Combat Dominance

[Lobo316]

Greetings All! Long time since I posted here. Just wanting some feedback on an idea.

I am playing with Advantages from the CGK (along with several that I've created an/or imported over from D&D). I am considering a new feat for Combat Dominance (not sure what I'd call it yet) that would, at 8th level, increase the the following:

Hit Dice: The Hit Die requirment from 1 hit die to 2 or less
Die Type: The Die Type requirment from D6 to D8 or less

Questions...

Is anyone else arleady doing this, or something similar and how is it working?
Should I increase both the HD and the Die Type, or seperate them into two seperate Avantages?
Should I add additional feats, at say level 12, that increase those requirements further (the HD from 2 to 3 or less and/or the Die Type from D8 to D10 or less).

I look foward to any feedback and many thanks!

[Rigon]

Greetings All! Long time since I posted here. Just wanting some feedback on an idea.

I am playing with Advantages from the CGK (along with several that I've created an/or imported over from D&D). I am considering a new feat for Combat Dominance (not sure what I'd call it yet) that would, at 8th level, increase the the following:

Hit Dice: The Hit Die requirment from 1 hit die to 2 or less
Die Type: The Die Type requirment from D6 to D8 or less

Questions...

Is anyone else arleady doing this, or something similar and how is it working?
Should I increase both the HD and the Die Type, or seperate them into two seperate Avantages?
Should I add additional feats, at say level 12, that increase those requirements further (the HD from 2 to 3 or less and/or the Die Type from D8 to D10 or less).

I look foward to any feedback and many thanks!

Not sure which printing you are using, but in the 4th print PHB, CD works on all 1 HD creatures. I know older printings had it at d6 HD creatures, but that changed.

Anywho, here is how I have CD work in my games.
Combat Dominance: Whenever a new attack is gained, increase the HD of the creature affected by 1. So at 8th level, the fighter can use combat dominance on all 2 HD or less creatures; At 12th level, all 3 HD creatures.

I've been using this almost from the beginning (8 years ago). It's worked out pretty well. Plus still makes CD useful at upper levels.

R-

[Lobo316]

Oh well, your correct Rigon, I am using the 4th printing, but I was looking at a pdf of an old 3rd printing when I posted that, doh!!!

That does make my question a little easier, heh, heh. I like what you're doing there. I will likely increase the Hit Dice either by level or make an Advantage out of it. Hmmm....likely go with level.

Thanks!

[Rigon]

Oh well, your correct Rigon, I am using the 4th printing, but I was looking at a pdf of an old 3rd printing when I posted that, doh!!!

That does make my question a little easier, heh, heh. I like what you're doing there. I will likely increase the Hit Dice either by level or make an Advantage out of it. Hmmm....likely go with level.

Thanks!

Your very much welcomed.

R-

[Treebore]

I changed my Combat Dominance completely, so that when a Fighter is courageous enough to jump in among the enemy masses, if the dice love them, they become more like a minor fireball.

Which, at the same time, is dangerous, because they will be giving their opponents the variety of flanking bonus', so are likelier to take a fair number of hits. But when it works, and their dice are hot, the fighter is indeed awesome.

[serleran]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

[Sir Ironside]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

Bold for clarity.

When I first read it there was a phantom word that my mind place in the sentence. Instead of what is written my mind said...

"So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 to attacks"

Everyone probably got it the first go around. Just thought I'd post this, because I got confused, maybe there is also someone out there with low reading comprehension like me.

There are no pluses to the attack; there are however two attacks, per round, as clearly stated by serleran above.

[Treebore]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

Yours and mine are kind of close. Mine is still more generous.

Edit:

"Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks."

[BudaZoa]

I allow the base HD of crits to increase for CD for every four levels of advancement of the fighter.

I.E.:
5th level: extra attack against 2 HD or less

9th level: extra attack against 3 HD or less


ect

I dont think its over powering and it makes the skill a bit more useful.

[serleran]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

Yours and mine are kind of close. Mine is still more generous.

Edit:

"Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks."

I don't do it that way simply because I allow extra attack to work in conjunction with Combat Dominance, effectively doubling (or more) the fighter's attacks / round whenever outnumbered at least 3:1. So, a 10th level fighter vs. 10 kobolds gets 2 + ((10 / 3) x2) = 8 attacks. I know this is lower than the standard rule, but seeing as it would apply against ogres, giants, dragons, zombies, whatever, I think it is "fair." Even nastier if the fighter wears boots of speed.

It also lets me keep the number of opponents down, but make them tougher (if wanted) without weakening the fighter's ability to kill them or to really let a fighter tear through a mook unit (if I give them all 1 HP, for example.)

[Treebore]

Yeah, mine is "close", only difference is fighters in my game would get 10 attacks rather than your 8.

