Forcing melee to use varied combat maneuvers

[Talakeal]

On the Why Can't Melee have Nice Things? thread I made the comment that I felt the War Blade system of being unable to prepare all of their maneuvers at a given time was unrealistic, and was met with a host of people telling me that basic fighters are unrealistic because they can use the same move over and over without diminished success.

While I still find the idea of performing the same move twice in a row impossible to be laughable, I do concede that it is more difficult if your opponent expects it, and forcing characters to vary up their moves might make the game more fun and discourage one trick poniess.

So I was thinking, how about a house rule to make melee characters need to vary up their maneuvers? By maneuvers I mean things like Sunder, Grapple, Disarm, Trip, and Bull Rush, although if you wanted to expand it to things like Charge, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, etc.

I was thinking something along the lines of if you have already used the maneuver this encounter you suffer a -2 penalty to hit, and if you used it on the previous round you suffer a -4 penalty instead. Or, if this feels like a nerf to an already weak archetype, replace it with a +2 to hit if you have not used the move in the last round and a +4 if you are using it for the first time in a given encounter.

Do you think this is necessary? Do you think it is more realistic? Do you think it is too difficult to keep track of? Or do you think it is an unneeded nerf / buff to an already under / over powered class?

[Ravens_cry]

Well, when making manoeuvres without the Improved line of feats, take away the Attack of Opportunity. Up the bonuses the feats provide perhaps to still make taking them rewarding, but make it so it isn't suicide to use them. Also, this isn't a houserule but a DM tip, but make it so using them has an advantage. Have a boss fight with varied terrain, making Bull Rush useful. Or give the enemies weapons instead of natural attacks, so Disarm is useful.
Stuff liek that.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I wouldn't do it that way.

Best way to get players to use varied tactics? Make it worthwhile. The problem is, at least on higher levels, you are very often either fighting magical or very, very big opponents. Against both of which many maneuvers make little sense. Trip the Colossal dragon? Good joke. Disarm the ethereal wizard? Naah. You'll very often get into situations where, really, where no maneuver other than full attacking will do much.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, I wouldn't do it that way.

Best way to get players to use varied tactics? Make it worthwhile. The problem is, at least on higher levels, you are very often either fighting magical or very, very big opponents. Against both of which many maneuvers make little sense. Trip the Colossal dragon? Good joke. Disarm the ethereal wizard? Naah. You'll very often get into situations where, really, where no maneuver other than full attacking will do much.

I think people's problem with it is players find the most effective maneuver against a given foe and then just spam that move over and over again for the whole fight, not that they use the same move against different types of opponents.

[stainboy]

On the Why Can't Melee have Nice Things? thread I made the comment that I felt the War Blade system of being unable to prepare all of their maneuvers at a given time was unrealistic, and was met with a host of people telling me that basic fighters are unrealistic because they can use the same move over and over without diminished success.

Maneuvers known/ maneuvers readied makes situational abilities more attractive. If I can change my loadout, then I can learn a Stone Dragon maneuver and it's not a wasted slot any time we fight in the air. Supporting situational abilities means more diversity and more interesting powers.

My beef with the maneuver system is that you constantly "forget" lower level maneuvers to learn higher-level ones. That needs to go.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but see, problem is, if only one (or none) works, penalties will make your players rather angry, I think.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, but see, problem is, if only one (or none) works, penalties will make your players rather angry, I think.

So do I, but apparently a LOT of people find the ability to use all your attacks as often as you want both unrealistic and bland, and I was trying to figure out a simple way to appeal to those people without creating an entirely new combat system.

[Shpadoinkle]

So do I, but apparently a LOT of people find the ability to use all your attacks as often as you want both unrealistic and bland, and I was trying to figure out a simple way to appeal to those people without creating an entirely new combat system.

So you want to convince ToB users that core-only melee combat can be just like ToB by screwing over core-only melee combat even harder via making fighter have a harder time of doing anything more than once, when they can barely do anything effectively at all.

Okay.

[Talakeal]

So you want to convince ToB users that core-only melee combat can be just like ToB by screwing over core-only melee combat even harder via making fighter have a harder time of doing anything more than once, when they can barely do anything effectively at all.

Okay.

I think you may have misread my post or are intentionally trying to be sarcastic because that isn't what I said, but I will try and respond anyway.

I was thinking about ways to address a complaint that some people seem to hate the basic combat mechanics of the game, they feel that it is unrealistic and boring to be able to do the same things over again. I have seen this sentiment in numerous threads, many of which don't even mention the ToB, but this latest thread got me thinking about the problem seriously.

I was just throwing out ideas, and I said it could be a penalty for doing the same things OR A BONUS for doing different things, the latter of which would only help fighters, hardly "screwing them over".

90% of the D&D games I play are core only, have been since second edition, so there are no ToB users in my group.

I also usually don't play D&D at all, instead I use my own homebrew system, and there are certainly no ToB users there. However, if people really feel that it is a big enough flaw of the D&D system I would like to incorporate some sort of mechanic to encourage switching up tactics into my homebrew rules.

I was just throwing the idea out there. After more thought I don't think it is a good one, because no system I can think of will actually simulate catching a foe off guard, players will just start doing a combat "rotation" instead of spamming a single move. I have also talked to a couple real life friends who have done fencing and SCA and are saying that performing the same move repeatedly is much easier than people on this board are letting on.

[Shadowknight12]

I was just throwing out ideas, and I said it could be a penalty for doing the same things OR A BONUS for doing different things, the latter of which would only help fighters, hardly "screwing them over".

