D&D with free retaliation

[Quertus]

In a number of videogames I play, whenever one unit attacks another, the attacked unit gets to attack back (unless certain conditions are met, the most common of which are that the attack dropped the target, or that the attack was ranged).

Any thoughts what the game would look like if D&D were played this way? Is it worth trying, or are there obvious dysfunctions I'm missing?

[Uncle Pine]

The first thing that strikes me as obvious is that with this houserule blasting people in the face with orbs of force is even more appealing.

[legomaster00156]

I'd like to point you towards QUARTS (https://sites.google.com/site/quartssrd/home), a Fire Emblem-based d20 system with rules for counterattacks. The most notable effect is that the game becomes much more dangerous.

[Venger]

In a number of videogames I play, whenever one unit attacks another, the attacked unit gets to attack back (unless certain conditions are met, the most common of which are that the attack dropped the target, or that the attack was ranged).

Any thoughts what the game would look like if D&D were played this way? Is it worth trying, or are there obvious dysfunctions I'm missing?

it would make the rocket tag aspect of mid-high level play even worse, and there would be even less point to playing literally any character who can't kill an enemy in one round, like a mailman or ubercharger.

like any rule that disproportionately affects the pcs, it's a bad rule. pcs exist through the whole campaign, so they'll have to deal with every monster's retaliatory attacks. npcs only exist for that one combat encounter until the pcs kill them, so they only have to deal with one encounter's worth of retaliatory effects.

you're basically going to turn all npcs into kings of smack for free. it should be pretty clear why that's inadvisable.

[KillianHawkeye]

I used to play in this homebrew RPG system that a couple of my friends back then had been working on for several years. Among other things, it featured an active defense roll versus every attack roll and included the possibility of counter-attacks and, if your defense roll beat the enemy's attack roll by enough of a margin, the ability to completely parry your opponent's strike and THEN counter with one of your own.

Long story short, my character was such a great swordsman that he was nearly invincible in melee combat and actually did more damage when it wasn't his own turn most of the time.



I know this doesn't directly relate to the question of adding counter-attack mechanics to D&D, but consider it an extreme example of what changing some basic rules can lead to.

[Nifft]

I used to play in this homebrew RPG system that a couple of my friends back then had been working on for several years. Among other things, it featured an active defense roll versus every attack roll and included the possibility of counter-attacks and, if your defense roll beat the enemy's attack roll by enough of a margin, the ability to completely parry your opponent's strike and THEN counter with one of your own.

Long story short, my character was such a great swordsman that he was nearly invincible in melee combat and actually did more damage when it wasn't his own turn most of the time.



I know this doesn't directly relate to the question of adding counter-attack mechanics to D&D, but consider it an extreme example of what changing some basic rules can lead to.

Sounds like a great way to model a master swordsman -- he calmly and competently attacks, but doesn't expose himself, and he ruthlessly exploits any of his opponent's mistakes.

[Karl Aegis]

Isn't that just Age of Sigmar?

[Quertus]

The first thing that strikes me as obvious is that with this houserule blasting people in the face with orbs of force is even more appealing.

That was ever appealing? :smallconfused:

In 3.0, the other orb spells were appealing. 15-target SoS spell? Yes, please. But Orb of Force has always been a niche spell at my tables.


I'd like to point you towards QUARTS (https://sites.google.com/site/quartssrd/home), a Fire Emblem-based d20 system with rules for counterattacks. The most notable effect is that the game becomes much more dangerous.

I kinda figured that, actually.


there would be even less point to playing literally any character who can't kill an enemy in one round, like a mailman or ubercharger.

Other than, "that's not the balance point were playing at at this table"? That reason's always been plenty for me...

Of course, if that is the table's balance point, then, yes, that build is even more advantageous, whereas a 2WF SA DPS Rogue might fall behind the curve. So, yes, some minor adjustments to expectations and table balance are in order.


like any rule that disproportionately affects the pcs, it's a bad rule. pcs exist through the whole campaign, so they'll have to deal with every monster's retaliatory attacks. npcs only exist for that one combat encounter until the pcs kill them, so they only have to deal with one encounter's worth of retaliatory effects.

you're basically going to turn all npcs into kings of smack for free. it should be pretty clear why that's inadvisable.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about this one. I liken this to playing a gritty game without D&D's massive HP - plenty of people do it, but it can be hard to adjust if you're used to more of a cushion. I know I had a hard time adjusting to videogames with free retaliation attacks. But it was doable.

Still, it is something to keep in mind, whether it disadvantages PCs more than NPCs.


Long story short, my character was such a great swordsman that he was nearly invincible in melee combat and actually did more damage when it wasn't his own turn most of the time.

I've played a Katana-wielding Troll Street Samurai in Shadowrun - I totally get it. :smallwink:


Isn't that just Age of Sigmar?

I'm not familiar with that. Is it? If so, review please!

[Karl Aegis]

I'm not familiar with that. Is it? If so, review please!

If I remember the rules right, as long as your squad was engaged in melee on your turn you'd exchange attacks with your enemy. Whoever had the highest initiative stat struck first and had the possibility off killing the enemy before they got their attacks off. Your enemy could try to disengage on their turn or continue melee combat on their turn.

[Crake]

There's literally already rules for this, they come in the form of feats: Karmic Strike, and Robilar's Gambit. Hell, you can even get both of them, because one triggers on attack, and the other triggers on hit, so you can return an attack, then if they hit ATTACK AGAIN.

You need a damn good dex score to keep up with all the attacks you'll be getting though.


Also: 12 Headed hydra with Robilar's Gambit. Your melees can go cry in a corner now.

[Uncle Pine]

Still, it is something to keep in mind, whether it disadvantages PCs more than NPCs.

Except there's no doubt in this: in D&D, every rule change that increases the lethality of combat favors the underdog, it being NPCs. This is because playing characters are expected to face 13-14 level appropriate challenges while staying alive to go up a level, wherease the purpose of monsters is to show up and die mostly over the course of a single encounter.

[Jay R]

In Flashing Blades, one of the available attack options is Counter, which gives a free strike at any enemy who attacks you and fails to hit.

Two actions (only one of them an attack) are allowed per turn. My musketeers routinely take Parry and Counter when facing more than one opponent.

[Fouredged Sword]

That was ever appealing? :smallconfused:

In 3.0, the other orb spells were appealing. 15-target SoS spell? Yes, please. But Orb of Force has always been a niche spell at my tables.


Truestrike > orb of force is one of the single most reliable damage spells in the game. It ignores almost all defenses.

[Quertus]

Except there's no doubt in this: in D&D, every rule change that increases the lethality of combat favors the underdog, it being NPCs. This is because playing characters are expected to face 13-14 level appropriate challenges while staying alive to go up a level, wherease the purpose of monsters is to show up and die mostly over the course of a single encounter.

But does it make combat more lethal?

It makes "overwhelming numbers" less effective - which generally favors the PCs.

It makes alpha-strike rocket tag more desirable - which generally favors the PCs.

And it makes in-combat healing harder, which generally disadvantages the PCs is a wash, because then the casters will be doing something more useful with their time.

I'm seeing a lot of advantages for the PCs. Not a lot of "makes combat more lethal". Care to explain your PoV?


Truestrike > orb of force is one of the single most reliable damage spells in the game. It ignores almost all defenses.

Yes, it's reliable. You use it when all else fails. To me, that's a very niche spell, compared to the fighter swinging his sword 14,400x(1-5) times per day, or the encounter-ending SoD / battlefield control / teleport spells.

If wizards got their spells at will, and spammed this spell (rather than BFC or SoS/SoD spells) over and over? Then I'd agree. But I haven't seen that, at least at my tables. It's in the category of "I'd better pack this, just in case", like a rain jacket.

[Fouredged Sword]

But does it make combat more lethal?

It makes "overwhelming numbers" less effective - which generally favors the PCs.

It makes alpha-strike rocket tag more desirable - which generally favors the PCs.

And it makes in-combat healing harder, which generally disadvantages the PCs is a wash, because then the casters will be doing something more useful with their time.

I'm seeing a lot of advantages for the PCs. Not a lot of "makes combat more lethal". Care to explain your PoV?



Yes, it's reliable. You use it when all else fails. To me, that's a very niche spell, compared to the fighter swinging his sword 14,400x(1-5) times per day, or the encounter-ending SoD / battlefield control / teleport spells.

If wizards got their spells at will, and spammed this spell (rather than BFC or SoS/SoD spells) over and over? Then I'd agree. But I haven't seen that, at least at my tables. It's in the category of "I'd better pack this, just in case", like a rain jacket.

Then you are not seeing the referenced mailman wizards. The mailman uses orb of force because the mailman delivers the package every single time. Not rain or snow nor AC nor intangability nor resistance wilm stop this humble servant from dealing way more damage than actually needed.

