Boring Fighters "Fixed"

[bycrom]

By Crom! Here is a kludge I put together to add some class specific combat options for my lowly brothers-in-arms from the BECMI Companion set and OSR sources:

Disarm Opponent: This action may only be used against a weapon-using opponent. Creatures whose weapons are natural (claws, teeth, etc.) cannot be disarmed. To disarm, the Fighter makes a normal attack roll in melee combat. If the attack hits, no damage is inflicted. Instead the victim must roll a Saving Throw vs. Paralysis. If the Saving Throw is failed, the victim is disarmed and his weapon flies 5' in a random direction. The target's Saving Throw is at a penalty equal to half the Fghter's level (rounded down).

Multiple Attacks: If a Fighter's melee attack reduces an enemy to 0 HP or less, he may move up to 5' in any unoccupied direction, and may immediately melee attack again. He may do this as many times in a round as he has levels.

Parry Attacks: The Fighter does not attack at all, but spends the round blocking attacks with his weapon. All who attack hand-to-hand against the parrying Fighter suffer a penalty to their attack roll equal to half the Fighter's level (rounded down).

I would be interested in hearing the communities opinions, thanx!

[makofan]

#1 is too fiddly for me (they do something similar in BECMI), but I may just say disarm attack is at -4, and if it hits disarm is automatic
#2 is what Dave Arneson did (it is also the Great Cleave feat in D&D 3.0). What I plan to do is have all fighters get 2 attacks at level 4, 3 at level 6, and 4 at level 8, turning them into damage machines
#3 is not bad, but your rules means a level 1 fighter can not parry. I like adding the idea that maybe if they miss due to the parry adjustment, the fighter gets a riposte

[bycrom]

By Crom - Thanks for the input Makofan!
I'll have to give #1 option you gave more thought. High level fighters would be able to disarm other high level [and low-level] characters fairly routinely methinks.
#2 - Continuing the progression: does this mean a 16th level fighter in your game automatically gets 8 attacks a round or does the progression stop at level 8?

#3 - The riposte idea is very interesting, though I would add a penalty to the riposte attack roll (-2?); otherwise, it would seem melee combats with fighters would always have each side parrying; awaiting the other to attack first in hopes he fails to hit! I am not uncomfortable with a level 1 fighter not having the parry option, he is still learning the ropes and will 'unlock' the option soon enough after earning his first experience level at level 2.

[makofan]

Aug 28, 2013 11:30:57 GMT -6 bycrom said:

By Crom - Thanks for the input Makofan!
I'll have to give #1 option you gave more thought. High level fighters would be able to disarm other high level [and low-level] characters fairly routinely methinks.
#2 - Continuing the progression: does this mean a 16th level fighter in your game automatically gets 8 attacks a round or does the progression stop at level 8?

#3 - The riposte idea is very interesting, though I would add a penalty to the riposte attack roll (-2?); otherwise, it would seem melee combats with fighters would always have each side parrying; awaiting the other to attack first in hopes he fails to hit! I am not uncomfortable with a level 1 fighter not having the parry option, he is still learning the ropes and will 'unlock' the option soon enough after earning his first experience level at level 2.

Re #2, I stop the progression at level 8 - superhero. What this does is give Dwarf fighters at least a bit of a leg up on those F4/MU8 elves in combat

Re#3; yeah, maybe riposte at -4

[Deleted]

Fighters have never been boring.

[zeraser]

Aug 28, 2013 19:50:08 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Fighters have never been boring.

I've never found it boring to play as a fighter, and I imagine you haven't either - but plainly bycrom has, and that means that fighters have indeed been boring.

[inkmeister]

I like #2 and will probably use it. 1 and 3 seem more complex than what I need. I definitely encourage you to experiment though. There is no reason not to experiment a lot with the game. That's all the original authors were doing when they came up with their rules.

[bycrom]

Aug 28, 2013 19:50:08 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Fighters have never been boring.

ByCrom, agreed! In the old days as a player or a DM this was all handled from play and DM fiat and I've always been cool with that from both sides of the screen.Thus, the quotations on the word fixed . Others disagree. Now the players (all newbie and 3rd ed. guys)have some shiny gew-gaws. I think they are simple, fun to play with (I hope!) and don't add very much crunch or power-level inflation. As they are now in my house-ruled S&W: Core doc, they are "official" as of the latest printing (at my game table in any event )

[makofan]

I sort of think that everybody should be a fighter, and magic can be handled by gadgets (scrolls, potions, magic swords, etc). But I can see why players would like to play other archetypes

[kesher]

bycrom: haven't heard from you for awhile--good to see you, dog-brother!

makofan: I think that's an awesome idea, and has made me dig up SotU...

[inkmeister]

Yeah, I like the "everyone is a fighter" idea. This frees magic up to be more magical, since you don't need consistent rules for it.

[bycrom]

By Crom, Right back at ya Kesher, you filthy Kozak! Been quiet...till I realized recently that next year is the 40th Anniversary! Campaign building now for a classic High fantasy campaign launch in Jan (got a thread started in the workshop. Gonna have me a DeeAnDee-palooza!

[Porphyre]

I'm already using the Holmes parrying rules , where everyone can "fight defensevely" during a round, parrying (or dodging) attacks and increasing the opponent's "to hit" target roll by 2 points.
You could increase the penalty to -3 at "Hero" level (4th) and -4 at "Superhéro" level (8th)

[Deleted]

By Crom! Generally speaking I dislike rules for combat maneuvers: i prefer complete improvisation. But I like these rules, especially the last - which is a good substitute for higher AC with level.

[Porphyre]

For combat manoeuvers, I usally ask for opposing rolls: the attacker rolls 1d20 + HD + usual adjustements to attack roll (magical or otherwise) + any adjustement I see fit. fedendant rolls the same. If the attacker's roll beats the defendant's, his manoeuver is a succes.