This can work. This is worthwhile. I'm sure there's someone out there in the Homebrewed forum with such a system.


I was just throwing the idea out there. After more thought I don't think it is a good one, because no system I can think of will actually simulate catching a foe off guard, players will just start doing a combat "rotation" instead of spamming a single move. I have also talked to a couple real life friends who have done fencing and SCA and are saying that performing the same move repeatedly is much easier than people on this board are letting on.

Good. You've caught on.

Look into how players play MMORPGs. The options there (for melee, archers and spellcasters) are staggering. What happens? Save a few boss-level monsters that require highly specific strategies, characters have a combat rotation that they go through mechanically. Why? Because it works. Mathematically, it's the most efficient and safest way to down enemies while conserving the maximum amount of resources.

For as long as the mentality of the player is "I want to win," you will have this result, regardless of how many mechanical bonuses or penalties you impose on them. Players WILL find a way around them. They will thrive in the challenge of finding a way to maximise their efficiency and win with the least amount of spent resources.

The only way to change this is to change the mentality of the player. De-emphasise combat. Shift the focus of the game away from it. When combat is not as important as other parts of the game, maximising efficiency in that area is no longer that rewarding. Or, alternatively, make combat rare, so that their "combat rotation" can be explained away as "what happened in that particular fight." Then get them to level up a few times before the next combat and voilà, you have a new "rotation" that can once again be explained away as "what happened in that particular fight."

[Talakeal]

But I like combat as do most of my players. It's not my favorite part of the game, but it is up there, especially if it is a challenging combat that encourages tactics.

I never had a problem with D&D combat, I always thought there was plenty of tactics and strategy involved, even in a part of all tier 5s. Actually especially in a party of all tier 5s, as most CR appropriate encounters can be blasted through without the need for tactics by a more powerful party, selecting the right spell for the encounter usually ends it in a round or two.

However, apparently there are a lot of people who cannot stand it for the reasons I mentioned above, and I was trying to figure out if there was a simple fix that would make them more likely to play my games.

Face paced tactics oriented combat is one of the big selling points of my homebrew system, and I would like to address that flaw is it is actually as serious as people are making it out to be.

[Shadowknight12]

Sorry, but I don't have the slightest idea of what the problem is. What are you concerned about? That people can't do the same martial manoeuvre twice on a row or that they shouldn't? That players enjoy spamming the same one trick over and over (and that, in your view, they should not enjoy this?) or the same rotation? That D&D combat is too slow-paced? That the CR system is not as awesome as most people think it is? That magic is overpowered? That solid tactics break the CR system?

What, exactly, are you saying? In short, concise, simple statements, please.

[Talakeal]

Numerous people have stated that melee in Dungeons and Dragons is unrealistic and boring because characters can simply use the same move over and over again.

These people state that they have no interest in playing a melee character as a result.

I was trying to think of a houserule that would make these people hate melee combat less which I could apply in my Dungeons and Dragons game and eventually my own homebrew system so it would appeal to these people.


I began thinking about it because in the martial versus magic thread I stated that I prefered playing a fighter to a war blade because I simply can't wrap my head around playing a warblade who knows all these maneuvers but can only use a couple in a given battle unless given 5 minutes time out to prepare.
I had three people tell me that they didn't want to play a non ToB melee character because they simply couldn't wrap their head around a guy who is capable of performing the same maneuver repeatedly and succeed.

[Shadowknight12]

Numerous people have stated that melee in Dungeons and Dragons is unrealistic and boring because characters can simply use the same move over and over again.

You are mistaken. That sentence is wrong. It is not "can," it is "must." Melee characters in D&D are by definition, one-trick ponies. That is why they are boring. That is why people do...


These people state that they have no interest in playing a melee character as a result.

...this.


I was trying to think of a houserule that would make these people hate melee combat less which I could apply in my Dungeons and Dragons game and eventually my own homebrew system so it would appeal to these people.

Yes, indeed, we've all been there. Go to the Homebrewed forum and see for yourself. Whether you think the problem is that magic is too good or that melee is too bad (or both), the problem is systemic. It is not something a simple houserule will fix. If it was, it'd had been fixed ages ago.

What you need to do is listen to people's complaints. What, exactly, are they complaining about? Analyse that. Then find a way to fix it. But keep in mind that each person will want a different fix. Some people think that magic is fine as it is, the problem is that melee should be able to do just as much, that ToB hasn't done enough. Others think that magic is obscenely overpowered, and should be toned down, that the fighter in the PHB is okay as it is, that the casters are the problem. Others fall somewhere in the middle.

If you want people to play your homebrewed system, I would advise to make it variable, in order to cater to the spectrum I outlined above. Make it possible for melee to "get nice things" or for casters to "lose nice things" or for both to happen at once.


I began thinking about it because in the martial versus magic thread I stated that I prefered playing a fighter to a war blade because I simply can't wrap my head around playing a warblade who knows all these maneuvers but can only use a couple in a given battle unless given 5 minutes time out to prepare.
I had three people tell me that they didn't want to play a non ToB melee character because they simply couldn't wrap their head around a guy who is capable of performing the same maneuver repeatedly and succeed.

You did not listen correctly. You mistook the word "can" for the word "must." People do not want to play a fighter because they must repeat the same manoeuvre over and over and over again, and must hyperspecialise in order to be even mildly competent in combat. That is their grievance with the fighter, not the fact that he can spam the same technique over and over.

[Totally Guy]

I'm designing a system where if you predict the move your opponent is going to use you get a bonus to your own action. Your opponent has to try to do the same too.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm designing a system where if you predict the move your opponent is going to use you get a bonus to your own action. Your opponent has to try to do the same too.