[Quertus]

Then you are not seeing the referenced mailman wizards. The mailman uses orb of force because the mailman delivers the package every single time. Not rain or snow nor AC nor intangability nor resistance wilm stop this humble servant from dealing way more damage than actually needed.

My bad. I thought the Mailman used Wings of Clover Flurry or something. Either way, not something I've seen at any tables, so not something I was aware was popular.

[DeTess]

But does it make combat more lethal?

It makes "overwhelming numbers" less effective - which generally favors the PCs.

It makes alpha-strike rocket tag more desirable - which generally favors the PCs.

And it makes in-combat healing harder, which generally disadvantages the PCs is a wash, because then the casters will be doing something more useful with their time.

I'm seeing a lot of advantages for the PCs. Not a lot of "makes combat more lethal". Care to explain your PoV?



It works in the PC's favor if they're outnumbered by lots of weaker opponents. it works against the PC's in a big way if they outnumber 1 or 2 strong monsters (ie: a boss fight). Imagine being a fighter fighting against an adult red dragon. Every attack you make against him allows him to retaliate with a bite doing 2d6+13 damage with +31('yes') to hit . If the fighter isn't an optimized ubercharger(which isn't a fun playstyle for everyone), this means that he's going tot take a lot of damage whenever he does what he's supposed to be doing, namely stabbing the dragon. It becomes even worse when you're a twf ranger or rogue.

If you want enemies to be able to counter-attack for a specific fight you've got in mind, I'd just give them the relevant feats. If you want a game where counter-attacking is part of the everyday experience, I'd play a game where this is part of the rules, instead of trying to bolt it onto DnD, as it's either not going to matter because everyone plays super-optimized 'this doesn't affect me' style characters, or it's going to cause your party to be wiped by boss encounters.

[Venger]

But does it make combat more lethal?
Yes.


It makes "overwhelming numbers" less effective - which generally favors the PCs.
What are you talking about? It does the exact opposite of this. If pcs have to deal with a large horde of weaker enemies, all of whom are entitled to a counterattack each time, then the pcs are once more at a disadvantage


It makes alpha-strike rocket tag more desirable - which generally favors the PCs.
This also isn't really true. As I and others have mentioned upthread, all this really does is force players to play the strongest types of characters (for example mailmen and uberchargers) and leaves players who like different options such as archers or precision damage users in the dust, because their choices are do their normal routine of many attacks and be instantly killed by counterattacks or stand around doing nothing, neither of which is fun for that player.


And it makes in-combat healing harder, which generally disadvantages the PCs is a wash, because then the casters will be doing something more useful with their time.
Not really. In-combat healing has always been a waste of time.


I'm seeing a lot of advantages for the PCs. Not a lot of "makes combat more lethal". Care to explain your PoV?
Again, it's not a pov, it's very basic arithmetic.


Yes, it's reliable. You use it when all else fails. To me, that's a very niche spell, compared to the fighter swinging his sword 14,400x(1-5) times per day, or the encounter-ending SoD / battlefield control / teleport spells.

If wizards got their spells at will, and spammed this spell (rather than BFC or SoS/SoD spells) over and over? Then I'd agree. But I haven't seen that, at least at my tables. It's in the category of "I'd better pack this, just in case", like a rain jacket.
orb of force is in no way a niche spell. you use it any time when you want to kill a monster that is vulnerable to hit point damage, which is the majority of them.

after very low levels, wizards do not run out of spells.


It works in the PC's favor if they're outnumbered by lots of weaker opponents. it works against the PC's in a big way if they outnumber 1 or 2 strong monsters (ie: a boss fight). Imagine being a fighter fighting against an adult red dragon. Every attack you make against him allows him to retaliate with a bite doing 2d6+13 damage with +31('yes') to hit . If the fighter isn't an optimized ubercharger(which isn't a fun playstyle for everyone), this means that he's going tot take a lot of damage whenever he does what he's supposed to be doing, namely stabbing the dragon. It becomes even worse when you're a twf ranger or rogue.

If you want enemies to be able to counter-attack for a specific fight you've got in mind, I'd just give them the relevant feats. If you want a game where counter-attacking is part of the everyday experience, I'd play a game where this is part of the rules, instead of trying to bolt it onto DnD, as it's either not going to matter because everyone plays super-optimized 'this doesn't affect me' style characters, or it's going to cause your party to be wiped by boss encounters.

Right, exactly. This mechanic exists, it's called the karmic strike line, as has been mentioned. If your boss npc can pay all the taxes, give it to him, with the opportunity cost being he can't use his feats on other things. that way it's fair.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Some basic thoughts on the idea of "every melee attack gets a counterattack" houserule:

- Attacks of the non-melee variety get an obvious bump.
- Reach becomes even more important, as long-reaching melee can avoid counterattacks similar to a ranged attacker.
- Those who must melee without significant reach will prefer fewer, more overwhelming attacks, as each individual attack comes at a steep cost. There may even be circumstances where you avoid using iterative attacks.
- When an enemy has a particularly vicious counterattack, you will see PCs who are specialized for melee combat pull out their bow and provide pot shots like a glorified hireling.

Basically, the folks that need help in 3e - TWFers, monks, meleers in general - all get hosed.

Also, the slow abstract nature of tabletop is concealing the fact that the enemy does get to counterattack within the rules, by retaliating on their turn.

RE: Orb of ForceI'm not sure why it's being held up as the most reliable thing. That would be a metamagicked Hail of Stone or some analogue. Ray Deflection, Friendly Fire, and Forceward shut down Orb of Force entirely. That said, any non-melee spell, including OoF, is going to be improved by these rules by dint of not paying the counterattack cost.

[Venger]

Some basic thoughts on the idea of "every melee attack gets a counterattack" houserule:

- Attacks of the non-melee variety get an obvious bump.
- Reach becomes even more important, as long-reaching melee can avoid counterattacks similar to a ranged attacker.
- Those who must melee without significant reach will prefer fewer, more overwhelming attacks, as each individual attack comes at a steep cost. There may even be circumstances where you avoid using iterative attacks.
- When an enemy has a particularly vicious counterattack, you will see PCs who are specialized for melee combat pull out their bow and provide pot shots like a glorified hireling.

Basically, the folks that need help in 3e - TWFers, monks, meleers in general - all get hosed.

Also, the slow abstract nature of tabletop is concealing the fact that the enemy does get to counterattack within the rules, by retaliating on their turn.

RE: Orb of ForceI'm not sure why it's being held up as the most reliable thing. That would be a metamagicked Hail of Stone or some analogue. Ray Deflection, Friendly Fire, and Forceward shut down Orb of Force entirely. That said, any non-melee spell, including OoF, is going to be improved by these rules by dint of not paying the counterattack cost.

hail of stone takes 1 round to cast and cannot affect incorporeal enemies. it also costs 5gp every time you use it which while it won't break the bank is still super annoying

[Uncle Pine]

Care to explain your PoV?

Others have already done a good job explaining this, but I'm going to pitch in nonetheless.

The proposed house rule seems to be aimed at mundane characters, with the purpose of making combat more interesting to them. With this in mind, let's have a look at some numbers.
Bob is an 11th level Fighter, or Barbarian, or anything in between as long as it's mundane and has full BAB. He's not an ubercharger because he likes to play the game, but he's also genre-savvy enough to realize that as a Fighter wielding a two-handed weapon and surviving go hand in hand, therefore a kaorti resin greatsword is his weapon of choice. Bob's buddy Drizzt is an 11th level Ranger, but because he's awesome he wields Past and Anger, a pair of mithril kukri.
On a normal adventuring day, Bob and Drizzt are separated from the rest of the party and end up facing a frost giant, a CR 9 opponent. They're strong and able adventurers and that's only a lone CR 9 critter, so they engage. We'll assume Bob and Drizzt win the initiative and use methods such as Travel Devotion, a belt of battle, etc. to close the gap between them and the giant and be able to full-attack on the first round.

Under normal circumstances, Bob would attack three times (with +11/+6/+1 plus bonuses other than BAB) while Drizzt confuses the opponent with a storm of blades (+11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1 plus bonuses other than BAB). Each of them deals some damage, then the frost giant attacks either of them twice with his greataxe dealing 3d6+13 damage twice.
With the proposed houserule, Bob would attack the frost giant three times taking 9d6+39 damage in the process, whereas Drizzt would initiate his full attack routine which would include taking 18d6+78 damage. Then the frost giant would start his turn.

[Crake]

Others have already done a good job explaining this, but I'm going to pitch in nonetheless.

