TheRPGSite

Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll. I saw this most recently reading through Adventurer Conquerer King. In that iteration, the attacker takes a -4 penalty to the attack roll AND the defender can make a saving throw to avoid the effect (for most manoeuvers). D&D 3rd ed. has a similar penalty for most manoeuvers as well.

My question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty? Would it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

My concern is that combats in earlier editions of D&D are often quite static and dull, with combatants simply trading attack rolls back and forth. I would like to encourage fights to be really dynamic, with lots of pushing and shoving and running around. Offering incentives for combat manoeuvers rather than penalties might encourage this.

Dynamic combat was never really part of D&D. It is an abstract combat system that has the advantage of being resolved quickly. For more detailed combat another system would serve better.

Its hard to bolt on dynamic action to an abstract framework without the end result being a mess (see 4E) .

Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

But what disadvantages do you see to removing the penalties for trying things like push, trip, bull rush, etc.?

EDIT: Or can I read your comment to say that removing the penalties, and encouraging the players to use those option more would slow fights down with no appreciable benefit?

Using 3E I've both removed the penalties and nixed the AoOs. It works just fine: Make Trip and opposed grapple check and allow give people a Reflex saving throw if the forced movement would cause them to fall. (If you pick up Legends & Labryinths, you can set the Reflex save based on character level or monster HD and streamline things even more.)

If there's one valuable lesson from 4E it's that forced movement is fun, makes combat more dynamic, and adds tactical depth to the system. Locking that stuff behind byzantine and punitive modifiers doesn't seem to be necessary.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203My question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty?

It would the decision to try for the normal damage or to risk missing for the chance at something unusual and perhaps better.

QuoteWould it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

I wouldn't mind the first but don't see much point to it, but multiple rolls for things slows down combat, and I loathe things that slow combat unnecessarily. (Remember, I take combat that averages over ten minutes real time as a sign that the game system either isn't for me or that the combat system needs streamlining with house rules to speed it up.)

QuoteMy concern is that combats in earlier editions of D&D are often quite static and dull, with combatants simply trading attack rolls back and forth. I would like to encourage fights to be really dynamic, with lots of pushing and shoving and running around.

Combat in my games tend to be more planning and maneuvering before the first blows even happen to maximize the chance that the enemy dies/is forced to retreat/surrender before they have a chance to get a blow in. However, when this doesn't work, the combats usually aren't all that static. Players describe their characters as doing all sorts of interesting stuff to try to get an advantage beyond simply trading attack rolls. In about 35 years of running games, I've had very few players put of of trying something they thing would help them win a fight because of a few points of penalty on their attack rolls. Note: I run combats abstractly without minis, battlemats, or the like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516228Dynamic combat was never really part of D&D. It is an abstract combat system that has the advantage of being resolved quickly. For more detailed combat another system would serve better.

Its hard to bolt on dynamic action to an abstract framework without the end result being a mess (see 4E) .

Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

I agree, with one caveat:  in 40-odd years of the hobby, I am not sure there are any detailed combat rules that can be said to work 'smoothly', although some are certainly better than others.

As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.  Which, as you say, ends up being rather a mess, as in 4e and later supplements to 3.x.  Guidelines to adjudicate these things are fine, but codifying them doesn't expand options, it only increases handle time.  This is the fundamental cause of 90min combat sessions to deal with a half dozen orcs.

Quote from: RandallS;516271

QuoteMy question is, is the penalty necessary? What harm would there be to removing the penalty?

It would the decision to try for the normal damage or to risk missing for the chance at something unusual and perhaps better.

The bold is what you meant, right? The decision is still there, with or without the penalty. Either do damage or perform a manoeuver. Or do you mean that making that choice to perform a manoeuver more tempting is a harm?

Quote

QuoteWould it bad, even, to offer a bonus of sorts, given that manoeuvers are done in lieu of damage? Perhaps the attack roll could be based on the AC for a touch attack (in addition to allowing the defender a saving throw a la ACKS--I like that).