Player: "He's going to trip me."
DM: "How do you know?"
Player: "Because he just tripped me, and he's a melee-type. In order to get enough bonuses to be successful and the ability to wield that spiked chain, he's spent the majority of his feats on that. He can't really do much else."
DM: "...you get a +2."

or

Player: "He's going to wait until I attack him."
DM: "How do you know?"
Player: "He's using Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit, that's the only way he can do what he just did. He can't change tactics without wasting 75% of his build."
DM: "...you get a +2."

[Talakeal]

stuff

I see with what you are saying and agree with almost all of it, however people were specifically saying can, not must.

I said it is unrealistic that a war blade can perform a maneuver fine one day and then the next day be completely unable to perform the same maneuver without taking 5 minutes to prepare first.
I was then told that it is even more unrealistic that a fighter CAN trip the same opponent two rounds in a row.

[navar100]

Variety can be implemented by DM fiat. Some people resent this as part of their angst against the fighter.

If you want the fighter to Trip more, stop using so many large flying four-legged creatures. If you want the fighter to Sunder more, use more weapon-wielding foes not using magic weapons intended as part of treasure hoards. Same thing for Disarming. For Bull Rush, have terrain matter. Also, have the bad guys use these tactics as well instead of just trying to hit for damage every time. Combat is a war of hit point attrition. PCs can't afford not to hit for damage if the bad guys are always doing it.

As for what the game provides, there are tactical feats that give bonuses when considering consecutive rounds of play instead of what you're doing in a particular round. Give them to bad guys and have them be used. Players seeing them in action will learn their value. When a PC takes one, let him be able to use it.

Use more bad guys in combat. Out number the party two to one or three to one. This helps to prevent party spellcasters winning the combat with one spell. Their uberspell can't defeat all the bad guys at once. They can take out more than one bad guy with one spell but not all of them. The warriors deal with the rest.

[tonberrian]

I see with what you are saying and agree with almost all of it, however people were specifically saying can, not must.

I said it is unrealistic that a war blade can perform a maneuver fine one day and then the next day be completely unable to perform the same maneuver without taking 5 minutes to prepare first.
I was then told that it is even more unrealistic that a fighter CAN trip the same opponent two rounds in a row.

There's a feat that lets you change your maneuver selection as a full-round action.

[Talakeal]

There's a feat that lets you change your maneuver selection as a full-round action.

That would have been nice to know...

ToB came out after I stopped playing D&D and I am just now getting back into the game. I haven't actually read the book because, as I said, I usually play core only and am perfectly happy with the core melee classes*, but I asked for a rundown on the mechanics last week and no one mentioned that.



* If only they had more skills and saving throws, but that isn't something ToB can fix.




Yes, indeed, we've all been there. Go to the Homebrewed forum and see for yourself. Whether you think the problem is that magic is too good or that melee is too bad (or both), the problem is systemic. It is not something a simple houserule will fix. If it was, it'd had been fixed ages ago.


Frankly the main reason I posted this was to judge people's reaction on this forum to see just how strongly people's hatred toward repeated uses of the same maneuver is and what people think the best solution is so that I can tell if it is worth using the space in the book and having the players take the time to keep track of it in my own game.

[Talakeal]

sorry double post

[Totally Guy]

Player: "He's going to trip me."
DM: "How do you know?"
Player: "Because he just tripped me, and he's a melee-type. In order to get enough bonuses to be successful and the ability to wield that spiked chain, he's spent the majority of his feats on that. He can't really do much else."
DM: "...you get a +2."

or

Player: "He's going to wait until I attack him."
DM: "How do you know?"
Player: "He's using Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit, that's the only way he can do what he just did. He can't change tactics without wasting 75% of his build."
DM: "...you get a +2."

It's more like rock paper scissors. But weighted by your rating in ability, how naturally certain strategies are to the character and what strategies are appropriate to the type of conflict.

It's not D&D.

If you are trying to implement something for D&D you could write what you think an opponent will do, lay it face down on the table. If the person then does that thing then your next action could have a nice bonus of some kind.

[Shpadoinkle]

* If only they had more skills and saving throws, but that isn't something ToB can fix.

These are actually two of the things ToB helps fix. There are maneuvers that let you substitute your Concentration check for a saving throw, and warblades benefit quite a bit from having a high Intelligence (I'd say Intelligence and Strength are roughly equally useful for a warblade,) which has the side effect of letting them have more skill points without having to gimp themselves when it comes to melee.

Perhaps you should try reading the book before declaring what it can and can't do, or implementing a bunch of complicated houserules to force melee characters to not do the same thing every round (which is something they simply aren't going to be able to do without sucking horribly.)

Fighters spend a LOT of resources to become only moderately effective at one thing because that's all they can do. Making it even harder for them to do that one thing is cutting their legs out from under them. It would be like swatting a dog in the face with a newspaper every time he correctly does the trick you want him to do- it's counterproductive and incredibly frustrating for the subject because you're sending mixed signals.

[The Random NPC]

I believe the best way to force melee to vary their combat maneuvers would be to have different objectives. Possibly in the same fight. I'm not sure how the following would happen but say you need to kill one person, capture another, and slow someone else without hurting them. The first you could power attack/charge, the second you could do the same but nonlethal, and the third you would have to trip or bull rush or disarm.

[Talakeal]

These are actually two of the things ToB helps fix. There are maneuvers that let you substitute your Concentration check for a saving throw, and warblades benefit quite a bit from having a high Intelligence (I'd say Intelligence and Strength are roughly equally useful for a warblade,) which has the side effect of letting them have more skill points without having to gimp themselves when it comes to melee.