The proposed house rule seems to be aimed at mundane characters, with the purpose of making combat more interesting to them. With this in mind, let's have a look at some numbers.
Bob is an 11th level Fighter, or Barbarian, or anything in between as long as it's mundane and has full BAB. He's not an ubercharger because he likes to play the game, but he's also genre-savvy enough to realize that as a Fighter wielding a two-handed weapon and surviving go hand in hand, therefore a kaorti resin greatsword is his weapon of choice. Bob's buddy Drizzt is an 11th level Ranger, but because he's awesome he wields Past and Anger, a pair of mithril kukri.
On a normal adventuring day, Bob and Drizzt are separated from the rest of the party and end up facing a frost giant, a CR 9 opponent. They're strong and able adventurers and that's only a lone CR 9 critter, so they engage. We'll assume Bob and Drizzt win the initiative and use methods such as Travel Devotion, a belt of battle, etc. to close the gap between them and the giant and be able to full-attack on the first round.

Under normal circumstances, Bob would attack three times (with +11/+6/+1 plus bonuses other than BAB) while Drizzt confuses the opponent with a storm of blades (+11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1 plus bonuses other than BAB). Each of them deals some damage, then the frost giant attacks either of them twice with his greataxe dealing 3d6+13 damage twice.
With the proposed houserule, Bob would attack the frost giant three times taking 9d6+39 damage in the process, whereas Drizzt would initiate his full attack routine which would include taking 18d6+78 damage. Then the frost giant would start his turn.


Presumably you wouldn't get to counterattack while flatfooted.

I would make it simply that it's an attack of opportunity (only vs the person you're attacking), kinda like how karmic strike and robilars gambit work, so you're limited to your attacks of opportunity per round, rather than a silly case of monk vs monk, where they're each throwing 8 attack full attack routines, then counter each other's attacks, resulting in 16 attacks being thrown about by each monk in a span of 6 seconds. That's over 5 attacks per second between the two of them.

Or, you know, you can just use the karmic strike and robilars gambit feats.

[Remuko]

Having played Fire Emblem I feel like a lot of people here are missing the intent/spirit of the change. In FE if a unit has high speed they hit twice when they attack, the enemy still only counters once (should they survive), I feel that's how it would be here too. If you full attack, they only get a single reprisal attack regardless of how many you made against them.

[NerdHut]

There's some concern over how balanced or unbalanced this is purely on how powerful/weak this kind of system would be.

But what stands out to me is how unintuitive this is once this scales up, because the frequency of your chances to attack is now tied more heavily to the number of enemies you're fighting than makes intuitive sense. Granted, D&D will always have unintuitive aspects, but we should probably try to avoid counterintuitive aspects.

For an example, let's look at two martial characters with baseline functionality who are fighting each other. Each of them gets a certain number of attacks per turn, plus a possibility for an attack of opportunity. Add in the free retaliation, you might be looking at several attacks per turn, but at least they're more-or-less equal.

Now let's imagine 4 of these guys ganging up on 1. The individual facing 4 enemies is still at a significant disadvantage, but suddenly, just because he's fighting 4 times as many people, he's able to make four times as many retaliations. His power has inadvertantly increased simply because he has more opponents. That's the kind of thing that runs counter to basic logic, which D&D still attempts to adhere to.

And just to entertain an extreme, let's look at an ogre with sufficient BAB to attack twice with one weapon fighting 12 lvl 1 warriors with shortswords (enough to fill every square within 5 feet of the ogre), and 20 lvl 1 warriors with glaives (enough to fill every square beyond 5 feet and still in the ogre's reach). Without retaliation rules, the ogre gets 2 attacks and a chance for an AoO. With free retaliation to each attack, suddenly the ogre can attack 34 times in one round, not because he's so fast, but because he has a lot of opponents. Even if we throw balance to the wind, this doesn't evenmake basic sense.

The only reason this works in turn-based video games is because the scale of battles is limited. In games similar to the Final Fantasy series (I have little experience with FF specifically) you typically aren't fighting more than 4-8 enemies. And when you do, you usually have at least a couple characters on your side.

In short, I'd say if you're sticking to a game structure where either side always has a similar number of combatants, it might be okay. But not if you expect one side to outnumber the other by a wide margin. I wouldn't enjoy it myself, simply because I like throwing large numbers of weak creatures at my players from time to time. I don't like the idea of them going down even faster than they already do.

[Fouredged Sword]

It woukd perhaps work best in an E6 world with the vitality point, class AC bonus, and armor as DR alternate rules.

Basically it would make melee the relm of heavy armored bruisers who can hit hard and take hits back. Plate mail would be a significant boost to surivial a player NEEDS to survive in melee long.

I would apply some restrictions. If you are denied dex to ac, flat footed, or flanked I would say no coubterattacks. Feinting could be used to prevent a retaliatory strike, and a retaliatory strike would count as an Aoo, so without conbat relexes only one per round.

[King of Nowhere]

You already can retaliate on someone that attacks you. When it is your turn, you attack him back. That's how it works for real too, except that it does not happen in turns. Others already pointed out the sillyness of having someone gain extra attacks just because somebody swings a sword at them.

[Quertus]

Having played Fire Emblem I feel like a lot of people here are missing the intent/spirit of the change. In FE if a unit has high speed they hit twice when they attack, the enemy still only counters once (should they survive), I feel that's how it would be here too. If you full attack, they only get a single reprisal attack regardless of how many you made against them.

True. In most of the games I've played, it's one retaliation per opponent, not per attack. So TWF etc shouldn't get hosed.


It works in the PC's favor if they're outnumbered by lots of weaker opponents. it works against the PC's in a big way if they outnumber 1 or 2 strong monsters (ie: a boss fight). Imagine being a fighter fighting against an adult red dragon. Every attack you make against him allows him to retaliate with a bite doing 2d6+13 damage with +31('yes') to hit . If the fighter isn't an optimized ubercharger(which isn't a fun playstyle for everyone), this means that he's going tot take a lot of damage whenever he does what he's supposed to be doing, namely stabbing the dragon. It becomes even worse when you're a twf ranger or rogue.

Yes, correct. Against a "boss encounter", it's a tactical choice of whether to melee with horrific counter attacks, or utilize an inferior ranged attack, or develop a drinking problem, or try some other tactic.

I consider "always just attacking with your strongest move may not be optimal" to be a feature of the proposed system.


What are you talking about? It does the exact opposite of this. If pcs have to deal with a large horde of weaker enemies, all of whom are entitled to a counterattack each time, then the pcs are once more at a disadvantage

This also isn't really true. As I and others have mentioned upthread, all this really does is force players to play the strongest types of characters (for example mailmen and uberchargers) and leaves players who like different options such as archers or precision damage users in the dust, because their choices are do their normal routine of many attacks and be instantly killed by counterattacks or stand around doing nothing, neither of which is fun for that player.


Not really. In-combat healing has always been a waste of time.


Again, it's not a pov, it's very basic arithmetic.


orb of force is in no way a niche spell. you use it any time when you want to kill a monster that is vulnerable to hit point damage, which is the majority of them.

after very low levels, wizards do not run out of spells.

Yes, it is very basic arithmetic. And you've so thoroughly failed at it, I can only assume that either we haven't played the same games, or that you're doing it on purpose to get me to explain better. Either way, thanks for the opportunity to clarify how this works.

Bob the Fighter is surrounded by 8 goblins. In a normal game, he would get one attack, they would get 8. In the proposed system, he would get one attack, plus 8 counter attacks, while they got 8 attacks, plus one counter attack. Suddenly, his superior attack and damage values matter much more, and the party is advantaged by the proposed system.

Meanwhile, Earl the Wizard, also surrounded by 8 goblins, also gets 8 relations. When most of these attacks miss, or deal pathetic damage, it is still advantageous to the party that he got these attacks, but not nearly so much as when Bob did.

Übercharger continues to be strong, yes, but archers actually get a stealth buff, because no one retaliated against their attacks. I don't have any experience with the Mailman to comment, but casters in general receive a stealth nerf, because they are generally unable to provide meaningful retaliations to attacks. Granted, their attacks generally aren't retaliated against, either, so nerf & buff, IMO.


Some basic thoughts on the idea of "every melee attack gets a counterattack" houserule:

- Attacks of the non-melee variety get an obvious bump.
- Reach becomes even more important, as long-reaching melee can avoid counterattacks similar to a ranged attacker.
- Those who must melee without significant reach will prefer fewer, more overwhelming attacks, as each individual attack comes at a steep cost. There may even be circumstances where you avoid using iterative attacks.
- When an enemy has a particularly vicious counterattack, you will see PCs who are specialized for melee combat pull out their bow and provide pot shots like a glorified hireling.

Basically, the folks that need help in 3e - TWFers, monks, meleers in general - all get hosed.

Mostly covered above. If it's only one retaliation per attacker, rather than per attack, per turn, the proposed system shouldn't hose TWF / monks. As demonstrated above, when the party outnumbers the opponents, melee is advantaged. And melee has the advantage over casters over making retaliation attacks.

