This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D  (Read 1981 times)

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:48:37 AM »
Quote from: nDervish;816331
In most D&D variations, the rules say disarming, tripping, etc. is more difficult than hurting someone and it does no damage and if you fail to disarm/trip/etc., then you have no effect on your opponent at all.  It really discourages doing anything more than spamming standard attacks until someone runs out of HP.


This is from the Dresden Files thread. I felt that it merited its own topic.

As a DM, one wants to create exciting combat that's filled with a variety of things beyond just "attack, then attack again, and attack some more."

How useful are actions like shoving, grappling, disarming, etc., in 5th Edition? It seems that since you have to make a roll just to say, disarm a weapon, and then the player can just pick it up again with a bonus action, that it's almost a negligible effect.

How would you make these kinds of things be a viable tool instead of a waste of time?
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2015, 09:38:44 AM »
Not sure on the rest but Grappeling can be really viable in 5e if you set up a character to take advantage of it. Moreso if you set up to work with others. It puts the grappler at high risk. But the results can be impressive.

Another is disarming. Very useful for getting those super weapons out of the hands of the foe if you can pull it off. But correct. As is - retrieving the dropped weapon is a free action, not a bonus action. Personally I think retrieving it should use up an action, or put the person at some sort of disadvantage like incurring the Prone effect.

Knockdown! For fucks sake knockdown! Pack of normal wolves took down my Warlock in a test due to that!

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2015, 10:15:21 AM »
I'd think that if the disarmed weapon just fell at the PC's feet, they could easily pick it up. Maybe it should require an Attack of Opportunity to make the attempt?

But suppose that it was knocked away several feet instead, then... well, I guess the PC could still move a few feet, pick it up for free and continue where they left off. Eh.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

matthulhu

  • Junior Senior Member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2015, 10:42:48 AM »
One thing that gets left out of the 5e Disarm conversation in my experience is the fact that the PHB clearly states that a DM is free (even encouraged) to decide that a nominally free action requires a full action according to circumstance. While not explicitly called out, it seems reasonable to infer that picking up a disarmed weapon in melee combat is a great reason to flex that DM discretion muscle.

For that matter, you could just as easily say the disarming character can kick the dropped weapon out of reach as part of the disarm action, allowing it as one of the countless "minor actions" you get to fold into other parts of your turn.

Or, Hell, rule that that disarmed weapons always fly dramatically out of hands and land exactly at a point such that retrieval that will require leaving the armed opponent's reach and triggering an OA.

Gold Roger

  • Slaad Tadpole
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2015, 03:05:04 PM »
A standart attack might be the blanket best option assuming normal circumstances, which makes sense to me and is preferable to the gimmicky scenario of 3rd edition trip monkeys. But once special circumstances come into play, the decision isn't so clear cut any more.

Pushing is great when there is fire to push enemies into or cliffs to throw someone over.

Flying combat, swordfights while blancing or waterwalking make disarming much better. Or have a familiar ready to make of with the disarmed weapon.

Grappling is potentially great for teamwork.

I don't put to much stock in just looking at options in isolation and dismissing them when they don't stack up on their own.

Opaopajr

  • Señor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2015, 07:20:31 PM »
It helps if "battles to the death!" bring even worse consequences, like legal trouble, or greater mutual enemy, or attached to an even scarier BBEG.

Then, when murder doesn't solve all your problems, suddenly non-lethal maneuvers are extremely useful. Yes, it is setting dependent.

That said, Shove Prone is crazy useful. And anything that invokes one of the nastier conditions is great (like Restrained, Blinded, Frightened, etc.). Even Grapple reduces Spd to zero, thus prevents Dodge. Use an Object & improvised action are GM and situation dependent.
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2015, 08:22:53 PM »
Quote from: Opaopajr;816504
It helps if "battles to the death!" bring even worse consequences, like legal trouble, or greater mutual enemy, or attached to an even scarier BBEG.

Then, when murder doesn't solve all your problems, suddenly non-lethal maneuvers are extremely useful. Yes, it is setting dependent.

That said, Shove Prone is crazy useful. And anything that invokes one of the nastier conditions is great (like Restrained, Blinded, Frightened, etc.). Even Grapple reduces Spd to zero, thus prevents Dodge. Use an Object & improvised action are GM and situation dependent.


What invokes blinded? Or do you just mean some random event rather than one of the official moves.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Rincewind1

  • Have YOU got any
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7685
    • http://www.smerf.fero.pl
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2015, 08:32:59 PM »
Like many things, it depends on a GM - I'd say that in case of the disarm, obviously picking the weapon from the ground'd need to be a full action.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don't Like You thread should be closed

Gold Roger

  • Slaad Tadpole
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2015, 10:18:03 PM »
Another note on disarm and picking up items being a free interaction.