Perhaps you should try reading the book before declaring what it can and can't do, or implementing a bunch of complicated houserules to force melee characters to not do the same thing every round (which is something they simply aren't going to be able to do without sucking horribly.)

Fighters spend a LOT of resources to become only moderately effective at one thing because that's all they can do. Making it even harder for them to do that one thing is cutting their legs out from under them. It would be like swatting a dog in the face with a newspaper every time he correctly does the trick you want him to do- it's counterproductive and incredibly frustrating for the subject because you're sending mixed signals.


As I have already said repeatedly it doesn't have to punish them for doing the same thing, it could also reward them for doing different things.

Its more the list of fighter class skills than skill points that are the problem, which as far as I know warblade does nothing to fix.

[Shpadoinkle]

As I have already said repeatedly it doesn't have to punish them for doing the same thing, it could also reward them for doing different things.

Different things they're going to suck at because they don't have the resources to spend to be any good at them.

That would feel like a punishment to me, as a player.


Its more the list of fighter class skills than skill points that are the problem, which as far as I know warblade does nothing to fix.

These are the warblade's class skills.

http://www.dumpyourphoto.com/files2/64861/q5ndJx.png

What, precisely, is your problem with this list?

[tonberrian]

These are the warblade's class skills.

http://www.dumpyourphoto.com/files2/64861/q5ndJx.png

What, precisely, is your problem with this list?

For me? Eh, no spot or listen.

[Talakeal]

Mostly Heal (my current character is a doctor), but also Spot, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Perform. Knowledges and Proffession are nice as well.

[Roderick_BR]

Ok, I understood what you mean. Here's some ideas.

Not having the feat causes attacks of opportunity. No chance. You are not good at getting at the proper range without getting hurt.

If you do have the feats, you can use them without AoO. Using the same twice in a row (during the same action, or in consecutive rounds) will give you a cummulative -1 penalty (or 2, if you prefer it), since the enemy is just waiting for you to do it.
After you take a penalty, you can make a different action and a feint. If the feint succeeds, you gain a bonus to that attack equal to the previous penalty (or a +1 for every -2 you got earlier), as you fool your enemy into defending against the an action you are no longer using.

These options wouldn't affect normall attacks, as everyone expects a normal attack at any time.

For example, you attack someone and tries a disarm. Next round you try it again, getting a -1 penalty. Then next round you do a tripping, and suceeds in a feint, getting the normal benefits, and that -1 becomes a +1 for that trip attempt.

It punishes one-trick ponies, and encourages tactical thinking.
Will increase book keeping a bit, though.

[Grendus]

Ok, I understood what you mean. Here's some ideas.

Not having the feat causes attacks of opportunity. No chance. You are not good at getting at the proper range without getting hurt.

If you do have the feats, you can use them without AoO. Using the same twice in a row (during the same action, or in consecutive rounds) will give you a cummulative -1 penalty (or 2, if you prefer it), since the enemy is just waiting for you to do it.
After you take a penalty, you can make a different action and a feint. If the feint succeeds, you gain a bonus to that attack equal to the previous penalty (or a +1 for every -2 you got earlier), as you fool your enemy into defending against the an action you are no longer using.

These options wouldn't affect normall attacks, as everyone expects a normal attack at any time.

For example, you attack someone and tries a disarm. Next round you try it again, getting a -1 penalty. Then next round you do a tripping, and suceeds in a feint, getting the normal benefits, and that -1 becomes a +1 for that trip attempt.

It punishes one-trick ponies, and encourages tactical thinking.
Will increase book keeping a bit, though.

You're missing the point. A good tripper is only good at tripping. If he's good at disarming too, he won't be good enough at tripping to do it reliably. If you penalize him for tripping repeatedly, all that means is that he can't trip, or he has to take greater risks of the enemy tripping him back in order to have some useless variety (disarming is useless against the 70% of monsters who have natural attacks, SLA's, and other combat options, grappling is a bad idea against anything more than one size category larger than you, etc). The maneuvers aren't enough, when the casters (even the more balanced spellcasters like beguiler and dread necromancer) are rebuilding the battlefield and changing the rules of engagement as a standard action being able to knock an enemy down for a round just isn't enough.

If you don't like the Warblade not being able to spam his moves, just let him use any of his maneuvers known at will and use your houserules on repeated uses of the same maneuver. The Warblade would actually benefit from this, since he would carry more maneuvers known into battle and just needs a little redundancy to avoid the penalties. The fighter can't be fixed through existing mechanics... believe me, we've tried and tried. It's just not a solid enough concept, the wizard would never waste a party slot on the Fighter after level 10 or so. When the wizard can summon a creature more powerful and versatile than the fighter with a spell slot, the class is pretty much beyond repair.

[Seerow]

I wouldn't do this with a baseline fighter to force him to trip/bull rush or whatever rather than just attacking, but with a ToB-esque maneuver system I'd say it's a pretty interesting concept to include.

[Ravens_cry]

@Roderick_BR:
Doing more then one or two different ones means you are almost certainly going to eat attacks of opportunity. And if not, penalties. Getting hit for a full attack bonus hit from, say, a 5 strength wizard with a dagger, is not bad. Getting hit by melee monster, ouch. The penalties are crippling at low levels, when you are most likely to have at most one Improved feat. Even at high levels, you aren't going to likely have the feats to spend on many, and a cumulative penalty can get brutal, fast.
So either suck, or get hit for free. I do not see that making the game less a litany of full attacks, IMHO. If anything, it would encourage it more. At least as it stands now, you will not get a negative for focusing on one manoeuvre, which is one more than "Attack the Hit Points".

