In 5e, if you want to do more than just swing your sword...just say what it is you're doing. The whole point of 5e is the concepts of opposed ability checks and the status effects make it very easy to adjudicate what happens if, instead of swinging his sword twice, the fighter wants to throw sand in his eyes, body slam him against a wall, etc. The grapple/shove rules are given as templates, not an exhaustive list of things you can do. The rules already say a level 5 fighter can use an opposed ability check to knock an enemy prone and another to hold him to the ground with one Attack action (2 attacks can be exchanged for a Shove and a Grapple), so that should be kind of a guide.

So if you've never done anything interesting with your fighter, it's because you've never tried.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1011405That is definitely not the structure of 3E, which regulated actions in combat using a huge number and diversity of feats. I don't recall off hand how without-feat penalties worked, but it's not relevant because the reality is the game was organized around knowing which complex chains of feats each combatant knew. I don't think I ever met anyone who treated these as a generic list of things everyone could try with various penalties.

One of us is confused, because I am pretty sure that it is. If I recall correctly if you wanted to disarm, you could do so with something like a -4 penalty (and possibly drawing an attack-of-opportunity). If you wanted to trip, you could do so with ~-4 penalty and maybe AoO. If you wanted to push (bull rush), you could do so with ~-4 penalty and maybe AoO, and so on and so forth.

Yes, feats were definitely a huge part of the game, and theoretically a huge number of feats were supposed to be a fighter's offsetting compense for not being a barbarian or spellcaster. But the basic structure of combat was 'attack, or use one of a long list of attack-like combat maneuvers, which everyone know but you need feats to be at all good at.'

D&D was created with the idea of a team in mind.

You have heavy troops, light troops, missile troops, and artillery (wizards).

If you are playing a Napoleonic battle and you are commanding a regiment of foot, you do not complain that you are holding the line while the artillery does the heavy killing.  That is the ROLE of foot troops, and you are doing your job.

Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

All that said, some people don't like that sort of game.  They'd be happier with something else.

I had a player with a monk in 5e who always wanted to jump on the backs of dragons.  I was sure wanting a special, DX save or take 1d8 damage from the ridge of spikes, rule.

Also, I'm playing Pathfinder right now, and I find that despite what appears to be a huge number of options, fighters quickly develop a "best attack."

SO instead of saying "I attack" every round, I say "I power attack" every round.  Oh, the thrills.  Oh, the drama.  Oh, the excitement.  Oh, the horseshit.

(Actually, what I really say every round is "HASSAN CHOP!")

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011411D&D was created with the idea of a team in mind.

You have heavy troops, light troops, missile troops, and artillery (wizards).

If you are playing a Napoleonic battle and you are commanding a regiment of foot, you do not complain that you are holding the line while the artillery does the heavy killing.  That is the ROLE of foot troops, and you are doing your job.

Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

All that said, some people don't like that sort of game.  They'd be happier with something else.

That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

I wonder if they can get away with showing that cartoon anymore.

Anyhow, I'd argue that a game like GURPS where every option is available to everyone is a lot closer to every fighter is the same than 3-5e D&D's laundry lists of special attacks and abilities.  I'm a bit disappointed that GURPS Dungeon Fantasy went the route of special abilities.  

GURPS Fighter can be as simple as Strength starts at 10 and costs10 points per point, Dexterity starts at 10 costs 20 points per point, Intelligence starts at 10 and costs 20 points per point, Health starts at 10 and  costs 10 points per point.  Brawling and Knife skill starts at Dexterity -1 for 1 point.  Most other weapon skills start at Dexterity -2 for one point.  The cost of each extra skill point doubles until it reaches 4.  Dodge = 3 + (Dexterity + Health /4) - Encumbrance.  Parry = 3 + Skill / 2.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011359This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

So what's your take on it? Do you prefer combat options per class/subclass to be rich and fleshed out, or simple and straightforward? Is it boring when all you can do is "attack" again every time?

If it something their character can do because he is a living person within the setting of the campaigns then they will be able to do it regardless if their a specific rules to cover it. Read the Old School Primer and look how combat is being handled. Despite the lack of explicit mechanics the characters are trying a lot of things because that what a person can do in a world with normal physics and with the attribute of that character.

Beyond that if they are looking for kewl powers then make a setting they want to adventure in and make sure the rules you make for D&D 5th edition covers what character can do in that setting.

For example the Barbarian isn't quite right to represent a Berserker for my Majestic Wilderlands. So I made my own take that close but has several difference to reflect how Berserkers work.

But ultimately you are not going to factor every nth detail with 5e combat and action resolution. For that you need a different game like GURPS, Harnmaster, etc. For my OD&D based Majestic Wilderlands campaign, I try to make options based on existing mechanics namely the d20 roll high, armor class, hit points, and the idea of the saving throw.

For example in my campaign you can roll to hit somebody in the head without a helmet to knock them out. However they get a saving throw to avoid going unconscious. If somebody wearing a open face helm, you can still try but you are rolling at a -4 (the same as the to-hit penalty for an invisible opponent). The consequence of this that high hit dice and high level target are likely to make their save and not effected.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011416That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

That's what solo adventures are for.  Yes, we used to go into Greyhawk castle alone.  No other players, no NPCs.  Just your player character.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011411Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

To me the best magic item or power is another PC working with me. One advantage of using miniatures and having even a simple set of facing and flanking rules is that the players will start working together to take advantage of them.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011416That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

Gronan is talking about what the game evolved from. You are correct that a lot of people (starting within moments of the game hitting publication) want a game like that. The game rules, however, moved only very slowly in that direction. BECMI slowly accumulated combat maneuvers--general attack of course, plus set spear, parry, disarm, Smash (power attack, effectively), fighting withdrawal, and retreat. 2e AD&D also had a lot of those options, plus called shots (attack specific limb/location). 3e went all over the map and 4e... well, I'll let a 4e expect go over that. Point being, while yes swashbuckling adventure is a big part of D&D for huge numbers of players, the actual combat rules have not always supported it with a bunch of in-combat decision trees.

Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Tunnels & Trolls combat works exactly like this. You can cast your spell, shoot your arrow, or swing your sword in which case you contribute the appropriate dice + adds to the Hit Point Total for your side or you can try a stunt. A stunt can be anything. Any special maneuver you can think of, up to and including trying to one-shot kill the enemy with a single well placed blow. The GM sets a difficulty number, you roll your dice, and if you succeed that's it.

One of the prime features of T&T is that you can resolve any character's attempt to do anything by assigning it a Saving Roll (difficulty and relevant attribute) and having the player roll the bones.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011430The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

I don't agree. The problems are the referees not the players. The referee is still in command of the table. The problem is that most rely on the rules as a crutch rather than thinking of the entire picture and all what a character do in their campaign.

The only place where that even a factor is in organized play. Despite being very visible is only a small portion of our hobby.