However, TWF etc does suffer in making retaliation attacks, unless feats etc allows them to retaliate with both weapons.


--snip--

Covered above. Any issues with the math when it's one retaliation per attacker, not per attack?

[Karl Aegis]

It's probably better if the retaliation was in response to a miss or something and only if you opt in to it. Like if you missed on the first attack of a full attack you could risk the retaliation hit and continue the full attack or adopt a defensive stance, lose the rest of your attacks, but don't risk the retaliation shot. You still get your move action if you opt out of continuing the full attack as normal. Call it dynamic combat decision making or something.

[Venger]

Yes, it is very basic arithmetic. And you've so thoroughly failed at it, I can only assume that either we haven't played the same games, or that you're doing it on purpose to get me to explain better. Either way, thanks for the opportunity to clarify how this works.

Bob the Fighter is surrounded by 8 goblins. In a normal game, he would get one attack, they would get 8. In the proposed system, he would get one attack, plus 8 counter attacks, while they got 8 attacks, plus one counter attack. Suddenly, his superior attack and damage values matter much more, and the party is advantaged by the proposed system.

Meanwhile, Earl the Wizard, also surrounded by 8 goblins, also gets 8 relations. When most of these attacks miss, or deal pathetic damage, it is still advantageous to the party that he got these attacks, but not nearly so much as when Bob did.

Why on earth are you comparing it to a fighter being surrounded by 8 enemies and doing something that provokes an aoo? Who does that?

If that's your litmus, then of course your houserule looks good.

You shouldn't be comparing it to "enemies get 8 aoos," you should be comparing it to "enemies get 0 aoos," in that scenario, you will understand that 8 is more than 0.

[DeTess]

Yes, correct. Against a "boss encounter", it's a tactical choice of whether to melee with horrific counter attacks, or utilize an inferior ranged attack, or develop a drinking problem, or try some other tactic.

I consider "always just attacking with your strongest move may not be optimal" to be a feature of the proposed system.



It's not a feature though, because it only affects Melee combatants, and given the amount of feats necessary to be proficient at either melee or ranged combat, plus the gold investment in magic items to support it, utilizing an inferior ranged attack means that they might as well just sit out the encounter, given that they go from about 3d6+8(18 average) (spitballing here for a flaming greatsword) at +14/+9 to hit to a longbow with 1d8(5 average) damage and +10/+5 to hit, which costs them more than 2/3's of their damage done, which is usually their only contribution to a fight. Being forced to be at range even makes it impossible for them to try and soak up the hits for the wizard or sorcerer.

If you want to force a meleer to fight sub-optimal, prevent their usual melee trick instead (difficult terrain to remove charging, or give the creature the elusive target feat to negate power attack, or make them really large to negate tripping/grappling).

[Uncle Pine]

Covered above. Any issues with the math when it's one retaliation per attacker, not per attack?

Yes. Going back to my example, even if you limit the retaliation to once per attacker, Bob and Drizzt are still suddenly eating 3d6+13 extra damage/round from the frost giant for no particular reason and they'll be considerably more likely to be downed by an opponent that's supposed to be rather easy for them to defeat. In my opinion melee don't deserve this kind of treatment as due to the way 3.5e is set up it undermines many more concept than those it enables.

[PersonMan]

Why on earth are you comparing it to a fighter being surrounded by 8 enemies and doing something that provokes an aoo? Who does that?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. It's eight enemies, who are attacking on their turns, with the fighter getting 8 retaliatory attacks.

[gorfnab]

Sounds like a great way to model a master swordsman -- he calmly and competently attacks, but doesn't expose himself, and he ruthlessly exploits any of his opponent's mistakes.
There are a few feat combinations that can do some of that: Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit (PHBII), Stormguard Warrior (ToB), Elusive Target (CW), Riposte (Drg#304), Agile Riposte (Drg#305).
I came up with this build some time ago that tries to emulate the swordsman idea you've suggested.

Human or Strongheart Halfling
1. Swashbuckler - Deadly Defense (CS), Combat Expertise, B: Weapon Finesse
2. Cobra Strike (UA) Decisive Strike (PHBII) Monk - B: Dodge
3. Cobra Strike (UA) Monk - Carmendine Monk (CoV), B: Mobility
4. Swashbuckler
5. Swashbuckler
6. Thief Acrobat - Combat Reflexes
7. Thief Acrobat
8. Thief Acrobat
9. Thief Acrobat - Einhander (PHBII)
10. Thief Acrobat or Warblade
11. Warblade or Duelist
12. Warblade or Duelist - Ironheart Aura (ToB)
13. Duelist
14. Duelist
15. Duelist - Robilar's Gambit (PHBII)
16. Duelist
17. Duelist
18. Duelist - Stormgaurd Warrior (ToB)
19. Duelist
20. Duelist

This build uses a number of the options mentioned in this handbook: A short guide to defensive fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?178445-A-short-guide-to-defensive-fighting)

Levels 10 through 12 can be rearranged depending on your needs. The current setup gives you Improved Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at these levels. However if you don't need Improved Evasion take one less level of Thief Acrobat and move the first level of Warblade to level 10. If you don't need Uncanny Dodge don't take the 2nd level of Warblade and instead go into Duelist a level early. If you don't need either abilities take Warblade at level 10 and enter Duelist at level 11.

If flaws are available, choose two and then grab the feats EWP: Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv, pre-errata version if possible) and Versatile Unarmed Strike (PHBII). If traits are available pick up Cautious (UA).

Items:
Vest of Defense (MIC)
Bracers of Blocking (Dragon 322)
Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv) (pre-errata version if possible) or Rapier with the Defensive Surge (MIC) enhancement.

[Quertus]

It's probably better if the retaliation was in response to a miss or something and only if you opt in to it. Like if you missed on the first attack of a full attack you could risk the retaliation hit and continue the full attack or adopt a defensive stance, lose the rest of your attacks, but don't risk the retaliation shot. You still get your move action if you opt out of continuing the full attack as normal. Call it dynamic combat decision making or something.

... I'm just trying to emulate a bunch of video games here, and they don't do it that way. I'm just asking, "what effect would this have?", not claiming that this is the new, bestest tool for fun and balance or anything.


Why on earth are you comparing it to a fighter being surrounded by 8 enemies and doing something that provokes an aoo? Who does that?

If that's your litmus, then of course your houserule looks good.

You shouldn't be comparing it to "enemies get 8 aoos," you should be comparing it to "enemies get 0 aoos," in that scenario, you will understand that 8 is more than 0.


I'm not sure where you're getting this from. It's eight enemies, who are attacking on their turns, with the fighter getting 8 retaliatory attacks.

Yeah, this is clearly in the category of "you don't understand what I'm talking about". Apologies for not explaining it better.

So, in many video games, attacking provokes an "AoO" of sorts. But they're free and unlimited. So, the fighter surrounded by and attacked by 8 goblins? He gets 8 free attacks.


It's not a feature though, because it only affects Melee combatants, and given the amount of feats necessary to be proficient at either melee or ranged combat, plus the gold investment in magic items to support it, utilizing an inferior ranged attack means that they might as well just sit out the encounter, given that they go from about 3d6+8(18 average) (spitballing here for a flaming greatsword) at +14/+9 to hit to a longbow with 1d8(5 average) damage and +10/+5 to hit, which costs them more than 2/3's of their damage done, which is usually their only contribution to a fight. Being forced to be at range even makes it impossible for them to try and soak up the hits for the wizard or sorcerer.

If you want to force a meleer to fight sub-optimal, prevent their usual melee trick instead (difficult terrain to remove charging, or give the creature the elusive target feat to negate power attack, or make them really large to negate tripping/grappling).

I mean, I tried playing the super tactical fighter in 3e, and used my inferior bow from time to time. Granted, I spent the chump change to make it Mighty, so it was d8+7(12 average) or so.

Now, as to soaking hits.... Yeah, this is a big one. Having a ranged attack actually makes it easier to trick the Dragon into wasting its attacks on you, since archers have issues firing when engaged in melee. For bonus points, stand next to a dedicated archer and a rogue.


Yes. Going back to my example, even if you limit the retaliation to once per attacker, Bob and Drizzt are still suddenly eating 3d6+13 extra damage/round from the frost giant for no particular reason and they'll be considerably more likely to be downed by an opponent that's supposed to be rather easy for them to defeat. In my opinion melee don't deserve this kind of treatment as due to the way 3.5e is set up it undermines many more concept than those it enables.

The reason is emulating certain video games. The fighters do need to reevaluate their preconceptions regarding difficulty of encounters, though.

[Fouredged Sword]

Imagine if this was a class feature of the fighter class. 1 counter attack at 3rd, a second at 9th, and unlimited at 15th.

[Uncle Pine]

The reason is emulating certain video games. The fighters do need to reevaluate their preconceptions regarding difficulty of encounters, though.

