Quote from: jadrax;516313Throwing 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.

Fights neither are, nor were in medieval or any times, pleasant and honourable ventures. Indeed, they quite often resembled, as you put it, nursery school sandpit fights - once you are in the mud, everyone screams in pain around you, and the madman is charging on you, it's less Mr Lancelot and more Mr Clegane.

This here from Cadfael shows how a typical duel, even at tournaments, usually looked:

http://youtu.be/a72l3KQHw20?t=3m11s

Quote from: two_fishes;516289I see you and BSS each gave a different rule for Trip.

We both gave you different halves of the trip rules. In total yes, there's an AoO (possibly), then a touch attack, then if that's successful, you make the Str vs. [Str or Dex] roll. To be honest, I suppose a fair consideration of trips odds of working should factor in the around 50/50 chance of failure at the ability check stage, although you can push this up with size modifiers or feats without great difficulty.


Oh, 2E did frequently use the -4 penalty for things (called shots and the like). Mind you, AC didn't increase much with level so hit rolls were still fairly easy.

Cheers,
BSS

Quote from: StormBringer;516298

So, probably pick a to hit or a saving throw, but not both.

This makes sense to me, and it would be nice to lay options as a simple binary--a successful hit roll means you can do damage, or manipulate your opponent in some way, whether that's chasing them onto bad terrain, knocking them down, grabbing something from them or whatever.

QuoteAdditionally, 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.

Open-ended is nice, but I do find that having some kind of list of available options affects the way people make decisions. Having no list whatsoever means most players will just default to the bog standard.

QuoteMarvel 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.  

I seem to recall that. That's an interesting thought. Perhaps something to keep in mind for more risky or complex stunts.

Quote from: two_fishes;516320This makes sense to me, and it would be nice to lay options as a simple binary--a successful hit roll means you can do damage, or manipulate your opponent in some way, whether that's chasing them onto bad terrain, knocking them down, grabbing something from them or whatever.

Just be careful about what effects those actions have on combat.  Knocking an opponent over would reasonably carry a pretty hefty penalty for the opponent or a decent bonus for attackers.  Also, a Dwarf knocking a giant down from a simple to hit roll is probably a little too powerful.  That might be an instance where something outside normal combat procedures should be rolled.

Speaking of...

QuoteOpen-ended is nice, but I do find that having some kind of list of available options affects the way people make decisions. Having no list whatsoever means most players will just default to the bog standard.

Now that you mention it, a short list of starter ideas isn't a bad idea.  At least some guidelines about what sort of roll would be needed.  Perhaps rolling a 20 means a critical hit, or a disarm.  In your knocking prone example above, maybe an opposed Strength check in lieu of a normal attack, with the loser being knocked prone.  Something to separate the rather simple results from the more drastic so the players won't get the idea they can behead Orcus on a regular to hit roll.

QuoteI seem to recall that. That's an interesting thought. Perhaps something to keep in mind for more risky or complex stunts.

One benefit, at least with MSH, is that more than one player could contribute to the power stunt.  I think the example from the rules was Wolverine getting thrown at opponents by Colossus; they both had to make some kind of power check to pull it off.  That trick made it into the X-Men and Ultimate Alliance video games, if I recall correctly.  Of course, the downside is that the odds of success are being reduced again, or the whole thing fails if one of the characters misses whatever roll.  There can be graduated levels of success, but that is going to somewhat add complexity and handle-time.  It may be a reasonable trade-off, however, to encourage teamwork with stunts.

Quote from: Rincewind1;516317Fights neither are, nor were in medieval or any times, pleasant and honourable ventures. Indeed, they quite often resembled, as you put it, nursery school sandpit fights - once you are in the mud, everyone screams in pain around you, and the madman is charging on you, it's less Mr Lancelot and more Mr Clegane.

This here from Cadfael shows how a typical duel, even at tournaments, usually looked:

http://youtu.be/a72l3KQHw20?t=3m11s

But it all comes back full circle you see. Once the sandpit fight starts you are exactly back where you started, a rather static spamming of the same thing over and over. The only difference is, now doing the same shit again and again takes even longer.

D&D combat wasn't designed to be drawn out and lingered upon. Adding things to it to try and achieve extra excitement usually only add resolution time.

The key to an exciting fight is the stakes. If the fight is short and simple but there is a good chance that it could be your character lying on the floor afterwards then excitement will follow.  Having been involved in some 4E combats in which there was sliding and pushing and dazing, and knocking prone, etc but was pretty much decided 5-8 rounds before it ended was not exciting.

Excitement comes from swift and brutal combat. The thing that hurt 4E combat more than anything was the knowledge that it was so balanced that there was no feeling that it could end at any moment for better or worse.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516228Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

I've played D&D with an entirely different combat system (the better you hit, the more damage you do using percentile dice) and it worked just fine.  It's one the reasons why I think, technically, I never played real D&D until 3.5.  Before that, either the GM abstracted the combat or I played with a different combat system grafted on to it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516319Cheers,
BSS

Sorry about that!  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516362But it all comes back full circle you see. Once the sandpit fight starts you are exactly back where you started, a rather static spamming of the same thing over and over. The only difference is, now doing the same shit again and again takes even longer.