You can just pick it up yourself, if you have a free hand (admittedly rare). If not, I'd rule that kicking away a weapon is just as much a free interaction with an item as is picking one up.

Opaopajr

  • Señor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2015, 12:23:09 AM »
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816529
What invokes blinded? Or do you just mean some random event rather than one of the official moves.


:) Are we forgetting the basics? Check the Lighting and Obscurement rules. Darkness and Particulates are your friend. And no, you don't always need a spell. Snuffing light sources, throwing sand (or flour! it's under Trade Goods and is cheap!) in someone's face, etc.

Yes Virginia, your good ol' D&D tactics can come right back. :D
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

Opaopajr

  • Señor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2015, 12:28:27 AM »
Quote from: Gold Roger;816554
Another note on disarm and picking up items being a free interaction.

You can just pick it up yourself, if you have a free hand (admittedly rare). If not, I'd rule that kicking away a weapon is just as much a free interaction with an item as is picking one up.

Yeah, it's just One Free Interaction with the Environment. That said, it still gets used up. It's one of the challenges to dual draw and throw weapons, hence the need for Dual Wielder feat.

And besides, it makes for good fun, chasing and kicking it away, or standing atop it. Like Samurai Showdown when you get disarmed and people would camp atop the weapon. And that gives a reason to Shove, so it has cascading fun effects. It really doesn't need to be slowed down with consuming one's Action.
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

nDervish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 750
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2015, 05:34:35 AM »
Quote from: Gold Roger;816438
A standart attack might be the blanket best option assuming normal circumstances, which makes sense to me and is preferable to the gimmicky scenario of 3rd edition trip monkeys. But once special circumstances come into play, the decision isn't so clear cut any more.


That depends on just how bad the mechanical disincentives are.

For OSR systems, I've seen several blogs promoting the house rule that, to do these kind of special combat maneuvers, you roll to hit twice and succeed if both hit.  If you have 50% to hit, that's 25% to disarm.  Unless your skills seriously overmatch your opponent's AC, it's just not worth it unless the maneuver is an immediate "I win" button if it succeeds (and perhaps not even then - 10% to hit = 1% to disarm).

For ACKS (the most recent D&D clone I've run), the general rule on special combat maneuvers is that you roll to hit at -4 and the target gets a save vs. paralysis to resist, which basically makes them useless across the board - by the time your hit rolls are good enough to reliably connect despite the -4 to hit, you'll be facing things with good enough saves to reliably resist.

While I definitely agree that there should be some cost to attempting special maneuvers so that you don't get things like the trip-monkeys you mentioned, those costs should not be so high that any attempt at special maneuvers is near-guaranteed to be just a wasted turn, even in situations where the maneuver would logically be appropriate.

Opaopajr

  • Señor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2015, 07:45:04 AM »
Wow, those are some pretty bad mechanical disincentives. And I thought the -4 atk from AD&D 2e was perhaps a bit too much (and it roughly equates to Disadvantage, fyi). Most special moves in 5e are straightforward or require a contested roll, and even then quite a few players don't even try them.
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2015, 08:43:25 AM »
I used grapple to have some zombies pin a player down so he could get swarmed to death. It fit perfectly with the zombie idea too.

The initiative order went something like:

ZOMBIE
PLAYER
ZOMBIE
ZOMBIE
ZOMBIE
ZOMBIE

If that first zombie failed then the player would have been home free.

Incidentally, what do you guys think of the special rules in the DMG for handling combat with large numbers of enemies. It's something like, skip rolling for the enemies and just equate every 2-3 enemies to a guaranteed attack on the players.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Exploderwizard

  • DESTROYER OF HOBBIES!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 5025
Viability of nonstandard combat actions in D&D
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2015, 09:10:36 AM »
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816619

Incidentally, what do you guys think of the special rules in the DMG for handling combat with large numbers of enemies. It's something like, skip rolling for the enemies and just equate every 2-3 enemies to a guaranteed attack on the players.


I wouldn't like to use that. A guaranteed hit just due to numbers means that a characters defenses really don't matter. Why wear heavy armor if you are going to get hit as often as the guy without armor?  Why use the dodge action?

Defense should matter or else your players are going to all min/max into the most efficient whirling damage generators possible because that will be their only option.
Quote from: JonWake
Gamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than 'oh, neat, what's this do?', the reaction is to decide if it's a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252
At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997
In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.