I have no problems with anyone deciding to do anything in his or her game, but it's important you realise this house rule is a big hit in terms of survivability for the PCs, ****ting in particular on any kind of melee character, unless every encounter in your game happens to be against swarms of absolutely helpless small opponents, which means your idea of it being advantageous for players is bonkers.

[Venger]

Yeah, this is clearly in the category of "you don't understand what I'm talking about". Apologies for not explaining it better.

So, in many video games, attacking provokes an "AoO" of sorts. But they're free and unlimited. So, the fighter surrounded by and attacked by 8 goblins? He gets 8 free attacks.
Us understanding you is not the issue. Your rule does not make sense and we are trying to explain basic arithmetic to you.

No one will ever stand in the middle of 8 enemies on purpose. It is a decision that does not make sense. Taking 8 attacks on a character who is vulnerable to hitpoint damage, even from low level mobs will put you in serious danger of being killed. Taking this course of action to maybe survive and get some aoos against 8 goblins rather than just picking them off one at a time like normal is never going to be an attractive option.


I have no problems with anyone deciding to do anything in his or her game, but it's important you realise this house rule is a big hit in terms of survivability for the PCs, ****ting in particular on any kind of melee character, unless every encounter in your game happens to be against swarms of absolutely helpless small opponents, which means your idea of it being advantageous for players is bonkers.

Yes. This is what all of us are trying to explain to you, Quertus. What is it that you don't understand?

Even if every enemy is a low-level helpless opponent, those orc warriors' falchions still really hurt on a crit.

[DeTess]

I think the problem we encounter here might be one of communication. We're all saying DnD, and think we're talking about teh same game, while we aren't. Based on his comments I think most (if not all) of the combats in Quertus' games involve fights against hordes of smaller mooks, and in this context the proposed change doesn't look that bad. In many of the games I've played, we've often fought against smaller group of tough opponents or (semi-)solitary bosses. I think this difference in how we see and play the game is causing a lot of the disagreement here.

[Venger]

I think the problem we encounter here might be one of communication. We're all saying DnD, and think we're talking about teh same game, while we aren't. Based on his comments I think most (if not all) of the combats in Quertus' games involve fights against hordes of smaller mooks, and in this context the proposed change doesn't look that bad. In many of the games I've played, we've often fought against smaller group of tough opponents or (semi-)solitary bosses. I think this difference in how we see and play the game is causing a lot of the disagreement here.

Even assuming that is true, everything everyone is saying is still applicable. We've all seen the math on a horde of orc warriors or what have you.

[Crake]

Having played Fire Emblem I feel like a lot of people here are missing the intent/spirit of the change. In FE if a unit has high speed they hit twice when they attack, the enemy still only counters once (should they survive), I feel that's how it would be here too. If you full attack, they only get a single reprisal attack regardless of how many you made against them.

Final fantasy tactics also has a similar thing, except not all enemies can counter, you need to learn the counter ability, and it takes up the passive slot when you select it. I would say this is akin to spending a feat to gain karmic strike and gaining the ability to counterattack. I honestly don't think it's something that should just be given out for free.

[Venger]

Final fantasy tactics also has a similar thing, except not all enemies can counter, you need to learn the counter ability, and it takes up the passive slot when you select it. I would say this is akin to spending a feat to gain karmic strike and gaining the ability to counterattack. I honestly don't think it's something that should just be given out for free.

right, the mechanic already exists: buy karmic strike, which costs at least 3 feats

[DeTess]

right, the mechanic already exists: buy karmic strike, which costs at least 3 feats

That or Robilar's gambit, though that one has a fairly high BaB requirement.

[Venger]

That or Robilar's gambit, though that one has a fairly high BaB requirement.

right, which is the only reason for karmic strike to exist. in a vacuum, robilar's gambit is always better, since it works even if they miss.

[Zombimode]

I think the problem we encounter here might be one of communication. We're all saying DnD, and think we're talking about teh same game, while we aren't. Based on his comments I think most (if not all) of the combats in Quertus' games involve fights against hordes of smaller mooks, and in this context the proposed change doesn't look that bad. In many of the games I've played, we've often fought against smaller group of tough opponents or (semi-)solitary bosses. I think this difference in how we see and play the game is causing a lot of the disagreement here.

They may look less bad, but also unneeded. There ARE Options available: Great Cleave, Whirwind Attack.

Why not first work with the existing options before making sweeping changes like the one proposed?

[Knaight]

What are you talking about? It does the exact opposite of this. If pcs have to deal with a large horde of weaker enemies, all of whom are entitled to a counterattack each time, then the pcs are once more at a disadvantage.

The PCs also get to counter attack, and that's where the major change comes in. This flattens out the action economy in a lot of ways (particularly if free retaliation also exists between ranged combatants), where the retaliation attacks lead to the number of actions taken per side evening out in a lot of ways (exactly equalizing them if there aren't exploitable range differences and you neglect the effect of enemies getting taken out completely).

This doesn't favor the underdog. This favors whichever side is behind on actions. It's similar to systems that force team switching in initiative, where each team will always get half the actions regardless of size, and like those systems it leads to some oddities.

[Crake]

right, which is the only reason for karmic strike to exist. in a vacuum, robilar's gambit is always better, since it works even if they miss.

Why not both, for 2 attacks of opportunity per hit, or 1 on a miss :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

The PCs also get to counter attack, and that's where the major change comes in. This flattens out the action economy in a lot of ways (particularly if free retaliation also exists between ranged combatants), where the retaliation attacks lead to the number of actions taken per side evening out in a lot of ways (exactly equalizing them if there aren't exploitable range differences and you neglect the effect of enemies getting taken out completely).

This doesn't favor the underdog. This favors whichever side is behind on actions. It's similar to systems that force team switching in initiative, where each team will always get half the actions regardless of size, and like those systems it leads to some oddities.

Ok, you get it. :smallbiggrin:

I hadn't - but should have - considered the ranged retaliation, as one game I've played actually had that, too.


I have no problems with anyone deciding to do anything in his or her game, but it's important you realise this house rule is a big hit in terms of survivability for the PCs, ****ting in particular on any kind of melee character, unless every encounter in your game happens to be against swarms of absolutely helpless small opponents, which means your idea of it being advantageous for players is bonkers.

So, are systems without HP a huge hit to the survivability of PCs? Should those systems never be played?

See, the funny thing is, although when I first started playing these games, I had the same sentiment. My initial experiences matched your predictions. But, once I got acclimated to these games, I almost never lose a unit (I'm a little OCD that way).


Us understanding you is not the issue. Your rule does not make sense and we are trying to explain basic arithmetic to you.

No one will ever stand in the middle of 8 enemies on purpose. It is a decision that does not make sense. Taking 8 attacks on a character who is vulnerable to hitpoint damage, even from low level mobs will put you in serious danger of being killed. Taking this course of action to maybe survive and get some aoos against 8 goblins rather than just picking them off one at a time like normal is never going to be an attractive option.

Yes. This is what all of us are trying to explain to you, Quertus. What is it that you don't understand?

Even if every enemy is a low-level helpless opponent, those orc warriors' falchions still really hurt on a crit.

Really? Basic math again. 8 goblins, 8 at a time, get 9 attacks to the Fighter's 9. Which, if he misses with one of those attacks, is about right for actual, not just theoretical, math. One at a time, they get to move up and attack, and the Fighter still gets 8-9 attacks to their 8-9 attacks. It still works out to the same math.

The difference is, speed. The Fighter can look much more impressive being a one man "fireball" of steel.

Of course, I never said that the party intended to get surrounded. Earl the Wizard certainly didn't.

My rule is to emulate the video games that do exactly this. My question is, what effect would this have on a game.


I think the problem we encounter here might be one of communication. We're all saying DnD, and think we're talking about teh same game, while we aren't. Based on his comments I think most (if not all) of the combats in Quertus' games involve fights against hordes of smaller mooks, and in this context the proposed change doesn't look that bad. In many of the games I've played, we've often fought against smaller group of tough opponents or (semi-)solitary bosses. I think this difference in how we see and play the game is causing a lot of the disagreement here.

I mean, I'll not deny that I enjoy the party getting to look impressive against superior numbers of inferior opponents. However, that certainly isn't exclusive territory here. Struggling against superior opponents, fighting equals, running the **** away from overwhelming opposition - it's all part of the experience.

Most of the video games I'm thinking of really don't feature such mobs of fod. Most of these games aim more for CaS, and I suspect that this mechanic was intended to try to enforce the CaS paradigm, through enforcement of near-balanced action economy.


Even assuming that is true, everything everyone is saying is still applicable. We've all seen the math on a horde of orc warriors or what have you.

Again, have you?