I wouldn't mind the first but don't see much point to it, but multiple rolls for things slows down combat, and I loathe things that slow combat unnecessarily. (Remember, I take combat that averages over ten minutes real time as a sign that the game system either isn't for me or that the combat system needs streamlining with house rules to speed it up.)

That's a fair point. Another roll is another thing to lookup, confirm, and process.

QuoteCombat in my games tend to be more planning and maneuvering before the first blows even happen to maximize the chance that the enemy dies/is forced to retreat/surrender before they have a chance to get a blow in.

Can you think of anything you do at the table to encourage this sort of play? How long does the deliberation usually take? 5 minutes of combat + 25 minutes of players fussing over a plan wouldn't really be an improvement over 30 minutes of combat to my sensibilities.

QuoteHowever, when this doesn't work, the combats usually aren't all that static. Players describe their characters as doing all sorts of interesting stuff to try to get an advantage beyond simply trading attack rolls. In about 35 years of running games, I've had very few players put of of trying something they thing would help them win a fight because of a few points of penalty on their attack rolls. Note: I run combats abstractly without minis, battlemats, or the like.

Can you think of what you do at the table to encourage this sort of thing? Nearly every game of pre-WOTC D&D I've played in didn't use minis or battlemats yet almost always had too much combat that was just "hit roll, damage roll, hit roll, damage roll" for my taste.

Quote from: StormBringer;516275As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.

The trade-off is damage now vs. a bonus later, isn't it? If it works off a straight hit roll, is that too reliable? Hit rolls can be fairly whiffy, after all.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll. I saw this most recently reading through Adventurer Conquerer King. In that iteration, the attacker takes a -4 penalty to the attack roll AND the defender can make a saving throw to avoid the effect (for most manoeuvers). D&D 3rd ed. has a similar penalty for most manoeuvers as well.

In 3.x, a trip attempt is normally made against touch AC (and no AoO if using a trip weapon). A bull rush requires only an opposed Strength roll; you don't have to make an attack roll at all. A Disarm requires an opposed attack roll with circumstance modifiers; winning this could be easier or harder than actually hitting your opponent, depending.
While there is a penalty in the form of an attack of opportunity most of the time, its actually usually easier to hit with a combat manuever than to do damage. I think the problem is that most players can't be arsed.
 
Its also slightly unfortunate that the character with the most chance of actually pulling off any of the standard manuevers, with the least penalty, is a barbarian with a two-handed reach weapon, rather than some sort of swashbuckler type. If you've got a rapier guy in 3E you might be tempted to start doing the swashbuckler thing and trying to disarm people, but you're doing so at a substantial penalty compared to the guy with a greatsword (or the guy with a longspear, who doesn't take AoOs due to being 10' away).
 
Anyway, I'm normally all for completely rewriting the rules but oddly for me, I suppose I'd recommend a re-education program instead: as GM, use NPC tactics and combat manuevers to hand the PCs' asses to them until they learn some tactics.

Quote from: two_fishes;516203Most iterations of D&D have penalties for combat manoeuvers. Things like bullrush, trip, push, disarm all demand the attacker take a penalty to the attack roll.

Are you sure about that?

Bullrush is an opposed Strength check; you suffer a penalty only if you're smaller than your opponent, and if you're larger, you get a bonus. It provokes an attack of opportunity.

Disarm is also an opposed Strength check, and you suffer a penalty if you're using a light weapon and gain a bonus if you're wielding a two-handed weapon. You suffer a penalty if you're trying to disarm someone carrying a non-melee weapon, and gain a bonus if you're larger than the opponent.

Trip provokes an attack of opportunity and requires an opposed Strength versus Dexterity check, with a bonus for being bigger and a penalty for being smaller.

Sunder provokes an attack of opportunity, and there's a penalty again for using a light weapon and a bonus for using a two-handed weapon.

Personally I'm seeing nothing but reasonably intuitive bonuses and penalties in d20, along with attacks of opportunity for trying to get inside the reach of your opponent's weapons, claws, or what-have-you.

