Here is the idea (source):
Manoeuvres
After a creature rolls for damage, they *can* propose a manoeuvre. The defender may choose whether to accept the manoeuvre or take the damage. Manoeuvres include disarming, pushing, stunning, blinding, breaking gear, tripping, pickpocketing, climbing, restraining, etc. The GM should veto impossible manoeuvres.
This is an awesome idea IMO (and BTW Knave is a great game if you want to check it out before 2e comes out).
But I feel it has one step too many and is missing some risk.
First, creatures will always avoid a blow that will kill them - which is good, but becomes predictable. And no one will take a really serious maneuver, except to avoid death.
Second, you roll damage but you don't DO anything with it (other than maybe intimidating your opponent) - so one step too many.
How about this: BEFORE you roll for damage, you can propose a maneuver, etc.
Now, the defender has to think twice: is it worth the risk? What if it is a critical hit (see below) - maybe it is best to take the maneuver after all!
This feels more organic to me - imagine two opponents exchanging blows, until one takes so many wounds/steps/blows that he or she realizes it is best to fight another day. Or two grapplers fighting until one has to choose between tapping or choking - let's say, for example, that we are playing in a setting that losing is bad but passing out is worse. A playful medieval mêlée comes to mind; it is okay to concede defeat but fighting until passing out means you're taking it too seriously/personal and you'll lose face.
Declare before you roll?
Taking this idea to the extreme, you could declaring a maneuver before you even roll. I am not sure it would work as well. You either have lots of declarations for nothing (if missing = losing the maneuver) or, if you must ACCEPT the maneuver EVEN ON A MISS, I'm not sure anyone would take this option. But it is not an absurd idea either - it is basically similar to giving your opponent a chance of surrendering.
Blade to the throat
Here is another use for his mechanic: surrendering enemies. You hit and let your foe choose damage or surrender with your blade to his or her throat. If he or she moves, they take damage, period. Maybe even a critical hit etc.
Morale, surrender, etc.
The whole thing encourages creatures to find solutions to combat in addition to always falling to death. If playing an OSR game, we could make this interact with morale rules somehow (maybe a morale penalty if you're prone/disarmed/bloodied/etc.?), making the choices even more interesting.
Bloody maneuvers
On a darker note, you can use this to turn combat a really bloody affair... as suggested in the oddskull blog (link below), a chopped hand or foot might be a viable alternative to death! Of course, the GM and players can feel a bit sadistic if using this method... Maiming an enemy on purpose when you could knock him out, or simply slay him if necessary (or if you're mean), would be a rare choice for rational, non-evil, creatures - but maybe would be expected from beasts, oozes, etc. ("Do you fight on or just pull what's left of your arm?"). A choice is between a prized magic item and death might be better... But it does open lots of possibilities, right?
In Fifth Edition
Since this is optional to the defender, it can be easily ported to 5e without risking of unbalancing things. 5e has its own maneuvers (and even concentration, saving throws, and "contests in combat" that can be used of this) but this can add another layer to the games' tactics.
In other games
In Risus, when you're reduced to 0 HP your opponent will just choose what happened (knocked out, captured, etc.). Honor + Intrigue has a dueling system where both opponents try to get advantage and a wound only happens when you've taken a few steps back.
Critical hits
Critical hits are more intimidating than normal hits, since the damage (in most systems) is greater. So, this will encouraged the defender to accept a maneuver. Or you can do both at the same time: let the defender can choose between taking augmented damage OR normal damage and a maneuver. The attacker choose which pair of options to propose, if any.
These are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!
Additional reading:
https://talesoftheramblingbumblers.com/2009/07/31/super-simple-combat-maneuvers/ - the post that started this whole thing AFAICT.
Wow, that really takes me back. I was reading along thinking didn't I write something like this, and there was the link to my blog post from over a decade ago! When I've used this it was declare before you roll, but the target didn't have to accept before seeing if it was a hit. There were declarations that didn't get used, as you note, but it didn't slow things down with folks seeing that they got a hit and then thinking about a maneuver to propose. I try to force him back off the bridge felt more natural to me than, I hit, ok I'll try to force him back. But it's a matter of taste.
ReplyDeleteThank you for he comment! And thanks for starting the whole thing, AFAICT. It is very cool that you found this post!
DeleteYeah, definitely a matter of taste, and I can see the advantages in your method; presumably, they won't declare a maneuver in every attack, and they'll get used to think in advance.
Thanks for kicking the whole thing off, Josh! I also think the "propose before you roll to hit" resolution order makes the most sense.
DeleteOne issue that this system has (which is admittedly partially mitigated by your "on a crit it always happens" rule) is that normally invulnerable enemies can't be dealt with via maneuvers ("I push the werewolf off the cliff") since they will just always choose to take (no) damage. I pondered for a while, and eventually just decided to use two sets of rules for maneuvers - you can do it this way, or if you really want to force the maneuver to happen when they're at full HP (or invulnerable) you can do the semi-traditional "roll an attack against high AC, then they make save vs paralysis to avoid dropping their weapon" thing.
We'll see how it goes!
I was working with something similar, though without agency of person hit. I was doing it more in 5e fashion I think with resource - if you hit and pay Prowess then deal damage and make maneuver, on a miss you don't pay. But your option is more interactive on both sides. Links:
ReplyDeletehttps://vdonnutvalley.wordpress.com/2021/10/15/combat-attacks-defenses-and-zones/
https://vdonnutvalley.wordpress.com/2021/10/24/insight-in-maneuvers-weapons-conditions-and-healing/
Nice!
DeleteLong time since I've commented on the blog (life's been busy), but I wonder on the 5e side if it's worth doing something comparable to the battle master X maneuvers per short rest (but make it a higher number) and just allow half proficiency maneuver per attack action. So if you want to chain together some maneuvers, you can do so, but it scales with skills (and number of attacks).
ReplyDeleteAs far as describing before or after, I would think the general rule of narrative > dice resolution > GM describes what happens works fine here. As far as damage goes, perhaps the use of proficiency dice scaling would be worthwhile? As far as the agency of the person hit, I would probably say that deciding if they resist the hit (or do a save) would work as part of the resolution step fairly quickly with the default to 'they take the hit' for 'slow reaction time'.
Hey Sean! Yeah, battlemaster maneuvers are a good guide for that. Probably all fighters should have that (or even rangers, barbs, etc.). Not sure about the specifics; probably deserves some trying and play-testing.
Delete