Final fantasy tactics also has a similar thing, except not all enemies can counter, you need to learn the counter ability, and it takes up the passive slot when you select it. I would say this is akin to spending a feat to gain karmic strike and gaining the ability to counterattack. I honestly don't think it's something that should just be given out for free.

I love FFT. But it wasn't one of the ones I was thinking of originally.


Why not first work with the existing options before making sweeping changes like the one proposed?

To emulate certain video games, where everyone gets exactly this.

If you're getting too caught up on Sacred Cows, feel free to look at the question backwards: why do these video games do this? What would they be like without this mechanic? We can then try to flip that around to look at the question I'm actually asking.

[Uncle Pine]

why do these video games do this?


because they're build around a different set of formulas
because stalling while passively healing units in forts mid-combat is possible
because the opponent is an AI, which can be easily exploited
because you're only fighting flies the vast majority of the time, until the point when the elite opponent approaches and surprise it's 8 of you vs 1 of their
because you can grind supports

[ZamielVanWeber]

The PCs also get to counter attack, and that's where the major change comes in. This flattens out the action economy in a lot of ways (particularly if free retaliation also exists between ranged combatants), where the retaliation attacks lead to the number of actions taken per side evening out in a lot of ways (exactly equalizing them if there aren't exploitable range differences and you neglect the effect of enemies getting taken out completely).

This doesn't favor the underdog. This favors whichever side is behind on actions. It's similar to systems that force team switching in initiative, where each team will always get half the actions regardless of size, and like those systems it leads to some oddities.

The same problem still exists: HP is a strictly controlled resource for PCs but an overflowing one for enemies. if I spend 800 HP of enemies on an encounter day as a DM the cost is trivial. Since any enemy that is not immediately reduced below 0 or only struck when disabled by another affect can make a counter attack the HP of melee PCs are far more likely to be drained since stuff like 2 dudes smack him and casters finishes with a scorching ray no longer means that guy cannot do damage.

Also the PC counter-attack example runs into an issue with enemies with exceptionally large reach. If the enemy hits me in melee when it's outside of my threat range I do not have options to counter it.

At this point casters could easily end up becoming stronger/more necessary than even before.

I love the idea conceptually, but I think making it a specific class feature of some non-magical full BAB classes would work better. Enemies would have it rarely, casters could not access it easily, and it would stack with Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike is players decided to go that route. Placing it at barbarian/fighter 3 (since they both have a dead level there) would work nicely, for example.

[Knaight]

The same problem still exists: HP is a strictly controlled resource for PCs but an overflowing one for enemies. if I spend 800 HP of enemies on an encounter day as a DM the cost is trivial. Since any enemy that is not immediately reduced below 0 or only struck when disabled by another affect can make a counter attack the HP of melee PCs are far more likely to be drained since stuff like 2 dudes smack him and casters finishes with a scorching ray no longer means that guy cannot do damage.

Also the PC counter-attack example runs into an issue with enemies with exceptionally large reach. If the enemy hits me in melee when it's outside of my threat range I do not have options to counter it.


There are cases like that, yes. There are also cases (particularly when outnumbered) where changes to attack output from retaliation drastically reduce incoming damage. Take the 8 goblin example - even if the goblins take 2 hits, those 8 goblins are likely to be drastically reduced in numbers in just two rounds from counter attacks alone, and that's with misses taken into account. Add in being able to take one down a turn reliably, and something like a four round combat with a total number of incoming attacks in the low 20s is likely. Meanwhile taking one down per turn conventionally lets them get 36 attacks, and that's assuming the PC hits reliably.

As for reach, that's one of those exploitable range differences I was talking about, and one of many edge cases.


I love the idea conceptually, but I think making it a specific class feature of some non-magical full BAB classes would work better. Enemies would have it rarely, casters could not access it easily, and it would stack with Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike is players decided to go that route. Placing it at barbarian/fighter 3 (since they both have a dead level there) would work nicely, for example.
I'd go a step further and say that you'd probably need new classes built around it. It's a pretty drastic change to core combat mechanics, and while the overall trends can be sussed out there's always weird edge cases. Plus, 3e (in all its various versions) is a system with a lot of interconnected parts where changes can spiral out in major ways, and to some extent a change this major just tends to work more smoothly when the rest of the system is designed around it to some extent. The interactions of range and reach are just part of that.

There's also some monsters where it just feels off. The big ogre with their big club getting off one nasty attack per round fits with the fiction. The big ogre with their big club quickly attacking all incoming foes like some sort of master swordsman fits a fair bit worse.

[Quertus]

because the opponent is an AI, which can be easily exploited

Agree or disagree, I think I got the gist of the rest. This one is interesting to me, though. Because, at least in the games I've played, I've found the AI to be about equally exploitable with vs without retaliation mechanics. So, I'm curious - what did you mean by this point?


The same problem still exists: HP is a strictly controlled resource for PCs but an overflowing one for enemies. if I spend 800 HP of enemies on an encounter day as a DM the cost is trivial.

True. But how is this any different from normal D&D, where a billion dragons is nothing for the GM? Or from games with no HP mechanic, where the NPCs getting injured or killed is nothing to the GM? Although it's a statement of fact, I'm lost as to the relevance.


Since any enemy that is not immediately reduced below 0 or only struck when disabled by another affect can make a counter attack the HP of melee PCs are far more likely to be drained since stuff like 2 dudes smack him and casters finishes with a scorching ray no longer means that guy cannot do damage.

Correct. You have to adjust your strategy. It changes what is and is not a valid tactic. This is an advantage to those desiring a new experience.


Also the PC counter-attack example runs into an issue with enemies with exceptionally large reach. If the enemy hits me in melee when it's outside of my threat range I do not have options to counter it.

Reach now matters more, yes.

Although I have no intention of doing so, one could always say that, when it extends itself to hit you, it's in range for you to hit it back. This makes reach still valuable (and, actually, more valuable than in 3e once you understand how the system works, at least in the games I've played), but no longer exploitable.


At this point casters could easily end up becoming stronger/more necessary than even before.

It's a possibility. The "melee fireball" may not be as awesome in 3e as not getting retaliated against. That's why I asked for others' opinions on the matter.


I love the idea conceptually, but I think making it a specific class feature of some non-magical full BAB classes would work better. Enemies would have it rarely, casters could not access it easily, and it would stack with Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike is players decided to go that route. Placing it at barbarian/fighter 3 (since they both have a dead level there) would work nicely, for example.

Eh, that defeats the "emulate certain video games" concept I was going for. I can already shove similar effects on characters / creatures at the cost of feats.


There are cases like that, yes. There are also cases (particularly when outnumbered) where changes to attack output from retaliation drastically reduce incoming damage. Take the 8 goblin example - even if the goblins take 2 hits, those 8 goblins are likely to be drastically reduced in numbers in just two rounds from counter attacks alone, and that's with misses taken into account. Add in being able to take one down a turn reliably, and something like a four round combat with a total number of incoming attacks in the low 20s is likely. Meanwhile taking one down per turn conventionally lets them get 36 attacks, and that's assuming the PC hits reliably.

I was actually looking at 9 attacks likely killing all 8 goblins in 1 round, personally. Thus the "Fireball of Steel". :smalltongue: But, yes, it's a huge boost either way.


As for reach, that's one of those exploitable range differences I was talking about, and one of many edge cases.

It is a potential issue. But it's hard to discuss this properly before people have wrapped their heads around the basics of how the proposed system would work.


I'd go a step further and say that you'd probably need new classes built around it. It's a pretty drastic change to core combat mechanics, and while the overall trends can be sussed out there's always weird edge cases. Plus, 3e (in all its various versions) is a system with a lot of interconnected parts where changes can spiral out in major ways, and to some extent a change this major just tends to work more smoothly when the rest of the system is designed around it to some extent. The interactions of range and reach are just part of that.

That is not entirely unlike why I asked the question. I'm trying to see if there are any unforseen issues that make it completely untenable without a system overhaul.

Yes, it changes things. That's the point. It isn't just a pallet shift, it's an actual game changer.

Now, is it still a playable game?


There's also some monsters where it just feels off. The big ogre with their big club getting off one nasty attack per round fits with the fiction. The big ogre with their big club quickly attacking all incoming foes like some sort of master swordsman fits a fair bit worse.

Yes and no. If the ogre swings its club wildly at and misses everyone, it fits the fiction. If it makes a huge swing and batters everyone, it fits the fiction. It's just a matter of refluffing events, at least in some cases. Doubtless, we'll find some cases that simply can't be refluffed.

[Uncle Pine]

Agree or disagree, I think I got the gist of the rest. This one is interesting to me, though. Because, at least in the games I've played, I've found the AI to be about equally exploitable with vs without retaliation mechanics. So, I'm curious - what did you mean by this point?