In 1e, pummeling, grappling, and overbearing a foe are spelled out, and involve an array of penalties and bonuses depending on a variety of factors, from armor and helmet worn to weight differences to Strength and Dexterity scores (take that, all you who say ability scores don't matter in D&D!). An opponent wielding a weapon has a chance to prevent a grapple or overbear.

So I'm not seeing all these penalties you're talking about.

You and BS Johnson are likely right about 3e. I haven't looked at the 3e rules in a long time, so I could easily have remembered them wrong. As said upthread, the most recent ruleset I looked at was ACKS, which uses a -4 to the hit roll plus a saving throw from the defender (with some of the manoeuvers varying from that rule.) That said, the 3e rules look more complex than I would like--a different rule for each different manoeuver.  I see you and BSS each gave a different rule for Trip. It seems like a lot to keep straight without referencing the manual at the table. I should also add that this is with regard to putting on a Labyrinth Lord/ACKS game in the nearish future.

Quote from: two_fishes;516278The trade-off is damage now vs. a bonus later, isn't it? If it works off a straight hit roll, is that too reliable? Hit rolls can be fairly whiffy, after all.

To hit rolls can be fairly swingy, depending on the situation.  If the to hit is fairly difficult, it can be discouraging when the opponent has a high save vs that stunt.  In 3.x parlance, if the target has a high Reflex save bonus, it can be a buzzkill for trying stunts overall.  In other words, having two rolls for the effect will allow the worst of both, in a manner of speaking.  A high hit chance coupled with a low save chance makes the effect too reliable.  A low hit chance coupled with a low save chance makes it too unreliable.  The sweet spot would appear to be average hit chance with average save chance, but I would have to run some numbers to say for sure.  Roughly speaking, a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance to save means a 25% chance of pulling off the stunt.  Where it gets tricky is situational modifiers that alter those percentages dynamically, making it hard to determine the instantaneous value of a particular stunt.

I would say the trade-off is more along the lines of damage now, or possibly an ongoing(ish) bonus or penalty.  In 4e, there are quite a few effects that might only last until the end of a turn or the beginning of the next, meaning they essentially have no mechanical impact unless other players change plans for their turns to concentrate on the opponent you just blinded, or staggered, or pushed, or whatever.  So part of the equation has to be the duration of the effect, which is easier to calculate if it lasts a given number of rounds or segments or whatever.  "Save Ends" or "Lasts until beginning of next turn" are too vague to really judge the effectiveness of a stunt.  And with 4e specifically, there are too many of those going on at one time to assign a 'dollar value' to stunts, generally and severally.

So, probably pick a to hit or a saving throw, but not both.  Additionally, don't try to make a list of stunts; instead, keep it open ended and let the players figure out what they want to try.  Marvel Super Heroes used that method, and it worked pretty well.  If the player tries a stunt, have them jot that down on their character sheet or something, and they can try it again later, perhaps with a bonus or less of a penalty with subsequent successes.  Take the complexity into account when assigning odds.  Throwing sand is pretty simple, but tying a rope to a halberd, throwing it into a door jamb and trying to trip multiple opponents is pretty complicated.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to require multiple rolls in the latter case.  Have an idea of the guidelines ahead of time, and discuss with the players when they want to try something.  Let them know that they may not always get the bonus they want.  Doing a shoulder roll past some goblins might grant a bonus to hit, but the same thing won't work with a gelatinous cube or a 5th level NPC Fighter.

This is just one of those instances where rulings generally work better than rules.

I myself included in my game a random location hit table, alongside an option to hit any chosen location for a certain advantage (disarm for hand, slowing down for legs, bonus damage/blinding head). All locations are at -2 to hit, save head that is -3 (or -4, had not decided yet).

The random location to - hit table is mostly fluff right now, but I may throw an idea that if you hit an arm randomly, there needs to be a test to see if you dropped your weapon and stuff (I am using already my Pain & Morale rules though, so that'd triple the rolls needed for combat already).