Maybe make a manoeuvre proficiency system like weapon proficiencies, coming in groups of related manoeuvres, with different classes getting automatic access (but probably not a bonus), more martial classes getting more.

[joca4christ]

My beef with the maneuver system is that you constantly "forget" lower level maneuvers to learn higher-level ones. That needs to go.

Depending on how you flavor it, it could be "beefing up" a maneuver that you knew.

For example...mighty throw, devasting throw, etc. You could, in theory, forget mighty throw for one of the higher level throws on the precept that you have learned to do mighty throw...better.

Same as with the Shadow Jaunt line. As you progress from standard, to move, to swift, you've just gotten better at performing said maneuver.

Now, I know not everyone plays like that...it's just the way I would probably do it.
:smallbiggrin:

[tonberrian]

My beef with the maneuver system is that you constantly "forget" lower level maneuvers to learn higher-level ones. That needs to go.

That's optional. Do you have the same beef with Sorcerers and Bards that do the same thing?

[Shadowknight12]

I see with what you are saying and agree with almost all of it, however people were specifically saying can, not must.

I said it is unrealistic that a war blade can perform a maneuver fine one day and then the next day be completely unable to perform the same maneuver without taking 5 minutes to prepare first.
I was then told that it is even more unrealistic that a fighter CAN trip the same opponent two rounds in a row.

Basic neurobiology will show you that the brain is programmed to undertake repetitive actions with almost NO changes whatsoever. Repeating the same action over and over and over again is what the brain is programmed to do.

As for the "can't perform a manoeuvre without readying it" thing, just state that manoeuvres are complicated and have to be practised before using them. I could cite examples, but really, this is intuitive. Every time the baseball batter takes a couple of practice swings, every time the golf player does the exact same thing, etc. It's not that far-fetched.


Frankly the main reason I posted this was to judge people's reaction on this forum to see just how strongly people's hatred toward repeated uses of the same maneuver is and what people think the best solution is so that I can tell if it is worth using the space in the book and having the players take the time to keep track of it in my own game.

This is a personal matter. It is not something with a great amount of consensus. It will depend on your players, and I'd even bet you'll find some who'll disagree with the others.


It's more like rock paper scissors. But weighted by your rating in ability, how naturally certain strategies are to the character and what strategies are appropriate to the type of conflict.

It's not D&D.

'Kay, my bad.


If you are trying to implement something for D&D you could write what you think an opponent will do, lay it face down on the table. If the person then does that thing then your next action could have a nice bonus of some kind.

See, now you're just being... I don't know, really. I posited in the very post you're quoting what the problems of such an approach. Go and re-read my post. It changes not whether it is spoken aloud or written down.

[FMArthur]

The maneuver exchange system is mostly for the maneuvers copied-and-pasted over and over at different levels. There are often 3 variations of one maneuver template in a discipline. What should have been done is a scaling usage on one maneuver, but I strongly suspect that they wanted to fill a quota of some sort to make the selection appear broader than it is.

Anyway, that's what looks like the original purpose of the maneuver exchange system is, but things like non-TWF Tiger Claw and discipline-maneuvers-known requirements on maneuvers would also be affected by its removal.

[McSmack]

First of all I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise that it's unrealistic for a melee character to do the same thing round after round. To me it's like saying it's unrealistic for a sorcerer to use fireball two rounds in a row.

I agree that the manuever recharge system is a bit wonky. and it doesn't flow as nicely as I'd like it to. I'd rather see more known/granted maneuver's known that could be used pretty much at will. Or perhaps a point system similar to psionics. Have a specific number of maneuver points you can use each encounter for any maneuvers you wanted, and then have a recharge system that allows you to recover points during combat. Perhaps as a balance to allowing martial adepts to use any maneuver they know have the recharge system be a bit more costly (full round action or weapon florish or something.) or have a recharge rate that is slower pointwise than the cost of using 1 maneuver per round. So that eventaully they'd have to spend a few actions on something other than maneuvers.

But that's really something for another thread.

I think you'd be better off givng melee benefits for using different combat maneuvers (bull rush, trip, sunder etc). Personally I'd houserule all of the Improved Blah feats into one or simply give melee classes a class ability (gasp) that removes the AoO they would generate from those maneuvers.

Then I'd think about putting in some sort of Tactical Feat like the ones in Complete Warrior and elsewhere that would give you bonuses if you varied up your maneuvers. or that allowed them to do combat maneuvers while doing damage (double gasp!!)

SOmething like this off the top of my head.

Maneuver Master: You have master the art of combining pysically damaging attacks with tactical maneuvers. You can use any of the following abilities.
Wrist Chop: Whenever you make a regular melee attack your opponent must also roll vs disarm if your attack is successful and does damage.
Sweep the Leg: Your critical hits unbalance your opponents. Your oppoent must roll vs your confirmation roll whenever you deal damage with a critical hit.
Lockdown: You are trained to hit vital spots when you bull rush. After successfully bullrushing an opponent, you get a bonus to your next trip, disarm, sunder, or regular attack roll. This bonus is equal to +X per 5' you moved your opponent.

[Veyr]

OK, here are some thoughts I've had on this. I think Tome of Battle is excellent and I don't feel the need to replace it with anything, but these are some idle thoughts I've had.

One, Fighter Bonus Feats. At 1st, give him the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude. At 2nd, give him Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes for free, in addition to his normal feat.