In Fire Emblem (or any other console game, for what it matters), enemies make predictable decisions. They follow patterns, predetermined at the moment the game was coded, and will act certain ways in response to a trigger but there are things they will never do. For example, they will stop advancing and remain immobile for as long as no unit is within the range of their movement+reach. These premises and the fact that the player is encouraged to learn how a certain game's AI processes information and enemy patterns, again based on the fact that these patterns exist, allow for several more grades of freedom from a game design point of view: unfair asymmetrical mechanics such as automatic retaliation, enemies that are guaranteed to take no damage or deal 100% of a target's health if they land a hit, etc. become an acceptable inclusion because the player is given the tools to completely bypass them, namely abusing Artificial Stupidity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtificialStupidity). In d&d, there is no such thing as AI as both the PCs and the rest of the world are controlled by living beings (the players and the DM, respectively). As such, implementing a mechanic like free retaliation because "it works perfectly fine in another completely unrelated game" while ignoring that none of the premises of that genre are present in d&d will lead to one of the following undesirable* outcomes:

players with "normal" (i.e. not ubercharger) mundane characters decide to keep playing their d&d characters the way they did for the last years and die horribly;
players who want to build a functional mundane character have to build it around the new mechanic, effectively rendering a good chunk of (mundane) content of the game unusable (see above);
players sidestep the new mechanic: everyone now plays ranged characters, whether an archer or a spellcaster, which means the goal of making melee combat more interesting failed;
the DM realizes the increased lethality of combat and starts pulling his or her punches.

Compare with other simple houserules often implemented to "make combat more interesting": fumble rules, free bleed on weapon attacks.


*Note that some of the listed outcomes (specifically the second and third one) are only undesirable from the point of view of someone who still wants to mantain the tone and general experience of d&d 3.5e: there is no wrong houserule if you and your players are having fun, agree on it and have considered its consequences and ramifications, even if the houserule changes the premises of the game. For example, free retaliation could make for an enjoyable game if everyone's goal is to roll archers and arcanists with backup weapons and some degree of melee competence who want to laugh at hordes of puny swordsman at range and then feed steel to everyone who lives through the rain of arrows and fireballs. Fumble tables are great (yes, that's a sentence I'd never thought I'd write) if you want a light-hearted game where everyone is basically a lucky incompetent fool and reduce lethality of the combat through other means. As long as everyone understand what that entails and is thrilled by the idea of a grittier game, any houserule increasing combat lethality can be perfect, to the point that some people play Call of Cthulhu. However, all the above assumes that instead of failing to realize that d&d doesn't have the premises to support the proposed houserule, you're voluntarily shifting the premises of your d&d table to something else.

[Knaight]

That is not entirely unlike why I asked the question. I'm trying to see if there are any unforseen issues that make it completely untenable without a system overhaul.

Yes, it changes things. That's the point. It isn't just a pallet shift, it's an actual game changer.

Now, is it still a playable game?

Playable? Yes. However, there's going to be both the weird edge cases I mentioned and a lot of wasted design space, balance might get screwed up in weird ways, and monster design in particular is likely to need overhauls. Then there's the matter of other features used instead - attacks of opportunity being the prime example of other mechanics that inhabit a similar space, which could stand to be rethought, particularly for dedicated counter attacking builds (e.g. Jack B. Quick). The grid size is also a bit iffy here, particularly when it comes to exploiting reach advantages when there isn't any actual obstruction there that would prevent someone from getting closer.

Iterative attacks are another concern. If you just get one attack on retaliation there's a dramatic balance shift towards bigger attacks, if you get multiple attacks even on retaliation the number of dice thrown around can get out of hand quickly and the power curve with level just gets weird. Then there's the matter of turn resolution order getting funky. Take Cleave - if you down an opponent on a counter attack, does it activate?

The counter attack mechanic has no associated feats, no associated equipment, no associated monster abilities, and no associated class features. This is the wasted design space I refer to, and reworking other systems to take advantage of this will really help slot this in better. Maybe spears get a bonus to counter attacks against enemies that miss you, maybe there's a feat chain that lets you make counter attacks before attacks come in, maybe Barbarians get an ability to counter attack harder when they get hit, etc.


In Fire Emblem (or any other console game, for what it matters), enemies make predictable decisions. They follow patterns, predetermined at the moment the game was coded, and will act certain ways in response to a trigger but there are things they will never do. For example, they will stop advancing and remain immobile for as long as no unit is within the range of their movement+reach. These premises and the fact that the player is encouraged to learn how a certain game's AI processes information and enemy patterns, again based on the fact that these patterns exist, allow for several more grades of freedom from a game design point of view: unfair mechanics such as automatic retaliation, enemies that are guaranteed to take no damage or deal 100% of a target's health if they land a hit, etc. become an acceptable inclusion because the player is given the tools to completely bypass them, namely abusing Artificial Stupidity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtificialStupidity). In d&d, there is no such thing as AI as both the PCs and the rest of the world are controlled by living beings (the players and the DM, respectively). As such, implementing a mechanic like free retaliation because "it works perfectly fine in another completely unrelated game" while ignoring that none of the premises of that genre are present in d&d will lead to one of the following undesirable* outcomes:

Automatic retaliation isn't an unfair mechanic, and it already exists in both PvP videogames (e.g. Age of Wonders III) and some RPGs (e.g. Dungeon World). On top of that it's not rare for mechanics to transfer fairly well conceptually from certain genres of videogame to RPGs or vice versa. Exact formulas tend to transfer much more poorly.

[Uncle Pine]

Automatic retaliation isn't an unfair mechanic, and it already exists in both PvP videogames (e.g. Age of Wonders III) and some RPGs (e.g. Dungeon World). On top of that it's not rare for mechanics to transfer fairly well conceptually from certain genres of videogame to RPGs or vice versa. Exact formulas tend to transfer much more poorly.

You're right, unfair may be a bit too strong in this case. I'll edit to asymmetrical, as in "affecting players and enemies in asymmetrical ways" (because there is an infinite amount of available enemies, but only about four players at a time).

[Quertus]

In Fire Emblem (or any other console game, for what it matters), enemies make predictable decisions. They follow patterns, predetermined at the moment the game was coded, and will act certain ways in response to a trigger but there are things they will never do. For example, they will stop advancing and remain immobile for as long as no unit is within the range of their movement+reach. These premises and the fact that the player is encouraged to learn how a certain game's AI processes information and enemy patterns, again based on the fact that these patterns exist, allow for several more grades of freedom from a game design point of view: unfair asymmetrical mechanics such as automatic retaliation, enemies that are guaranteed to take no damage or deal 100% of a target's health if they land a hit, etc. become an acceptable inclusion because the player is given the tools to completely bypass them, namely abusing Artificial Stupidity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtificialStupidity). In d&d, there is no such thing as AI as both the PCs and the rest of the world are controlled by living beings (the players and the DM, respectively). As such, implementing a mechanic like free retaliation because "it works perfectly fine in another completely unrelated game" while ignoring that none of the premises of that genre are present in d&d will lead to one of the following undesirable* outcomes:
[]

So, it works in video games, because the AI lets you avoid anything you can't reason through? Eh, maybe, but I'm not sold on that yet.



players with "normal" (i.e. not ubercharger) mundane characters decide to keep playing their d&d characters the way they did for the last years and die horribly;

And that's a feature. The point is to make something different, where you have to reevaluate your preconceptions, rather than a meaningless pallet shift.



players who want to build a functional mundane character have to build it around the new mechanic, effectively rendering a good chunk of (mundane) content of the game unusable (see above);

That would be a problem, if it were true. But I have yet to see demonstrated that any huge concepts are suddenly unplayable.



players sidestep the new mechanic: everyone now plays ranged characters, whether an archer or a spellcaster, which means the goal of making melee combat more interesting failed;

And that would be a win. The point is to get puerile to play differently, to have a new experience. Not the best win, IMO, but one way of approaching the new scenario.



the DM realizes the increased lethality of combat and starts pulling his or her punches.

Not while I'm GM, at least. :smallwink:



Compare with other simple houserules often implemented to "make combat more interesting": fumble rules, free bleed on weapon attacks.

This is a whole huge set of discussions. I'll find back for this.



*Note that some of the listed outcomes (specifically the second and third one) are only undesirable from the point of view of someone who still wants to mantain the tone and general experience of d&d 3.5e: there is no wrong houserule if you and your players are having fun, agree on it and have considered its consequences and ramifications, even if the houserule changes the premises of the game.

Hmmm... I had that as 1&3, not 2&3... Otherwise, agreed.


For example, free retaliation could make for an enjoyable game if everyone's goal is to roll archers and arcanists with backup weapons and some degree of melee competence who want to laugh at hordes of puny swordsman at range and then feed steel to everyone who lives through the rain of arrows and fireballs.

Eh, that would miss the point of the melee fireball.