Quote from: two_fishes;516277The bold is what you meant, right? The decision is still there, with or without the penalty. Either do damage or perform a maneuver. Or do you mean that making that choice to perform a maneuver more tempting is a harm?

Yes there was a missing "UN". Apologies for the confusion. I think that if there are no penalties to doing maneuvers that will have greater effect than just taking a swing at it, then there is no real reason to ever just take a swing at it. (Which spikes my "silliness" meter.)

QuoteCan you think of anything you do at the table to encourage this sort of play?

I run an old school sandbox. What you run into is based where you go, not your current power level which makes charging in assuming that you can beat everything you encounter in stand-up combat a recipe for TPK. Also, old school games have reaction rolls, not every group of monsters one encounters is going to auto-attack on sight. They also have morale rules which means losing monsters often surrender or retreat instead of fighting to the finish -- and you can increase the chances of that by killing the leaders or with "shock & awe". Also the primary source of XP is treasure, not creatures killed.

This lends itself to "combat as war" more than to "combat as sport. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/317715-very-long-combat-sport-vs-combat-war-key-difference-d-d-play-styles.html)"

QuoteHow long does the deliberation usually take? 5 minutes of combat + 25 minutes of players fussing over a plan wouldn't really be an improvement over 30 minutes of combat to my sensibilities.

It depends on the situation, of course, but in my experience coming up with a plan for normal encounters only takes a few minutes -- at least after the first few game sessions when the players have learned how their characters and hirelings can best work together. If that plan is complex, it may take quite a bit of time to execute, but much of the execution might not be considered combat by most people. Things like sneaking party members into specific positions, tricking another monster into attacking first, making a temporary alliance with some other nearby monster for aid, etc. "Strategic" actions and opposed to in combat tactics.

Quote from: StormBringer;516275As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.

Throwing Sand in your opponent's eyes is probably one of the options where a better way of limiting it would be to make it some sort of 'Encounter Power'. The first time you try it it works, but when opponents know what to look for it's trivial for them to get out of the way. Otherwise you are right, combat just devolves to a nursery school sandpit fight.

Quote from: jadrax;516313Throwing Sand in your opponent's eyes is probably one of the options where a better way of limiting it would be to make it some sort of 'Encounter Power'. The first time you try it it works, but when opponents know what to look for it's trivial for them to get out of the way. Otherwise you are right, combat just devolves to a nursery school sandpit fight.

Fights neither are, nor were in medieval or any times, pleasant and honourable ventures. Indeed, they quite often resembled, as you put it, nursery school sandpit fights - once you are in the mud, everyone screams in pain around you, and the madman is charging on you, it's less Mr Lancelot and more Mr Clegane.

This here from Cadfael shows how a typical duel, even at tournaments, usually looked:

http://youtu.be/a72l3KQHw20?t=3m11s

Quote from: two_fishes;516289I see you and BSS each gave a different rule for Trip.

We both gave you different halves of the trip rules. In total yes, there's an AoO (possibly), then a touch attack, then if that's successful, you make the Str vs. [Str or Dex] roll. To be honest, I suppose a fair consideration of trips odds of working should factor in the around 50/50 chance of failure at the ability check stage, although you can push this up with size modifiers or feats without great difficulty.


Oh, 2E did frequently use the -4 penalty for things (called shots and the like). Mind you, AC didn't increase much with level so hit rolls were still fairly easy.

Cheers,
BSS

Quote from: StormBringer;516298

So, probably pick a to hit or a saving throw, but not both.

This makes sense to me, and it would be nice to lay options as a simple binary--a successful hit roll means you can do damage, or manipulate your opponent in some way, whether that's chasing them onto bad terrain, knocking them down, grabbing something from them or whatever.

QuoteAdditionally, don't try to make a list of stunts; instead, keep it open ended and let the players figure out what they want to try.

Open-ended is nice, but I do find that having some kind of list of available options affects the way people make decisions. Having no list whatsoever means most players will just default to the bog standard.

QuoteMarvel Super Heroes used that method, and it worked pretty well.  If the player tries a stunt, have them jot that down on their character sheet or something, and they can try it again later, perhaps with a bonus or less of a penalty with subsequent successes.  

