Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516423Ah, 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.

And in 1st Edition spellcasting was specifically delayed until after other attacks, which produced AoO-like effects for spellcasting: No free attack, but if somebody started casting a spell near you, you would still be able to whack 'em for it. (In 2nd Edition, this was softened to casting time modifying the caster's initiative result. But casters were considered to be what 3E would later tag as "flat-footed" while casting.)

Quote from: StormBringer;516591That 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.

Well, now you're talking about special powers. I might similarly say "characters shouldn't be allowed to automatically throw around giant balls of fire that deal 10d6 points of damage". But that doesn't mean fireball is a bad idea.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516606Well, now you're talking about special powers. I might similarly say "characters shouldn't be allowed to automatically throw around giant balls of fire that deal 10d6 points of damage". But that doesn't mean fireball is a bad idea.

What special powers?  Pretty much any AEDU power for Fighters is a 'combat manoeuvre'.  Most of the things Rogues do in 4e is more effect than damage.  And the other three were feats from 3.5.

Quote from: StormBringer;516653And the other three were feats from 3.5.

You think that characters can use every feat in the game?

You must have had some really interesting experiences with 3E then.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516663You think that characters can use every feat in the game?

You must have had some really interesting experiences with 3E then.

Ah, so it has to be available to every character class.  I will wait until you are done shifting the goalposts before continuing, if that's ok.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516606And in 1st Edition spellcasting was specifically delayed until after other attacks, which produced AoO-like effects for spellcasting: No free attack, but if somebody started casting a spell near you, you would still be able to whack 'em for it. (In 2nd Edition, this was softened to casting time modifying the caster's initiative result. But casters were considered to be what 3E would later tag as "flat-footed" while casting.)

I went and looked up some of this with the ADDICT AD&D initiative and combat table ( www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf ), just out of curiousity, then checked some of the original sources. Loss of Dex bonus is true in 1E as well (DMG pg 65).
 
Technically it wasn't an automatic loss of initiative for spells in 1E, although you're quite right that the revisions to speed factors in 2E made it less likely for spells to be disrupted.
 
DMG pg 66-67 notes that weapon users winning initiative (on d6) would automatically go first, while an attacker losing initiative would still interrupt if their [weapon speed factor, minus their d6 roll for initiative] was less than the spell's casting time. (again a bit weird, since the winner's initiative roll doesn't factor into the calculation at all).

Quote from: StormBringer;516275I 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.

...
 

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.
 
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.

I think this is where you two are talking past each other.
To the 3.5 player, using a feat isn't a "special manuever" per se; its bought and paid for, so its in a sense part of "normal damage". Its a balanced part of the character build, and why would spamming it be an issue?
 
A 4E player probably wouldn't consider their powers to be "special manuevers", either. Of course you spam them over and over...if you want to do something special, use page 42 and the GM makes something up that's equivalent to a power (more or less). In practice I think most page 42 effects are slightly worse than at-wills, so trying to do something creative in combat rather than movespam is (as one guy I saw talking about their groups attitude to them on rpg.net put it), an "amusing peccadillo".

If your system is already separating out "did I hit" and "how well did I hit", why not shift the mechanic for some attacks from the attack roll, to the result (Damage) roll? If you're read The One Ring game, I'm proposing pinching not too far away from it's "edge" mechanic, and if not, read on.

So, say I want to knock someone over. There's two components to this; hitting someone hard enough (There is a positioning element, but I'm happy to assume my character is looking for the right opening in the scum of melee to launch his attack, so I don't need to worry about it). So you make your to-hit roll, and then your damage roll; if that's good enough, they're down, and if not they're not. Either way, you do damage as if the weapon had rolled a 1 (Because you're not striking to kill, as you would in a normal attack), plus whatever other modifiers usually affect your damage.

Light weapons (Daggers, rapiers, etc) could require a maximum result; yes, this makes it easier to knock someone down with a dagger, but that's fine because the dagger user is going to be closer to the target, and better positioned to use their own body in the attack - they can shove, and kick, and grapple, but not to their full ability because they have enough self-preservation to not risk falling on their own weapon.

"Military" weapons (Swords etc) are versatile enough to be used in different ways. So let's say that you need to roll an even number score a knockdown.

Smashy, impact weapons are designed to knock people down. So let's say they score a knockdown if they roll in the upper half if the dice result, but the character can add their Strength-type bonus to the roll for working this out (So, say, a smashy weapon doing d6 usually needs a 4+ result to score a knockdown, but wielded by a character with a +1 strength bonus, it would only need a 3+). 1's always fail to score a knockdown.

If the attack is something where the strike is the important part, like hitting a weak point, then that's a situation where you should be modifying the to-hit roll. Sand in the face? That's a to-hit issue, and sand isn't easy to throw, so a penalty is appropriate.

Quote from: jibbajibba;516435Combat should play like this

How so? What is it about this example that you find so important?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516362D&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.

1e AD&D characters had quite a few choices as well.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516694To the 3.5 player, using a feat isn't a "special manuever" per se; its bought and paid for, so its in a sense part of "normal damage". Its a balanced part of the character build, and why would spamming it be an issue?

Sure, in strictly 3.x mechanical terms, feats aren't 'special manoeuvres'.  But philosophically, I don't see the difference, really.  Tripping might be something anyone can do in 3.x, but if you want to do it well, there is Improved Trip.  I mean, you took all that time to practice tripping people, right?  

3.x was just the first pass at codifying that stuff.  It was spotty, to be sure, and the effort wasn't terrible, but it does kind of point to some of the issues inherent in making lists like that.  If anyone can attempt a trip, then someone has to be able to do it better, right?  So we are starting down the path to an hierarchical tree based on the quasi-improvisational stunts that were intended to spice up combat, and turning them into an ossified part of the combat system.
 

QuoteA 4E player probably wouldn't consider their powers to be "special manuevers", either. Of course you spam them over and over...if you want to do something special, use page 42 and the GM makes something up that's equivalent to a power (more or less). In practice I think most page 42 effects are slightly worse than at-wills, so trying to do something creative in combat rather than movespam is (as one guy I saw talking about their groups attitude to them on rpg.net put it), an "amusing peccadillo".

Again, what they consider the powers is all well and good, but in reality, it's the most rigidly codified set of 'stunts' I have ever seen in a game.

I get what you are saying; the perception is that these aren't anything special.  For all intents and purposes, though, they are very much 'combat manoeuvres'.