D&D 2E A look at ADnD 2E: Fighter´s Complete Book and Maneuvers vs Power System

[UngeheuerLich]

I remember parry as: attack AC 4, but roll under! the enemy´s roll.

And I agree: a nice module. Actually 2nd edition is a good example how to integrate modules. Of course the base system needs to be more stable and as such those modules should be easier to implement.

 

[RupertADnD]

I remember parry as: attack AC 4, but roll under! the enemy´s roll.

And I agree: a nice module. Actually 2nd edition is a good example how to integrate modules. Of course the base system needs to be more stable and as such those modules should be easier to implement.

Actually, according to DMG a parry ads +4 to AC, and you can´t do anything else in your round. The optional Parry of the Complete Fighter Handbook, allows you to announce parry before you roll initiative in your round using one of your attacks, in case you have more than one, then after you receive the attack (you can even chose which attack in case you are being attacked by multiple creatures) you have to roll against enemies’ AC (that’s weird), if you are successful you block the attack, and if you have extra attacks you can make your second attack. It´s pretty neat, except that you attack vs. AC to parry, as I said maybe some kind of contest check would be more adequate.

 

[Mercule]

In core Next? No way. Too complicated, too many rules.

In the advanced combat module? Definitely. That sort of system would fit much more smoothly with the core rules they've presented so far than a power system would.

However, I would also expect to see a module that adds something...kind of similar to the power system, but not entirely the same. More like "If you perform this action, you must take a short rest before you can perform it again".

This.

Because of this:

In that regard, I think Core Rules should be as simples as posible, as simple as Basic D&D. Maneuver should be optonal absolutely.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, according to DMG a parry ads +4 to AC, and you can´t do anything else in your round. The optional Parry of the Complete Fighter Handbook, allows you to announce parry before you roll initiative in your round using one of your attacks, in case you have more than one, then after you receive the attack (you can even chose which attack in case you are being attacked by multiple creatures) you have to roll against enemies’ AC (that’s weird), if you are successful you block the attack, and if you have extra attacks you can make your second attack. It´s pretty neat, except that you attack vs. AC to parry, as I said maybe some kind of contest check would be more adequate.

As I said: in our group we had Attack vs AC 4, roll lower than your enemy. This is some kind of contest.

In 3e terms it would be:
Attack vs AC 16. Roll lower than your enemy. The reasoning behind this: If you are better, you can afford to roll lower and still hit.

 

[GX.Sigma]

In core Next? No way. Too complicated, too many rules.

Not as complicated as spells.

Also, the definition of "core" is murky. They're including combat maneuvers as a player's option in the core rulebook. So one player can have his simple fighter, another player can have his interesting fighter, and they can both play at the same table.

 

[Abstruse]

Not as complicated as spells.

Also, the definition of "core" is murky. They're including combat maneuvers as a player's option in the core rulebook. So one player can have his simple fighter, another player can have his interesting fighter, and they can both play at the same table.

But we don't really know yet how complex those options are going to be in the core rules or if they're going to be included as a module in conjunction with gridded combat. Options like sliding, pushing, and pulling opponents don't make nearly as much sense or have as much advantage if you're not playing on a grid, and grids are going to be optional.

 

[GX.Sigma]

But we don't really know yet how complex those options are going to be in the core rules or if they're going to be included as a module in conjunction with gridded combat. Options like sliding, pushing, and pulling opponents don't make nearly as much sense or have as much advantage if you're not playing on a grid, and grids are going to be optional.

Actually, we do.

Assuming we move forward with this line of thinking, we’ll end up with a core conflict resolution system that can encompass both TotM and the grid. Imagine a combat system not too different from previous editions that relied almost solely on the use of the grid, but tweaked so that it works seamlessly for those fights where minis are not used or expected.

This means, to answer one line of questions raised in the grid discussions, that switching between TotM and the grid must be easy and seamless, both for groups that prefer to switch between modes, and for groups who want to primarily stick to one or the other conflict resolution system. It’s not our job to pick a winner or loser in any sort of false “grid vs. TotM” contest, and thereby create a sub-group of D&D players who don’t have the rules support they deserve. Instead, it’s our job to create a straightforward environment where both styles of play prosper and can be used.

For instance, if a fighter uses an ability that seems to make sense on the grid, we should design that same ability to also be useful in the TotM. In a fight that takes place next to a curtain of green slime, even in TotM, it’s not as important how far I can push a foe with an ability as it is important that I can push a foe at all. If my “hack and shove maneuver” results in the goblin stumbling backward, then, regardless of distance in feet or whether this happens on the grid or in the players’ imaginations, the goblin has just discovered that green slime is not its friend.

Goblins Care Only About Your Axe


And that doesn't even mention a "tactical rules module" or imply that gridded combat will be a "module."

 

[Steely_Dan]

Ah, the Complete Fighter's Handbook, that brings back memories, lots of nifty ideas (Called Shots, Numbed and Useless HP values, damage points for armour).

 

[Abstruse]

And that doesn't even mention a "tactical rules module" or imply that gridded combat will be a "module."

I'm so not going to go hunting again today, but they have mentioned at least a couple of times that there will be advanced combat rules which will be included in optional modules, and it has been stated at least once (in one of the DDXP talks or maybe PAX) that gridded combat will be presented as a module. Don't know if they've changed their minds since then or if something changed or if using gridded combat as a module won't affect the push/pull/slide style mechanics.

 

[KesselZero]

I believe the idea is that combat maneuvers will work both in and out of gridded combat, which will itself be optional. So presumably a push power will say "you push your enemy ten feet." In a ToTM game you'll say "How far is that orc from the waterfall?" and the DM replies, "Five or six feet." You say "I hit him with my push power and push him towards that waterfall. I can push him up to ten feet so he should fall off it." Whereas on the grid, it would be like 4e, where you can specifically move the monster's mini two five-foot squares away from you, and you'd wait to use the power until the waterfall is within two squares of your foe. Works more or less the same way in both cases, but allows for different styles of play.

I really like the idea of simple rules for performing maneuvers. The idea of a reasonable penalty to the attack and an added effect on the hit appeals to me: -2 but you knock prone, -3 but you push ten feet, stuff like that. The maneuvers should be balanced, neither too appealing nor totally useless, but should be simple to attempt to encourage improvisation and use. Solid examples will also give a good baseline to adjudicate anything not specifically covered, which should be emphasized in the rulebook.