Fumble tables are great (yes, that's a sentence I'd never thought I'd write) if you want a light-hearted game where everyone is basically a lucky incompetent fool and reduce lethality of the combat through other means. As long as everyone understand what that entails and is thrilled by the idea of a grittier game, any houserule increasing combat lethality can be perfect, to the point that some people play Call of Cthulhu. However, all the above assumes that instead of failing to realize that d&d doesn't have the premises to support the proposed houserule, you're voluntarily shifting the premises of your d&d table to something else.

Thing is though, my experience with such games was that increases lethality was only caused by inexperience and false assumptions about what works in combat. Once I learned how the system worked, I didn't hang that problem any more.


balance might get screwed up in weird ways,

Which only matters if you care about balance. So long as it isn't demonstrably worse than the balance changes from, say, learning a new system, I'm fine with that.


and monster design in particular is likely to need overhauls.

Why should monsters need to change any more than PCs? Why not just play them exactly as they are? Is a Beholder suddenly no longer a Beholder just because it snaps at you whenever you attack it?


Then there's the matter of other features used instead - attacks of opportunity being the prime example of other mechanics that inhabit a similar space, which could stand to be rethought, particularly for dedicated counter attacking builds (e.g. Jack B. Quick).

So, I get an AoO when you attack, plus one when you hit/miss, plus a retaliation when you attack? Odd stacking, sure, but we're used to that in 3e, right?


The grid size is also a bit iffy here, particularly when it comes to exploiting reach advantages when there isn't any actual obstruction there that would prevent someone from getting closer.

I have no idea what you mean here. What's this about grid size and obstructions? :smallconfused:


Iterative attacks are another concern. If you just get one attack on retaliation there's a dramatic balance shift towards bigger attacks,

One attack. Which favors 2-handed over 2wf, same as AoOs. Unless there's a "two-weapon retaliation" feat.


Take Cleave - if you down an opponent on a counter attack, does it activate?

Covered in the original post (IIRC) - you don't retaliate when you're dead. :smalltongue:


The counter attack mechanic has no associated feats, no associated equipment, no associated monster abilities, and no associated class features. This is the wasted design space I refer to, and reworking other systems to take advantage of this will really help slot this in better. Maybe spears get a bonus to counter attacks against enemies that miss you, maybe there's a feat chain that lets you make counter attacks before attacks come in, maybe Barbarians get an ability to counter attack harder when they get hit, etc.

It would be cleaner if those things - like Two-Weapon Retaliation" - were added. Agreed.


You're right, unfair may be a bit too strong in this case. I'll edit to asymmetrical, as in "affecting players and enemies in asymmetrical ways" (because there is an infinite amount of available enemies, but only about four players at a time).

Does Free Relations differ from, say, Resource Management, around which D&D was based, in affecting players and NPCs differently?

I'm seeing the argument for "this is a change", not for "this is bad".

Although, personally, I want to remove this asymmetry, by removing Resource Management, and let all casters cast all their spells at will.

[Florian]

@Quertus:

A common Barbarian build in PF is based on the rage power "Come and Get me" and the feat "Dazing Assault". A similar concept is based on fighters and shield bashing (with added riders and maneuvers).

Being able to retaliate is one thing, you'll change the whole combat dynamic when you can apply lock-down mechanics to it, like in the case of the CAGM build, which adds save vs. dazed as part of the retaliatory strike(s).

[DeTess]

And that's a feature. The point is to make something different, where you have to reevaluate your preconceptions, rather than a meaningless pallet shift.

Then why are you still playing DnD? If you want something so different that your players have to throw out all their preconceptions or die horribly, just pick up another system.



That would be a problem, if it were true. But I have yet to see demonstrated that any huge concepts are suddenly unplayable.


TWF take as many as seven retaliatory attacks against them, unless the retaliations are limited by either attacks of opportunity (in which case you should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just give karmic strike or robilar's gambit to relevant creatures), or if the creatures only get 1 retaliation per turn per opponent.



Why should monsters need to change any more than PCs? Why not just play them exactly as they are? Is a Beholder suddenly no longer a Beholder just because it snaps at you whenever you attack it?


I'm fairly certain you understand this, but just in case you didn't: Monster balance gets changed a lot with your system. A lot of higher CR monsters use a few heavy-damage attacks instead of lots of light damage attacks, so they'd benefit a lot from your system. In this case, the least you'd have to do is re-calculate the CR of any encounter you want to use.

[Knaight]

I have no idea what you mean here. What's this about grid size and obstructions? :smallconfused:
Lets use a specific example here. Retaliatory attacks are now standard, which implies off turn movement in the sense of moving a weapon to somebody's face. If you attack someone who has a short sword with a long spear, do they just stand there and take it, unable to even try to close until their turn? If a large creature attacks a smaller one with a reach advantage, do they do similarly?


One attack. Which favors 2-handed over 2wf, same as AoOs. Unless there's a "two-weapon retaliation" feat.
It also doesn't work well given a system where one of the primary ways of making combatants better is iterative attacks and attack sequences (which is also part of why monsters are likely to need rework). If you attack a level 1-5 fighter, they get 1/1 of their attacks on you relative to their turn. If you attack a level 16-20 fighter they get 1/4 of their attacks on you relative to their turn.


Covered in the original post (IIRC) - you don't retaliate when you're dead. :smalltongue:
That's not what I'm asking about. Breaking this into more detail.
A attacks B.
B kills A on the retaliation.
B has cleave.
Does B get another attack now?

It's ambiguous, and it's the sort of ambiguity you'd want cleared up.

[Remuko]

That's not what I'm asking about. Breaking this into more detail.
A attacks B.
B kills A on the retaliation.
B has cleave.
Does B get another attack now?

It's ambiguous, and it's the sort of ambiguity you'd want cleared up.

I dont think it is. Cleave says if you down an enemy with an attack you can make another attack (one single one without great cleave) against another target in range, so I'd say "yes of course it works". I'm not sure if OP will agree but based on their posts and my knowledge of the types of systems these changes are rooted in, thats how this would work.

[Quertus]

@Quertus:

A common Barbarian build in PF is based on the rage power "Come and Get me" and the feat "Dazing Assault". A similar concept is based on fighters and shield bashing (with added riders and maneuvers).

Being able to retaliate is one thing, you'll change the whole combat dynamic when you can apply lock-down mechanics to it, like in the case of the CAGM build, which adds save vs. dazed as part of the retaliatory strike(s).

So, there may be a few specific builds which can really benefit disproportionately from this rule? As it sounds like my groups don't normally play most of those builds, if this encourages them to, it might be a win.

Still, I don't like the idea of a single lock-down melee character completely negating the need for the rest of the party (moreso than they already can). So that'll be something to watch for.


Then why are you still playing DnD? If you want something so different that your players have to throw out all their preconceptions or die horribly, just pick up another system.

Because some players don't want to learn a new system? Because they think that they'd rather die horribly due to misconceptions of the effects of one rule change with massive impact than have to learn a bunch of new rules.


TWF take as many as seven retaliatory attacks against them, unless the retaliations are limited by either attacks of opportunity (in which case you should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just give karmic strike or robilar's gambit to relevant creatures), or if the creatures only get 1 retaliation per turn per opponent.

Answer in bold.


I'm fairly certain you understand this, but just in case you didn't: Monster balance gets changed a lot with your system. A lot of higher CR monsters use a few heavy-damage attacks instead of lots of light damage attacks, so they'd benefit a lot from your system. In this case, the least you'd have to do is re-calculate the CR of any encounter you want to use.

The amount of challenge, of XP that a monster is worth, may indeed be off. Shouldn't matter much for a one-shot; for a campaign, this may be a good excuse for me to implement session-based XP.


Lets use a specific example here. Retaliatory attacks are now standard, which implies off turn movement in the sense of moving a weapon to somebody's face. If you attack someone who has a short sword with a long spear, do they just stand there and take it, unable to even try to close until their turn? If a large creature attacks a smaller one with a reach advantage, do they do similarly?

I thought I covered this. It's probably more fair and more realistic if, when the Dragon extends its long neck to bite you, you get to retaliate by stabbing said dragon in its scaly neck.

I hadn't planned on running it that way. I had planned on reach limiting counter attacks. But maybe I should reconsider.


It also doesn't work well given a system where one of the primary ways of making combatants better is iterative attacks and attack sequences (which is also part of why monsters are likely to need rework). If you attack a level 1-5 fighter, they get 1/1 of their attacks on you relative to their turn. If you attack a level 16-20 fighter they get 1/4 of their attacks on you relative to their turn.

That's not what I'm asking about. Breaking this into more detail.
A attacks B.
B kills A on the retaliation.
B has cleave.
Does B get another attack now?

It's ambiguous, and it's the sort of ambiguity you'd want cleared up.

Do I need to say anything beyond, "it works just like AoO in these cases"?