PDA

View Full Version : Something missing with physical combat



Spacehamster
2018-07-29, 04:34 PM
It mostly just is, I hits it with my sword/axe/spear, plus some stuff like sneak attack, rage and such giving bonuses but it does not feel very cinematic, sure you could describe how you attack in a cinematic way but that again takes time.

So what’s missing then you might ask? Well casters got spells that feel beefy or cinematic and bombastic(exploding balls of Fire, thunder, summoning mighty beasts and such), my feeling is that they should have added “spells” for the physical classes too, limited amount of uses of more spectacular powers, not as powerful as real spells ofc since a physical character can do the “I hits it in the face” indefinitely.

For example a brute type class like the barbarian could have something like:

Meteor leap - you sprint towards your enemies, leap into the air and land, smashing your mighty weapon into the ground, dealing 3d6 damage(halved on a successful DEX save) to anyone within a 20ft radius and knocking them prone if they fail the save.

A archer ranger could have something like:

Ballista shot - With great focus it is as if time stops as you draw your mighty bow almost to its breaking point, letting loose a powerful shot that does an extra 2d8 damage and also hits an enemy standing behind your target if it is within 10ft behind it.

Not something I would probably implement to the game as it would be hard to balance adding lots of abilities, how many uses per rest and so on, but it feels like it could make a mundane class much more fun to play, ofc aware most mundanes got a couple of expendable resources but most of them does not feel meaty or cinematic if ya get my meaning.

Just curious if I am alone with thinking this. :)

sophontteks
2018-07-29, 04:51 PM
They tried that in 4e and it didn't go over well (generally, no offense to those who did like it).

Unoriginal
2018-07-29, 05:02 PM
If just describing attacks in a cinematic way takes too much time for you, then using those powers is going to use waaaay more time.

Most Martials already have long-rest or short-rest abilities, which are more than their usual "hit the other in the face". Do you think they're not sufficient?

Tanarii
2018-07-29, 05:09 PM
They tried that in 4e and it didn't go over well (generally, no offense to those who did like it).
I remember cracking open my 4e PHB and almost crying at how awesome the power system made Martials. Also marking for defenders was pure genius.

I just wish the game hadn't been so clunky to play. And run. The myriad of moving little parts were awesome fun in terms of making each maneuver / spell / power fun and interesting, but pure heck to keep track of past the lowest levels.

I hated on Mearls for a long time for taking that away from Martials in Essentials. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion he did the right thing. I didn't personally have any interest in playing Barbarians, Champion Fighters, Thief or Assassin Rogues, or Open Hand or Shadow Monks when I was a player. But I still think it was the right way to go for the game. Every class except Barbarian has magic or a magic subclass, so I could get what I want out of the game, in terms of something more than an attack roll.

CosmicOccurence
2018-07-29, 09:12 PM
I'd check out 4e. Sounds like it's what you're looking for. Not my cup of tea, but I know a lot of people really enjoyed it.

Xetheral
2018-07-29, 10:52 PM
Try allowing the Tunnel Fighter combat style from UA. (Or just give it to martials for free.) It makes a big difference to how fights play out tactially in confined spaces.

Kane0
2018-07-29, 11:04 PM
Weren't there a couple of 5e Book of Nine Swords conversions on the DM Guild or something? That ought to scratch that itch.