I seem to recall that. That's an interesting thought. Perhaps something to keep in mind for more risky or complex stunts.

Quote from: two_fishes;516320This makes sense to me, and it would be nice to lay options as a simple binary--a successful hit roll means you can do damage, or manipulate your opponent in some way, whether that's chasing them onto bad terrain, knocking them down, grabbing something from them or whatever.

Just be careful about what effects those actions have on combat.  Knocking an opponent over would reasonably carry a pretty hefty penalty for the opponent or a decent bonus for attackers.  Also, a Dwarf knocking a giant down from a simple to hit roll is probably a little too powerful.  That might be an instance where something outside normal combat procedures should be rolled.

Speaking of...

QuoteOpen-ended is nice, but I do find that having some kind of list of available options affects the way people make decisions. Having no list whatsoever means most players will just default to the bog standard.

Now that you mention it, a short list of starter ideas isn't a bad idea.  At least some guidelines about what sort of roll would be needed.  Perhaps rolling a 20 means a critical hit, or a disarm.  In your knocking prone example above, maybe an opposed Strength check in lieu of a normal attack, with the loser being knocked prone.  Something to separate the rather simple results from the more drastic so the players won't get the idea they can behead Orcus on a regular to hit roll.

QuoteI seem to recall that. That's an interesting thought. Perhaps something to keep in mind for more risky or complex stunts.

One benefit, at least with MSH, is that more than one player could contribute to the power stunt.  I think the example from the rules was Wolverine getting thrown at opponents by Colossus; they both had to make some kind of power check to pull it off.  That trick made it into the X-Men and Ultimate Alliance video games, if I recall correctly.  Of course, the downside is that the odds of success are being reduced again, or the whole thing fails if one of the characters misses whatever roll.  There can be graduated levels of success, but that is going to somewhat add complexity and handle-time.  It may be a reasonable trade-off, however, to encourage teamwork with stunts.

Quote from: Rincewind1;516317Fights neither are, nor were in medieval or any times, pleasant and honourable ventures. Indeed, they quite often resembled, as you put it, nursery school sandpit fights - once you are in the mud, everyone screams in pain around you, and the madman is charging on you, it's less Mr Lancelot and more Mr Clegane.

This here from Cadfael shows how a typical duel, even at tournaments, usually looked:

http://youtu.be/a72l3KQHw20?t=3m11s

But it all comes back full circle you see. Once the sandpit fight starts you are exactly back where you started, a rather static spamming of the same thing over and over. The only difference is, now doing the same shit again and again takes even longer.

D&D combat wasn't designed to be drawn out and lingered upon. Adding things to it to try and achieve extra excitement usually only add resolution time.

The key to an exciting fight is the stakes. If the fight is short and simple but there is a good chance that it could be your character lying on the floor afterwards then excitement will follow.  Having been involved in some 4E combats in which there was sliding and pushing and dazing, and knocking prone, etc but was pretty much decided 5-8 rounds before it ended was not exciting.

Excitement comes from swift and brutal combat. The thing that hurt 4E combat more than anything was the knowledge that it was so balanced that there was no feeling that it could end at any moment for better or worse.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516228Detailed combat resolution needs to be part of the system from the ground up, (such as GURPS) in order to work smoothly.

I've played D&D with an entirely different combat system (the better you hit, the more damage you do using percentile dice) and it worked just fine.  It's one the reasons why I think, technically, I never played real D&D until 3.5.  Before that, either the GM abstracted the combat or I played with a different combat system grafted on to it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516319Cheers,
BSS

Sorry about that!  :o

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516362But it all comes back full circle you see. Once the sandpit fight starts you are exactly back where you started, a rather static spamming of the same thing over and over. The only difference is, now doing the same shit again and again takes even longer.

D&D combat wasn't designed to be drawn out and lingered upon. Adding things to it to try and achieve extra excitement usually only add resolution time.