At 4th level, allow his Bonus Feats to be selected as if he had the Combat Expertise, Dodge, Endurance, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Mounted Combat, Point Blank Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus feats, plus similar "entry feats" from outside Core.

He need not actually gain the benefits of these feats (though I'd consider giving them to him if he takes a feat that requires them). At every even level thereafter, add to this list, and quickly. This allows him to take high-level feats at high levels, and allows him to do so in multiple different tricks instead of having to build up multiple trees. This goes a fair way towards getting him competent at a wide variety of things.

This still doesn't give him class features, though. It makes him the master of feats, but he already was that and it's frankly not that impressive.

For class features, I'd take my cue from Tactical Feats — but to be sure, something a lot better than the vast majority of Tactical Feats actually printed. Give him options — lots of them — that require a certain positioning, a certain situation, certain prior actions — and then make the maneuver itself invalidate itself, so that after the maneuver is finished, the conditions required for its use are no longer true. Now he has done something to his opponent or to protect his allies or whatever, and it was effective, but the situation's changed as a result and he's got to mix it up. He's got to learn to flow from one to the next, setting up combos and shifting quickly as his opponent disrupts them.

I've tried a couple of times to write something out along these lines. I'm currently working on one for DocRoc's Legend system, in fact. But it's not easy, not at all. But to my mind, it could lead to a very robust system, that has built-in reasons to keep mixing up your maneuvers. The designing, balancing, and testing of it becomes very difficult, however.

[Person_Man]

I recently wrote up a homebrew ToB class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204591) based on movement, and explicitly included a mechanism that prevented them from readying or using the same maneuver 2 rounds in a row. I've thought about this a lot while playing all the various editions of D&D, plus Heroclix, MtG, Warmachine, various board games, etc.

Ideally you need to be mindful of this issue when writing the rules. ToB and 4E do a fairly good job of this, although 4E makes the major error of having 100 mediocre Powers for each class which are each a minor variation on a theme, instead of just 20 interesting Powers that scale.

But assuming you want to fit this into 3.X, how about this homebrew solution:

At first level, everyone selects 5 spells or maneuvers or powers or any other non-continuous and/or non-buff class abilities (lets just call them Powers) that's appropriate for that level. You gain one additional Power each additional level, and can swap out one Power for a new one every level as well.
At first level you also gain 1 Buff or continuous Power of your choice. This buff is always on. You gain one additional Buff every 3 levels, but can only have 1 Buff on at any given time. Starting or swapping out a Buff is a Swift Action. For example, at first level you could take Rage, or Disguise Self, or Protection from Evil, or a stance, or whatever.
In combat, you can use any Power at will every round. But each time you use it beyond the first, it takes a -4ish penalty to hit, damage, opposed checks, Save DCs, etc.
Characters are made co-operatively with all players and the DM at the table. All players and the DM have veto power over any Power or Buff selection. So no Polymorph unless everyone is playing at that level of cheese.


That schema would leave out or require major homebrewing for about half the classes in the game. But it would give everyone plenty of fun toys to play with, it would encourage varied use of Powers without requiring it, and would make playing the game a lot simpler.

[Totally Guy]

See, now you're just being... I don't know, really. I posited in the very post you're quoting what the problems of such an approach. Go and re-read my post. It changes not whether it is spoken aloud or written down.

You'd build character prioritising being able to do a wider variety of things because the rules would be different. Going into it with the same mindset as if the rule was not in place would be frustrating.

[Shadowknight12]

You'd build character prioritising being able to do a wider variety of things because the rules would be different. Going into it with the same mindset as if the rule was not in place would be frustrating.

No. That part of your post was specifically talking of D&D. Simply applying a bonus for guessing correctly in no way implies that people would stop making their spiked chain trippers, lockdown builds or Robilar's Gambit/Karmic Strikes combos, and it does not imply that said bonus would in any way solve the gaping differences between melee and casters.

[ffone]

I think people's problem with it is players find the most effective maneuver against a given foe and then just spam that move over and over again for the whole fight, not that they use the same move against different types of opponents.

The 'problem' this thread addresses is premised on a '1 to 1 mechanics and fluff ' pigeonholing.

Since when is every direct damage attack 'the same manuever ' in character? Think of your favorite movie swordfight or a sparring match in fencing or martial arts class. Probably most of the attacks would be regular attacks as opposed to trips etc.

This is how full attacks were meant to be roleplayed. Use your creativity. Would more mechanical variety for melee be more fun for mechanical reasons? Probably. But does 'realsim' demand it for the reason you gave? I'm not so sure.

And re : your complaint about always being able to full attack at the same rate.....absent smite, stunning fist, other per attack charged abilities which can be wasted on misses, and other corner cases like rob's gambit, there is little difference between a miss and an attack that never occurred (you got fewer openings that round etc.) Mix it up with roleplaying/fluffing creativity!

[Totally Guy]

No. That part of your post was specifically talking of D&D. Simply applying a bonus for guessing correctly in no way implies that people would stop making their spiked chain trippers, lockdown builds or Robilar's Gambit/Karmic Strikes combos, and it does not imply that said bonus would in any way solve the gaping differences between melee and casters.

I don't get it.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't get it.

By your description, you say that the person gets "a nice bonus of some kind." Unless those bonuses are the literal equivalent of spells, spell-like abilities or manoeuvres, they will be practically laughable and will have absolutely no impact in the way a player creates a melee character.

