a different rule for Trip. It seems like a lot to keep straight without referencing the manual at the table. I should also add that this is with regard to putting on a Labyrinth Lord/ACKS game in the nearish future.

Quote from: two_fishes;516278The trade-off is damage now vs. a bonus later, isn't it? If it works off a straight hit roll, is that too reliable? Hit rolls can be fairly whiffy, after all.

To hit rolls can be fairly swingy, depending on the situation.  If the to hit is fairly difficult, it can be discouraging when the opponent has a high save vs that stunt.  In 3.x parlance, if the target has a high Reflex save bonus, it can be a buzzkill for trying stunts overall.  In other words, having two rolls for the effect will allow the worst of both, in a manner of speaking.  A high hit chance coupled with a low save chance makes the effect too reliable.  A low hit chance coupled with a low save chance makes it too unreliable.  The sweet spot would appear to be average hit chance with average save chance, but I would have to run some numbers to say for sure.  Roughly speaking, a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance to save means a 25% chance of pulling off the stunt.  Where it gets tricky is situational modifiers that alter those percentages dynamically, making it hard to determine the instantaneous value of a particular stunt.

I would say the trade-off is more along the lines of damage now, or possibly an ongoing(ish) bonus or penalty.  In 4e, there are quite a few effects that might only last until the end of a turn or the beginning of the next, meaning they essentially have no mechanical impact unless other players change plans for their turns to concentrate on the opponent you just blinded, or staggered, or pushed, or whatever.  So part of the equation has to be the duration of the effect, which is easier to calculate if it lasts a given number of rounds or segments or whatever.  "Save Ends" or "Lasts until beginning of next turn" are too vague to really judge the effectiveness of a stunt.  And with 4e specifically, there are too many of those going on at one time to assign a 'dollar value' to stunts, generally and severally.

So, probably pick a to hit or a saving throw, but not both.  Additionally, don't try to make a list of stunts; instead, keep it open ended and let the players figure out what they want to try.  Marvel Super Heroes used that method, and it worked pretty well.  If the player tries a stunt, have them jot that down on their character sheet or something, and they can try it again later, perhaps with a bonus or less of a penalty with subsequent successes.  Take the complexity into account when assigning odds.  Throwing sand is pretty simple, but tying a rope to a halberd, throwing it into a door jamb and trying to trip multiple opponents is pretty complicated.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to require multiple rolls in the latter case.  Have an idea of the guidelines ahead of time, and discuss with the players when they want to try something.  Let them know that they may not always get the bonus they want.  Doing a shoulder roll past some goblins might grant a bonus to hit, but the same thing won't work with a gelatinous cube or a 5th level NPC Fighter.

This is just one of those instances where rulings generally work better than rules.

I myself included in my game a random location hit table, alongside an option to hit any chosen location for a certain advantage (disarm for hand, slowing down for legs, bonus damage/blinding head). All locations are at -2 to hit, save head that is -3 (or -4, had not decided yet).

The random location to - hit table is mostly fluff right now, but I may throw an idea that if you hit an arm randomly, there needs to be a test to see if you dropped your weapon and stuff (I am using already my Pain & Morale rules though, so that'd triple the rolls needed for combat already).

Quote from: two_fishes;516277The bold is what you meant, right? The decision is still there, with or without the penalty. Either do damage or perform a maneuver. Or do you mean that making that choice to perform a maneuver more tempting is a harm?

Yes there was a missing "UN". Apologies for the confusion. I think that if there are no penalties to doing maneuvers that will have greater effect than just taking a swing at it, then there is no real reason to ever just take a swing at it. (Which spikes my "silliness" meter.)

QuoteCan you think of anything you do at the table to encourage this sort of play?

I run an old school sandbox. What you run into is based where you go, not your current power level which makes charging in assuming that you can beat everything you encounter in stand-up combat a recipe for TPK. Also, old school games have reaction rolls, not every group of monsters one encounters is going to auto-attack on sight. They also have morale rules which means losing monsters often surrender or retreat instead of fighting to the finish -- and you can increase the chances of that by killing the leaders or with "shock & awe". Also the primary source of XP is treasure, not creatures killed.

This lends itself to "combat as war" more than to "combat as sport."

QuoteHow long does the deliberation usually take? 5 minutes of combat + 25 minutes of players fussing over a plan wouldn't really be an improvement over 30 minutes of combat to my sensibilities.

It depends on the situation, of course, but in my experience coming up with a plan for normal encounters only takes a few minutes -- at least after the first few game sessions when the players have learned how their characters and hirelings can best work together. If that plan is complex, it may take quite a bit of time to execute, but much of the execution might not be considered combat by most people. Things like sneaking party members into specific positions, tricking another monster into attacking first, making a temporary alliance with some other nearby monster for aid, etc. "Strategic" actions and opposed to in combat tactics.

Quote from: StormBringer;516275As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.

Throwing Sand in your opponent's eyes is probably one of the options where a better way of limiting it would be to make it some sort of 'Encounter Power'. The first time you try it it works, but when opponents know what to look for it's trivial for them to get out of the way. Otherwise you are right, combat just devolves to a nursery school sandpit fight.