D&D combat wasn't designed to be drawn out and lingered upon. Adding things to it to try and achieve extra excitement usually only add resolution time.

The key to an exciting fight is the stakes. If the fight is short and simple but there is a good chance that it could be your character lying on the floor afterwards then excitement will follow.  Having been involved in some 4E combats in which there was sliding and pushing and dazing, and knocking prone, etc but was pretty much decided 5-8 rounds before it ended was not exciting.

Excitement comes from swift and brutal combat. The thing that hurt 4E combat more than anything was the knowledge that it was so balanced that there was no feeling that it could end at any moment for better or worse.

I am one for a certain...complexity of fights, or so to speak - a simple combat system, where the GM simply calls on most modifiers as players perform actions. Over the times, as the rulings happen over and over, those become simply the rules for, as you'd put it, combat manoeuvres. I did not see a combat be dragged out too long so far, because of introducing an idea of something more then "I stab. He stabs back". There are of course limits to that.

And as for the "sand in the eye" - if you throw sand into someone's eyes, he will be blinded for a turn/two, then have probably a penalty (or not) for the rest of the combat at my table. You can try that trick again, but there'd be a penalty for trying the same trick again.

In the last game, I did surprise the player rather nastily. He drew a sword in a bar fight. I had 3 NPC bouncers who had a special quality - +1 to To Hit as long as they were using street fighting techniques or clubs. First round as the NPC I declared that I kick him in the balls - I hit, and I told him to pass a Pain check on -10. GG no re.

Next fight, I suspect that the player (who is a dwarf) might take a clue and start using his dwarf's head as a ram in a street fight, rather then draw his blade .

Long story short - I like me some combat manoeuvres. Perhaps DnD isn't perfect system for that - but that's why I houserule it.

Quote from: RandallS;516305Yes 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.)

I guess my disagreement is that a manoeuver is necessarily better than taking a swing. Usually it means giving the defender some short-term penalty in lieu of doing damage, which seems like a fair trade-off.

Quotesnipped some good stuff.

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.

Based on actual playtest experience, the opportunity cost of passing up damage is more than enough cost to prevent these abilities from being spammed.

If you're letting someone do something special AND score their normal damage, then you have a problem. But that's not the case with any edition of the game I'm familiar with.

QuoteWhich, 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.

(1) Combat maneuvers were added to OD&D in Strategic Review #2 in 1975. In AD&D1 they are extensive (and far more complicated to resolve). From there they migrate to B/X, BECMI, AD&D2, and RC. IOW, these rules have a long, long legacy and have almost certainly been part of the game longer than you've been playing it (unless you started in 1974).

(2) It doesn't take 90 minutes to resolve a fight against six orcs in 3E unless you're doing something really, really wrong.

(3) Based on actual playtesting, the fundamental cause of longer fights in 4E is that it takes more rounds to inflict the necessary hit point damage. Even if your turn-by-turn resolution time is identical (which it generally is at the tables I've played 4E at), 4E combats take longer because they take longer.

Quote from: two_fishes;516370Sorry about that!  

hehe, no probs.

Also, sorry, off-topic possible question on 0D&D/1E AD&D manuevers for anyone who knows: did any of these make it to 2E? Or was the 2E manuever system in Complete Fighter's Handbook (and extended again in Combat & Tactics) a complete replacement of whatever system was in place ?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516408Also, sorry, off-topic possible question on 0D&D/1E AD&D manuevers for anyone who knows: did any of these make it to 2E? Or was the 2E manuever system in Complete Fighter's Handbook (and extended again in Combat & Tactics) a complete replacement of whatever system was in place ?

2E's original PHB contains rules for unarmed combat, wrestling, overbearing, nonlethal attacks, parrying, and so forth. These were generally streamlined and simplified versions of 1E's byzantine systems, but there are a few exceptions.

(Tangentially: Whenever somebody complains about 3E introducing them to AoOs, pg. 98 of the original 2nd Edition PHB is a good reference to point them to: "A character attempting to punch, wrestle, or overbear an armed opponent can do so only by placing himself at great risk. Making matters worse, an armed defender is automatically allowed to strike with his weapon before the unarmed attack is made...")

Quote from: Justin Alexander;5164132E's original PHB contains rules for unarmed combat, wrestling, overbearing, nonlethal attacks, parrying, and so forth. These were generally streamlined and simplified versions of 1E's byzantine systems, but there are a few exceptions.
 
(Tangentially: Whenever somebody complains about 3E introducing them to AoOs, pg. 98 of the original 2nd Edition PHB is a good reference to point them to: "A character attempting to punch, wrestle, or overbear an armed opponent can do so only by placing himself at great risk. Making matters worse, an armed defender is automatically allowed to strike with his weapon before the unarmed attack is made...")

Ah, I'd never noticed that! Pg 97 in the 2E PHB (the "retreat" section) also gives a free attack on enemies that disengage and flee, unless they withdraw at 1/3 normal rate.
 