[Totally Guy]

By your description, you say that the person gets "a nice bonus of some kind." Unless those bonuses are the literal equivalent of spells, spell-like abilities or manoeuvres, they will be practically laughable and will have absolutely no impact in the way a player creates a melee character.

That sucks! Oh well. :smallredface:

[erikun]

If you want melee combatants to use varied combat maneuvers, then you need to make the varied combat maneuvers viable for use. As others have pointed out, it takes a considerable amount of your build to be good at a single combat maneuver. Being good at two is highly unlikely in most characters, and even if it was, there's still the problem of most combat maneuvers being mostly worthless.

This is the problem a large number of people have with 3.5e core melee combat. It's not that someone can trip, it's that someone must trip because any other option is worse or useless, and thus everyone who ends up playing around with unusual combat maneuvers ends up tripping as a result.

My suggestions would be, in brief: Remove AoOs from combat maneuvers. Keep the feats to grant a +4 to rolls, but remove their prerequisites. Make the maneuvers benefitical to use; losing attacks, even on a successful hit, is a major problem. Make feinting useful. Make two-weapon fighting useful (one feat, off-hand gets same benefits as main hand). Make shields useful. Make sneak attack useful against more stuff without magic.

No, you won't be able to implement just a +2 or -2 and expect things to become interesting. If melee combat is boring due to lack of options, then you need to include more options, not just grant bonuses to the single options that are available.

[Cloaked Bloke]

The 'problem' this thread addresses is premised on a '1 to 1 mechanics and fluff ' pigeonholing.

Since when is every direct damage attack 'the same manuever ' in character? Think of your favorite movie swordfight or a sparring match in fencing or martial arts class. Probably most of the attacks would be regular attacks as opposed to trips etc.

This is how full attacks were meant to be roleplayed. Use your creativity. Would more mechanical variety for melee be more fun for mechanical reasons? Probably. But does 'realsim' demand it for the reason you gave? I'm not so sure.

And re : your complaint about always being able to full attack at the same rate.....absent smite, stunning fist, other per attack charged abilities which can be wasted on misses, Andrew other corner cases like rob's gambit, there is little difference between a miss and an attack that never occurred (you got fewer openings that round etc.) Mix it up with roleplaying/flirting creativity!

This, +1.
The entire idea of a fighter being ineffective is just not true, in my experience. In games I've run, I've had fighters that were capable of slaughtering casters with ease, all of whom were higher level than him and were optimized. Funny thing is, roleplaying and Fighter optimization allowed the fighter to do this.

[Curious]

This, +1.
The entire idea of a fighter being ineffective is just not true, in my experience. In games I've run, I've had fighters that were capable of slaughtering casters with ease, all of whom were higher level than him and were optimized. Funny thing is, roleplaying and Fighter optimization allowed the fighter to do this.

The obvious response to this would be to say that the wizard was clearly not very well optimized. However, I'll just respond by saying that in every game I have ever played, the magic-users have always been superior to the melee characters. In my first PF game with a new group at tenth level, I had a mobile fighter whose only trick was to full attack and trip at the same time. The sorceror, on the other hand, was able to fly, charm political opponents, and use various other spells to utterly dominate every encounter we faced. Could my character fly? Craft a stone wall out of thin air? No. If it had been a fight between the two, I know who would have won, and it wasn't my character.

[stainboy]

That's optional. Do you have the same beef with Sorcerers and Bards that do the same thing?

That's different. A sorcerer/bard/whatever swaps abilities for equal-level abilities. They get some freedom to correct poorly-thought-out build choices and to drop redundant abilities ("I have Charm Monster now, so I don't really need Charm Person anymore"). That's all gravy.

The ToB problem is that you're supposed to swap lower level maneuvers for higher level maneuvers. You should do this almost every time you get the opportunity. It means a lot more planning and bookwork to make sure you meet all your prereqs, it's really hard to have an in-character conversation about, and it smacks of WotC thinking we're not smart enough to remember what all of our abilities do. They could have seriously replaced this mechanic with the sorcerer/bard mechanic, given everyone a extra maneuver known at every even level, and not broken anything.

[tonberrian]

That's different. A sorcerer/bard/whatever swaps abilities for equal-level abilities. They get some freedom to correct poorly-thought-out build choices and to drop redundant abilities ("I have Charm Monster now, so I don't really need Charm Person anymore"). That's all gravy.

The ToB problem is that you're supposed to swap lower level maneuvers for higher level maneuvers. You should do this almost every time you get the opportunity. It means a lot more planning and bookwork to make sure you meet all your prereqs, it's really hard to have an in-character conversation about, and it smacks of WotC thinking we're not smart enough to remember what all of our abilities do. They could have seriously replaced this mechanic with the sorcerer/bard mechanic, given everyone a extra maneuver known at every even level, and not broken anything.

It's a balanced ability. Your objection seems to be to the fluffing of it, which has the same fluffing as the sorcerer/bard ability (none), which has the exact same issues. I personally don't care whether you dislike it or not, but I do think you should try to be consistent about it.

[Cerlis]

Mechanifluffly speaking the enemy would be gaining an insight bonus to their ac against that style (maybe +2 vs the move, and +1 vs the style)

you'd want a cap, which is exceedable via a feat, maybe like powerattack/expertise. +5, with a feat that allows you to go up to your base attack. because your average person would only be able to learn so much in the heat of combat. even if its easier for you to dodge if you know whats coming you are still limited by your ability and reflexes. a hardened warrior who specialized in watching enemy combatant and learning to dodge his moves would have this feat and it would only be limited by his own combat ability (BAB)

[stainboy]

It's a balanced ability. Your objection seems to be to the fluffing of it, which has the same fluffing as the sorcerer/bard ability (none), which has the exact same issues. I personally don't care whether you dislike it or not, but I do think you should try to be consistent about it.