The key to an exciting fight is the stakes. If the fight is short and simple but there is a good chance that it could be your character lying on the floor afterwards then excitement will follow.  Having been involved in some 4E combats in which there was sliding and pushing and dazing, and knocking prone, etc but was pretty much decided 5-8 rounds before it ended was not exciting.

Excitement comes from swift and brutal combat. The thing that hurt 4E combat more than anything was the knowledge that it was so balanced that there was no feeling that it could end at any moment for better or worse.

I am one for a certain...complexity of fights, or so to speak - a simple combat system, where the GM simply calls on most modifiers as players perform actions. Over the times, as the rulings happen over and over, those become simply the rules for, as you'd put it, combat manoeuvres. I did not see a combat be dragged out too long so far, because of introducing an idea of something more then "I stab. He stabs back". There are of course limits to that.

And as for the "sand in the eye" - if you throw sand into someone's eyes, he will be blinded for a turn/two, then have probably a penalty (or not) for the rest of the combat at my table. You can try that trick again, but there'd be a penalty for trying the same trick again.

In the last game, I did surprise the player rather nastily. He drew a sword in a bar fight. I had 3 NPC bouncers who had a special quality - +1 to To Hit as long as they were using street fighting techniques or clubs. First round as the NPC I declared that I kick him in the balls - I hit, and I told him to pass a Pain check on -10. GG no re.

Next fight, I suspect that the player (who is a dwarf) might take a clue and start using his dwarf's head as a ram in a street fight, rather then draw his blade ;).

Long story short - I like me some combat manoeuvres. Perhaps DnD isn't perfect system for that - but that's why I houserule it.

Quote from: RandallS;516305Yes there was a missing "UN". Apologies for the confusion. I think that if there are no penalties to doing maneuvers that will have greater effect than just taking a swing at it, then there is no real reason to ever just take a swing at it. (Which spikes my "silliness" meter.)

I guess my disagreement is that a manoeuver is necessarily better than taking a swing. Usually it means giving the defender some short-term penalty in lieu of doing damage, which seems like a fair trade-off.

Quotesnipped some good stuff.

Quote from: StormBringer;516275As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting.  Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks.

Based on actual playtest experience, the opportunity cost of passing up damage is more than enough cost to prevent these abilities from being spammed.

If you're letting someone do something special AND score their normal damage, then you have a problem. But that's not the case with any edition of the game I'm familiar with.

QuoteWhich, as you say, ends up being rather a mess, as in 4e and later supplements to 3.x.  Guidelines to adjudicate these things are fine, but codifying them doesn't expand options, it only increases handle time.  This is the fundamental cause of 90min combat sessions to deal with a half dozen orcs.

(1) Combat maneuvers were added to OD&D in Strategic Review #2 in 1975. In AD&D1 they are extensive (and far more complicated to resolve). From there they migrate to B/X, BECMI, AD&D2, and RC. IOW, these rules have a long, long legacy and have almost certainly been part of the game longer than you've been playing it (unless you started in 1974).

(2) It doesn't take 90 minutes to resolve a fight against six orcs in 3E unless you're doing something really, really wrong.

(3) Based on actual playtesting, the fundamental cause of longer fights in 4E is that it takes more rounds to inflict the necessary hit point damage. Even if your turn-by-turn resolution time is identical (which it generally is at the tables I've played 4E at), 4E combats take longer because they take longer.

Quote from: two_fishes;516370Sorry about that!  :o

hehe, no probs.

Also, sorry, off-topic possible question on 0D&D/1E AD&D manuevers for anyone who knows: did any of these make it to 2E? Or was the 2E manuever system in Complete Fighter's Handbook (and extended again in Combat & Tactics) a complete replacement of whatever system was in place ?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516408Also, sorry, off-topic possible question on 0D&D/1E AD&D manuevers for anyone who knows: did any of these make it to 2E? Or was the 2E manuever system in Complete Fighter's Handbook (and extended again in Combat & Tactics) a complete replacement of whatever system was in place ?

