I have mentioned before that I am working on a training and maneuvers module for DDN. It's in-process at the moment, and I thought it would be interesting to see what kinds of things the community would be interested in seeing in a module that layers maneuvers over the existing system (instead of encapsulating them in feats, classes, or subclasses).
The following questions are intended to spur conversation about what you might like to see in an optional maneuvers system (answer as many or as few as you like).
1) What kind of effects would you like to see?
2) Would you prefer a resource-based system or a system that doesn't use resources?
3) Would you like to see maneuvers set up so that a non-resource-based system could be used as an avenue for performing improvised actions?
4) Would you like to see SoD maneuvers like decapitation or disemboweling?
5) Would you like to see magical as well as non-magical maneuvers (perhaps as a way to create an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, or a swordmage)?
Feel free to include any other imput you think is relevant.
Give them as much power and versatility as wizards and clerics get and it will work fine.
Anything short of that and the game will be broken.
And yes, that includes non-combat utility.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
+1 for Decapitation. But that would suck to be a player on the receiving end of such a maneuver so I doubt I will ever see such a thing. 
The most extreme manuevers I am willing to accept are things that one might find on a television show such as Spartacus or a wrestling show.
Rather than using the term resource I would like to see the term fatigue used instead. It would be nice if there were three sets of manuevers tied to each of the three physical attributes. Where one attribute is for combat, one utility and the other a mix of the two. The player could use any manuever from any attribute set a number of times until he reaches his attribute score (fatigue). Then rest and begin again.
Critical hits are already handled by various critical hit charts, these include SoD and instant death, for those who wish to use them.
"Magical" aka gish/jedi powers should be class features for those classes and not available to other classes.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
@draegn: fatigue is one of the resources that I am considering. My plan is to set it up so that you can choose maneuvers from one model (fatigue, combo-based, and so on) or so you can mix and match. Regarding magical maneuvers, it would naturally be up the the DM if non-magical classes could learn them or not.
@Luciender: I also like the decapitation thing as a maneuver. I am working on dividing the maneuvers into classifications with the highest classification allowing SoD and SoS maneuvers. Additionally, I think there are ways to set it up so that PCs don't have to worry about being one-shot decapitated (this is something that I've given a bit of thought because this is also a concern for DMs with regard to their recurring villains).
@MechaPilot I feel that magical powers should remain solely with magical classes. To use Star Wars as an illustration: The force users, be they Sith, Jedi or another group could learn to attack with the force. Force choke, force lightning, telekinesis, etc... How would those abilities be special and unique force user powers if Han Solo were able to learn them and used them to kill Greedo instead of shooting first with his blaster?
The question to ask a group is: Do you want a game where everyone is a gish/jedi or not?
1) What kind of effects would you like to see?
Threat engagement and manipulation, Targeted attacks, Combination strikes, Feint and Parry maneuvers, Maneuver vs Counter-Maneuver interaction, Stances, Interaction of Weapon type vs Armor type
2) Would you prefer a resource-based system or a system that doesn't use resources?
I think this depends entirely on how either of the two were implemented. I would very much endorse a Stamina/Exertion based resource system as long as it was tied into the Abilities Scores, and didn't break immersion in it's use. On the other hand, for groups that don't want that added complication, something that relied entirely on Ability checks or saves might be more appropriate. All depends on taste, I suppose.
3) Would you like to see maneuvers set up so that a non-resource-based system could be used as an avenue for performing improvised actions?
I'm of the opinon that improvised actions should alway's be a possibility, whether using a resource based system or not. As long as both the Player and DM have clear guidelines on what is possible and/or expected, this should definitely be an option.
4) Would you like to see SoD maneuvers like decapitation or disemboweling?
Or dismemberment in general, if implemented so that while a possibility, it wasn't something that occurred regularly. Less often than a Nat20 roll, anyways.
5) Would you like to see magical as well as non-magical maneuvers (perhaps as a way to create an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, or a swordmage)?
I like the way the Tome of Battle handled maneuvers, mostly. One thing I had thought would have been nice was if the non-magical maneuvers and stances had been separated from the magical. That way, depending on Playstyle, they could be implemented as desired. I like both, but with the non-magical creating the bulk of maneuvers, and magical making up the higher-tier/level abilities as options.
I really enjoyed how the Tome of Battle presented the different Fighting Styles, Stances and Maneuvers in a detailed but also interesting to read manner. I would like to see combat maneuvers and schools more focused on specific styles similar to culture based Martial Arts schools.
draegn wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Having talkes to players that played fighters in older editions ( and having done so myselcve in ADnD 2nd) i did notice somthing.
It seems that the players that enjoyed fighters in those early editions tended to have dungeon masters that where pretty libral in their rulings on what kind of things a martial character could do.
And players that played with DM's that where more restrictive seemed to enjoy fighters less.
So one of the first steps would be to try and find some older edition Dungeon Masters and ask them some questions.
For example:
- if a player said he wanted to make a attack on a enemies legs with the intend to hinder that creatures movement in some way how would you rule on such a situation.
- if aplayer discribed he wants to use his first attack to trip a oponent, and then bring his weapon down full force on the openent when he is down how would you rule.
From this you would build a list of codified DM rulings.
in some groups that like the style where the Dm makes the rulings on the fly (somtimes called the DM may i style) this list would go to the DM as somthing to guide him in what kind of things a DM should and should not allouw.
In other groups this list of codified rulings would just be given to the players, here is a list of aditional combat actions you can perform.
edwin_su wrote:
My favorite Fighter across the editions i've played is the Warblade. Let me make a Warblade and i'll be good.
I want to see damage on a miss abilities (usable a few times a day) like casters get from level one.