It's the prevalence of it and power loss for opting out. Sorcerers mostly only swap spells if they "graduate" to a better version of a spell (Invis -> Greater Invis or something); warblades are expected by their class design to swap maneuvers every few levels.

I do like ToB, for what it's worth. I'm not just looking for flaws in it to find a reason to dismiss it. But it does have some flaws that I wouldn't want to see repeated in a new combat maneuver system (which is what I think Talakeal is making).

[Shadowknight12]

It's the prevalence of it and power loss for opting out. Sorcerers mostly only swap spells if they "graduate" to a better version of a spell (Invis -> Greater Invis or something);

Sorry, this is just wrong. Nothing says I have to do that. I can replace Invisibility for Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mango, Melf's Murderous Mop, Tasha's Tedious Taser, Elminster's Elemental Emeritus, Bigby's Bitchin' Bitchslap or Tenser's Tessellating Tapdance. To name a few.

[stainboy]

Let me try it another way. The warblade is supposed to have a set number of level appropriate maneuvers. Why does he have to get half of them by forgetting a bunch not-level-appropriate maneuvers he wouldn't ready very often anyway? Why couldn't he keep those maneuvers, just to make the character simpler to build and help preserve suspension of disbelief?

[Maphreal]

Something I've done with good results is allow melee classes to swap out "Improved X" feats with others of the same prerequisite as a swift action.

So for example, a fighter with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip could spend a swift action to swap Improved Trip for Improved Disarm. However, he could not swap out Improved Trip for Improved Bullrush, as they don't have the same prerequisites, even if he meets said prerequisites. He could though, swap Improved Sunder for Improved Bullrush, as they have the same prerequisites.

This lets them be able to have the right feat for the right time, without heavy investments in feats that they'll hardly ever use. Granting the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude to most melee classes is another good way to keep them versatile.

[Sucrose]

Let me try it another way. The warblade is supposed to have a set number of level appropriate maneuvers. Why does he have to get half of them by forgetting a bunch not-level-appropriate maneuvers he wouldn't ready very often anyway? Why couldn't he keep those maneuvers, just to make the character simpler to build and help preserve suspension of disbelief?

Well, if you don't use a technique for a while, odds are good that you'll forget it. You tend to swap out the non-level-appropriate maneuvers that you haven't used for a while. Thus, your character got too out of practice with the maneuver to use it properly. If you want to get back into practice, that requires additional training, as represented by either Martial Study or re-acquiring the maneuver normally. Seems pretty sensible to me. Granted, you could trade out something that's still useful at any level, like Wall of Blades or Moment of Perfect Mind. But why would you do that?

That said, I agree that it wouldn't particularly unbalance anything for the replacement mechanic to be replaced with just an extra maneuver known every two levels; it'd just increase the after-creation paperwork a bit.

[Shadowknight12]

Let me try it another way. The warblade is supposed to have a set number of level appropriate maneuvers. Why does he have to get half of them by forgetting a bunch not-level-appropriate maneuvers he wouldn't ready very often anyway? Why couldn't he keep those maneuvers, just to make the character simpler to build and help preserve suspension of disbelief?

Variety. Casters are not constrained by the spells they know, so initiators shouldn't, either. Like the aforementioned sorcerer who can swap his spells every odd level for no reason whatsoever, or the favoured soul who does the same, or the spirit shaman who does the same every day, you are gaining a mechanical advantage and leaving the fluff up to the players and DMs to decide.

[stainboy]

I'm not talking about giving martial adepts fewer maneuvers or less flexibility. A level 6 warblade has 6 maneuvers known and has had the opportunity to swap maneuvers twice. This means he has effectively learned 8 maneuvers and forgotten 2 maneuvers. I think a new better system would have him learn 8 maneuvers and forget zero maneuvers.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm not talking about giving martial adepts fewer maneuvers or less flexibility. A level 6 warblade has 6 maneuvers known and has had the opportunity to swap maneuvers twice. This means he has effectively learned 8 maneuvers and forgotten 2 maneuvers. I think a new better system would have him learn 8 maneuvers and forget zero maneuvers.

Sure, go with that. It'll boost their power, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Might get them to scrape the floor of Tier 2.

[Grendus]

Sure, go with that. It'll boost their power, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Might get them to scrape the floor of Tier 2.

If they were T4 it might bump them to T3, but the difference between T3 and T2 is an entire order of magnitude. T2 classes can create their own planes of existance, control the minds of their opponents, create matter out of pure thought, alter the very flow of time, etc. Warblades don't necessarily need that power boost, but in a higher tier party it won't be a big deal.

[Shadowknight12]

If they were T4 it might bump them to T3, but the difference between T3 and T2 is an entire order of magnitude. T2 classes can create their own planes of existance, control the minds of their opponents, create matter out of pure thought, alter the very flow of time, etc. Warblades don't necessarily need that power boost, but in a higher tier party it won't be a big deal.

Um. Beguilers and warmages gain 9th level spells. Beguilers can, indeed, control the minds of their opponents, create (illusory) matter out of pure thought and alter the very flow of time. Tier 2 does not mean "can cast 9th level spells."

The difference is of variety. Tier 2 has access to more (powerful) options than Tier 3. By giving warblade more manoeuvres to execute, you ARE raising them towards Tier 2. I don't know if it'll be enough to make them proper Tier 2 (or even low Tier 2), but you ARE pushing them in that direction.