2E's original PHB contains rules for unarmed combat, wrestling, overbearing, nonlethal attacks, parrying, and so forth. These were generally streamlined and simplified versions of 1E's byzantine systems, but there are a few exceptions.

(Tangentially: Whenever somebody complains about 3E introducing them to AoOs, pg. 98 of the original 2nd Edition PHB is a good reference to point them to: "A character attempting to punch, wrestle, or overbear an armed opponent can do so only by placing himself at great risk. Making matters worse, an armed defender is automatically allowed to strike with his weapon before the unarmed attack is made...")

Quote from: Justin Alexander;5164132E's original PHB contains rules for unarmed combat, wrestling, overbearing, nonlethal attacks, parrying, and so forth. These were generally streamlined and simplified versions of 1E's byzantine systems, but there are a few exceptions.
 
(Tangentially: Whenever somebody complains about 3E introducing them to AoOs, pg. 98 of the original 2nd Edition PHB is a good reference to point them to: "A character attempting to punch, wrestle, or overbear an armed opponent can do so only by placing himself at great risk. Making matters worse, an armed defender is automatically allowed to strike with his weapon before the unarmed attack is made...")

Ah, I'd never noticed that! Pg 97 in the 2E PHB (the "retreat" section) also gives a free attack on enemies that disengage and flee, unless they withdraw at 1/3 normal rate.
 
(Something abit fishy about AoOs in 2E. Weapon speed factors seem to assume that swinging a slow weapon will delay someone by several segments -in a minute-long combat round!, but AoOs go off instantly).
 
I'd seen punching and wrestling before in 1E I think, though I'm not super familiar with it. Complete Fighter also had a bunch of additional combat options, including detailed rules for Called Shots to various hit locations, Grab, Hold Attack, Disarm, Expert Disarm, Grab, Parry, Pin, Pull/Trip, Sap, Shield-Punch, Shield-Rush, Parrying, and some guidelines for improvised manuevers.

Combat should play like this

The Northmen were already horrifyingly close, breaking through the nearest hedgerow.  He could pick out faces across their line.  Snarling, screaming, grinning faces.  Like animals, weapons raised high as they bounded on through the barley.  Lasmark took a few steps backwards without thinking.  Sergeant Lock stood beside him, his jaw muscles clenched.

"Shit, sir," he said.

Lasmark could only swallow and ready himself as his men flung down their weapons around him.  As they turned and ran for the river or the hill, too far, far too far away.  As the makeshift line of his company and the company beside them dissolved leaving only a few knots of the most stunned and hard-bitten to face the Northmen.  He could see how many there were, now.  Hundreds of them.  Hundreds upon hundreds.  A flung spear impaled a man beside him with a thud, and he fell screaming.  Lasmark stared at him for a moment.  Stelt.  He'd been a baker.

He looked up at the tide of howling men, open mouthed.  You hear about this kind of thing, of course, but you assume it won't happen to you.  You assume you're more important than that.  He'd done none of the things he'd promised himself he'd do by the time he was thirty.  He wanted to drop his sword and sit down.  Caught sight of his ring and lifted his hand to look at it.  Emlin's face carved into the stone.  Didn't look likely he'd be coming back for her now.  Probably she'd marry that cousin of hers after all.  Marrying cousins, a deplorable business.

Sergeant Lock charged forward, wasted bravery, hacked a lump from the edge of a shield.  The shield had a bridge painted on it.  He chopped at it again, just as another Northman ran up and hit him with an axe.  He was knocked sideways, then back the other way by a sword that left a long scratch across his helmet and a deep cut across his face.  He spun, arms up like a dancer, then was barged over in the rush and lost in the barley.

Lasmark sprang at the shield with the bridge, for some reason barely taking note of the man behind it.  Perhaps he wanted to pretend there was no man behind it.  His sword instructor would have been livid with him.  Before he got there a spear caught his breastplate, sent him stumbling.  The point scraped past and he swung at the man who thrust it, an ugly-looking fellow with a badly broken nose.  The sword split his skull open and brains flew out.  It was surprisingly easy to do.  Swords are heavy and sharp, he supposed, even cheap ones.