(Something abit fishy about AoOs in 2E. Weapon speed factors seem to assume that swinging a slow weapon will delay someone by several segments -in a minute-long combat round!, but AoOs go off instantly).
 
I'd seen punching and wrestling before in 1E I think, though I'm not super familiar with it. Complete Fighter also had a bunch of additional combat options, including detailed rules for Called Shots to various hit locations, Grab, Hold Attack, Disarm, Expert Disarm, Grab, Parry, Pin, Pull/Trip, Sap, Shield-Punch, Shield-Rush, Parrying, and some guidelines for improvised manuevers.

Combat should play like this

The Northmen were already horrifyingly close, breaking through the nearest hedgerow.  He could pick out faces across their line.  Snarling, screaming, grinning faces.  Like animals, weapons raised high as they bounded on through the barley.  Lasmark took a few steps backwards without thinking.  Sergeant Lock stood beside him, his jaw muscles clenched.

"Shit, sir," he said.

Lasmark could only swallow and ready himself as his men flung down their weapons around him.  As they turned and ran for the river or the hill, too far, far too far away.  As the makeshift line of his company and the company beside them dissolved leaving only a few knots of the most stunned and hard-bitten to face the Northmen.  He could see how many there were, now.  Hundreds of them.  Hundreds upon hundreds.  A flung spear impaled a man beside him with a thud, and he fell screaming.  Lasmark stared at him for a moment.  Stelt.  He'd been a baker.

He looked up at the tide of howling men, open mouthed.  You hear about this kind of thing, of course, but you assume it won't happen to you.  You assume you're more important than that.  He'd done none of the things he'd promised himself he'd do by the time he was thirty.  He wanted to drop his sword and sit down.  Caught sight of his ring and lifted his hand to look at it.  Emlin's face carved into the stone.  Didn't look likely he'd be coming back for her now.  Probably she'd marry that cousin of hers after all.  Marrying cousins, a deplorable business.

Sergeant Lock charged forward, wasted bravery, hacked a lump from the edge of a shield.  The shield had a bridge painted on it.  He chopped at it again, just as another Northman ran up and hit him with an axe.  He was knocked sideways, then back the other way by a sword that left a long scratch across his helmet and a deep cut across his face.  He spun, arms up like a dancer, then was barged over in the rush and lost in the barley.

Lasmark sprang at the shield with the bridge, for some reason barely taking note of the man behind it.  Perhaps he wanted to pretend there was no man behind it.  His sword instructor would have been livid with him.  Before he got there a spear caught his breastplate, sent him stumbling.  The point scraped past and he swung at the man who thrust it, an ugly-looking fellow with a badly broken nose.  The sword split his skull open and brains flew out.  It was surprisingly easy to do.  Swords are heavy and sharp, he supposed, even cheap ones.

There was a clicking sound and everything turned over, mud thumped and barley tangled him.  One of his eyes was dark.  There was a ringing, stupidly loud, as if his head was the clapper in a great bell.  He tried to get up but the world was spinning.  None of the things he'd promised to do by the time he was thirty.  Oh.  Except join the army.

-        -        -

The Southerner tried to push himself up and Lightsleep knocked him on the back of the head with his mace and bonked his helmet in.  One boot kicked a little and he was done.

"Lovely."  The rest of the Union men were all surrounded and going down fast or scattering like a flock o' starlings, just like Golden said they would.  Lightsleep kneeled, tucked his mace under his arm and started trying to twist a nice-looking ring off the dead Southerner's finger.  Couple of other lads were claiming their prizes, one was screaming with blood running down his face but, you know, it's a battle, ain't it?  If everyone came out smiling there'd be no point.  Away south Golden's riders were mopping up, driving the fleeing Southerners to the river.

"Turn for the hill!" Scabna was bellowing, pointing at it with his axe, the smug arse.  "To the hill, you bastards!"

"You turn for the hill," grunted Lightsleep, legs still sore from all that running, throat sore from all that screaming besides.  "Hah!"  Finally got the Union lad's ring off.  Held it up to the light and frowned.  Just some polished rock with a face cut into it, but he guessed it might fetch a couple of silvers.  Tucked it into his jerkin.  Took the lad's sword for good measure and stuck it through his belt, though it was a light little toothpick of a thing and the hilt rattled.
Joe Abercrombie - The Heroes

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516407Based on actual playtest experience, the opportunity cost of passing up damage is more than enough cost to prevent these abilities from being spammed.

That rather depends on the ability in question.  If we are talking about knocking someone prone, the player may pass up their own damage, but the next however many players getting huge bonuses to hit the downed opponent seems more than worth the cost of one round of damage.  Especially if the player with statistically low damage to begin with attempts the manoeuvre.

QuoteIf you're letting someone do something special AND score their normal damage, then you have a problem. But that's not the case with any edition of the game I'm familiar with.

That falls in line with my earlier admonition against using a to hit roll and a saving throw.  But that is pretty much the default template regarding powers in 4e.  In just the 3.5 PHB, the feats Spring Attack, Improved Trip and Improved Bullrush come to mind as allowing damage and an effect.  I would be very sceptical if there weren't more examples in later splats; the ones closest to 4e are likely rife with them.