I also want to see ways to impose conditions on a hit, at will (aka basic attacks) in some cases.
Martial utilities would be interesting; but a little more difficult to implement. The rogue has them, for sure. A few good utilities could involve damage resistance, stances, and outright dodges/parries.
Id also like to see AoEs, like 'whirlwind' style abilites, or 'hail of arrows/knives' style abilities as X per day maneuvers.
I essentially want non-casters to have the same relative power of casters for damage dealing, and utility (Although, I don't mind wizards having utility superiority. It's their thing; they are the swiss army knife of classes, even in 4e. A wizard should be able to use a spell to fill in for anyone, just not as much, and it shouldn't be better than having good training/proficiency in the skill it's replacing. Wizards also should be superior in AoE abilities, but fighters should be able to learn one or two during their 20 level career.
Really, combat maneuvers should = spells in damage output (including DoaM), condition emposing, requiring saves, and # of uses per day.
Really the Book of Nine Swords from 3.5 had a lot of good things in it, as did the 4th edition fighter and rogue and other martial classes. That sort of thing should definitely be brought forward.
On top of that, you need stuff that gives utility. Right now, wizards can fly, open locks automatically, turn invisible, have undetectable scouts, and things of that nature. Clerics can create anti-magic fields, boost the HP of the entire party, heal people, and do lots of other things. Both have save or die effects and save or suck effects, as well as multi-target effects.
Because save or die effects are standard, the rogue, fighter, and other martial classes should definitely have access to them; right now, without them, wizards and clerics are by far the highest DPR classes in the game.
Beyond that, they need other things. Wizards have stuff like spider climb and knock and invisibility; rogues should gain similar abilities of that nature. Brute strength, pinning people down, some sort of improvisational uses of their weaponry... that sort of thing definitely seems legit for a fighter.
Gotta make sure everyone has enough utility and power, otherwise the martial classes are just terrible, like they were in 3rd edition.
FINAL
ATOMIC
BUSTER
1) There needs to be something to look forward to, a higher level/more complex maneuver that costs more dice/points/focus/whatever but does commesurately more, akin to higher level spells/spell slots. I do like the superiority dice, but the last playtest version sucked. This comes down to maneuver design itself. Instead of, say, roll the die and if X then Y, just have Y happen and add X damage.
2) Stances that use Concentration. Bonus speed, more dangerous Opportunity Attacks, better defenses for nearby allies, fear auras, stuff like that.
3) Utility maneuvers, like a strike that does 10x damage to walls/doors/whatever, or a Stance that gives the Fighter tremorsense.
4) Higher level/cost maneuvers that force a saving throw shouldn't require a hit first. Just compare to Wizard junk: either you need to hit, or they need to save, rarely both.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
The maneuvers with spell-like effects, should be ki power source.
Another option could be to be a pool of points of essence and chakras (body slots), I mean to get some ideas from "magic of incarnum".
Lawolf wrote:
I always wished fatigue would be core. Then each class would have a class feature if they used too much would fatigue them.
Maneuvers for warriors, tricks for experts, channels for casters. Etc.
Orzel wrote:
A few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaCyCZ7_jU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQ0VB68_qk
Of course having "martial" characters being able to use weapons as such no longer leaves a "simple" martial character.
I wrote a bunch about Maneuvers in the old forums, but let me try to condense my thinking here:
1. Maneuvers exist to give Fighters their "Nova"-esque moments in the same way that spells give Wizards their moment in the spotlight. Not that they should do the same exact things or do the same amount of damage/status effects, but they should have roughly the same feel at the table (adjusting for how often Maneuvers can be used vs. spells). For example, a well-executed Disarm should change the fight against a single boss with a powerful magic weapon in the same way that a cleverly-deployed Grease spell can change the fight against a group of monsters, and should feel as impressive to the player.
2. Maneuvers need to scale from low-level to epic. At low level, if you could disarm the Ogre chief so he doesn't have his Greataxe +1 and has to fight with his hands for a round or two is cool - but it's less impressive at level 10 or 15. When Wizards are polymorphing into dragons and teleporting enemies into the Elemental Plane of Fire, Maneuvers need to be where Fighters find the tools to do their epic equivalent, as opposed to solely looking to magic items.
3. Maneuvers should offer scope for tactical experimentation, and should thus be granular and synergistic (apologies for using this evil word, but it is appropos). In the same way that Wizards get access to a lot of tactical flexibility from being able to cast spells in different slots, Fighters should be able to dump multiple dice/points/etc. into pumping up a maneuver for increased effect. Likewise, in the same way that spells can be combined for interesting effects - Grease plus Cloudkill - Fighters should have to balance dumping multiple dice/points/etc. into one maneuver vs. using those resources to combine Maneuvers in ways that are more than the sum of their parts. For example, if you Knock Away someone at the same time that you Trip them, the combined impact should slow or stun someone for a turn.
4. I agree, some utility maneuvers should be included. In terms of utility stuff that's not the property of other classes, but I think destroying the environment around you (kicking down doors, knocking down walls, smashing holes in floors), movement (jumping, climbing), and maybe moving the environment around you (constructing fortifications, building crude ladders or ramps)?
5. Thinking back to the Book of Nine Swords, I'd say the most interesting maneuvers had certain things: they allowed you to move in cool ways (jump attacks, flying attacks, charges that bowl people over), control your enemies in cool ways (knocking them down or away, throwing them into other enemies, hamstringing them or stunning them), or unleash impressive attacks (using melee weapons as ranged, aoe attacks, doing a lot of attacks, doing a lot of damage to one target), or they gave you impressive counters vs. spells. It's a good place to start.