There was a clicking sound and everything turned over, mud thumped and barley tangled him.  One of his eyes was dark.  There was a ringing, stupidly loud, as if his head was the clapper in a great bell.  He tried to get up but the world was spinning.  None of the things he'd promised to do by the time he was thirty.  Oh.  Except join the army.

-        -        -

The Southerner tried to push himself up and Lightsleep knocked him on the back of the head with his mace and bonked his helmet in.  One boot kicked a little and he was done.

"Lovely."  The rest of the Union men were all surrounded and going down fast or scattering like a flock o' starlings, just like Golden said they would.  Lightsleep kneeled, tucked his mace under his arm and started trying to twist a nice-looking ring off the dead Southerner's finger.  Couple of other lads were claiming their prizes, one was screaming with blood running down his face but, you know, it's a battle, ain't it?  If everyone came out smiling there'd be no point.  Away south Golden's riders were mopping up, driving the fleeing Southerners to the river.

"Turn for the hill!" Scabna was bellowing, pointing at it with his axe, the smug arse.  "To the hill, you bastards!"

"You turn for the hill," grunted Lightsleep, legs still sore from all that running, throat sore from all that screaming besides.  "Hah!"  Finally got the Union lad's ring off.  Held it up to the light and frowned.  Just some polished rock with a face cut into it, but he guessed it might fetch a couple of silvers.  Tucked it into his jerkin.  Took the lad's sword for good measure and stuck it through his belt, though it was a light little toothpick of a thing and the hilt rattled.
Joe Abercrombie - The Heroes

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516407Based on actual playtest experience, the opportunity cost of passing up damage is more than enough cost to prevent these abilities from being spammed.

That rather depends on the ability in question.  If we are talking about knocking someone prone, the player may pass up their own damage, but the next however many players getting huge bonuses to hit the downed opponent seems more than worth the cost of one round of damage.  Especially if the player with statistically low damage to begin with attempts the manoeuvre.

QuoteIf you're letting someone do something special AND score their normal damage, then you have a problem. But that's not the case with any edition of the game I'm familiar with.

That falls in line with my earlier admonition against using a to hit roll and a saving throw.  But that is pretty much the default template regarding powers in 4e.  In just the 3.5 PHB, the feats Spring Attack, Improved Trip and Improved Bullrush come to mind as allowing damage and an effect.  I would be very sceptical if there weren't more examples in later splats; the ones closest to 4e are likely rife with them.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;516423Ah, I'd never noticed that! Pg 97 in the 2E PHB (the "retreat" section) also gives a free attack on enemies that disengage and flee, unless they withdraw at 1/3 normal rate.

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

Quote from: StormBringer;516591That falls in line with my earlier admonition against using a to hit roll and a saving throw.  But that is pretty much the default template regarding powers in 4e.  In just the 3.5 PHB, the feats Spring Attack, Improved Trip and Improved Bullrush come to mind as allowing damage and an effect.  I would be very sceptical if there weren't more examples in later splats; the ones closest to 4e are likely rife with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: StormBringer;516275I agree, with one caveat: in 40-odd years of the hobby, I am not sure there are any detailed combat rules that can be said to work 'smoothly', although some are certainly better than others.
 
As Randall mentions above, the penalties are to make the game interesting. Like the 'sand in the eyes' trick, if it works more or less reliably, the players have a tendency to end up spamming the special attacks. Which, as you say, ends up being rather a mess, as in 4e and later supplements to 3.x.

...
 

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516407Based on actual playtest experience, the opportunity cost of passing up damage is more than enough cost to prevent these abilities from being spammed.
 
If you're letting someone do something special AND score their normal damage, then you have a problem. But that's not the case with any edition of the game I'm familiar with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: jibbajibba;516435Combat should play like this

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

Quote from: Exploderwizard;516362D&D combat wasn't designed to be drawn out and lingered upon. Adding things to it to try and achieve extra excitement usually only add resolution time.

1e AD&D characters had quite a few choices (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=285136&postcount=607) as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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