So in my games Fighters have the opportunity to at least get in the ball park of being as devastating as Wizards and Clerics. Still not close, but within sight of it.

[Fizz]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

This seems a bit awkwardly stated. Do you mean that for every 3 foes that are attacking the fighter, the fighter gains an extra attack? Does this mean in melee only? Can he direct them however he chooses, or does he have to spread them around?

-Fizz

[Fizz]

What was the original reasoning behind limiting Combat Dominance it to one hit die? Why would one hit die limit the fighter in his extra attacks?

Another thought, what about using the hit die of the monsters as a counter against the number of attacks? So a 12th level fighter is surrounded by 4 goblins and a bugbear. The fighter uses Combat Dominance, and can make 4 attacks. If he attacks the bugbear, it counts as 3 of his attacks (because the bugbear is 3 hit dice). It's not actually 3 attacks, it just uses up 3 of the attack 'slots'. The fighter would still have one remaining 'slot' to attack one of the remaining goblins. Or, he could attack all 4 goblins and deal with the bugbear in the next round.

Thoughts?


-Fizz

[Arduin]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

[Treebore]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

No it didn't. At least not for me. Hated it as much back then as I do now. Which is why I have changed it to make it truly useful, as well as make the Fighter be more devastating in mass combat situations all of the time rather than under very limited situations.

[Treebore]

What was the original reasoning behind limiting Combat Dominance it to one hit die? Why would one hit die limit the fighter in his extra attacks?

Another thought, what about using the hit die of the monsters as a counter against the number of attacks? So a 12th level fighter is surrounded by 4 goblins and a bugbear. The fighter uses Combat Dominance, and can make 4 attacks. If he attacks the bugbear, it counts as 3 of his attacks (because the bugbear is 3 hit dice). It's not actually 3 attacks, it just uses up 3 of the attack 'slots'. The fighter would still have one remaining 'slot' to attack one of the remaining goblins. Or, he could attack all 4 goblins and deal with the bugbear in the next round.

Thoughts?


-Fizz

I really do not get why people think the fighter needs to have such limitations on him. No wonder seem to think they are so under powered in comparison to mages and clerics.

[Fizz]

"Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks."

I really do not get why people think the fighter needs to have such limitations on him. No wonder seem to think they are so under powered in comparison to mages and clerics.

I wasn't suggesting it per se. Just offering an alternative method so that all hit dice are applicable, regardless of level. It's less restrictive than the PH version.

If you don't think the fighter needs limitations, why do you limit him to one attack per foe? I would find this rule a bit limiting actually, because there is no choice to it. Everyone gets attacked once, with no decision as to where those attacks go.


-Fizz

[alcyone]

There's an interesting discussion over at the odd74 board which suggests perhaps the fighter didn't get all that was coming to it from Chainmail.

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?bo ... hread=8509

[Treebore]

"Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks."

I really do not get why people think the fighter needs to have such limitations on him. No wonder seem to think they are so under powered in comparison to mages and clerics.

I wasn't suggesting it per se. Just offering an alternative method so that all hit dice are applicable, regardless of level. It's less restrictive than the PH version.

If you don't think the fighter needs limitations, why do you limit him to one attack per foe? I would find this rule a bit limiting actually, because there is no choice to it. Everyone gets attacked once, with no decision as to where those attacks go.


-Fizz

Personally I do it basically because a Wizards Fireball hits each target once per spell. Since a Mage can cast a Fireball several rounds in a row (assuming thats all they memorize) then the Fighter can too, dice rolls permitting. So in effect, a Fighter becomes a 5 foot radius Fireball, again if the dice co operate and allow the fighter to hit each opponent once per round, which is highly unlikely.

Still nothing like what a Fireball could do to a tightly packed group with its 20 foot radius, but it does go a long ways to closing the divide between how awesome a Wizard is and how not so awesome a fighter is.

Of course with the right two handed pole arm, and the 10 foot reach it gives them, a Fighter could also turn themselves, potentially, into a 10 foot radius Fireball. Dice rolls permitting.

[Treebore]

There's an interesting discussion over at the odd74 board which suggests perhaps the fighter didn't get all that was coming to it from Chainmail.

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?bo ... hread=8509

Makes me wish I had gotten hold of a copy of Chainmail long ago.

[serleran]

Whenever the fighter is outnumbered by at least 3:1, the fighter gains 1 extra attack per group of foes that outnumber him. So, if there are 6 kobolds against 1 fighter, the fighter gets +2 attacks. The HD is irrelevant. What matters is only that there are more foes to combat than fighters to kill them.

This seems a bit awkwardly stated. Do you mean that for every 3 foes that are attacking the fighter, the fighter gains an extra attack? Does this mean in melee only? Can he direct them however he chooses, or does he have to spread them around?

-Fizz

Of course it is awkward. Everything in C&C is.... first rule. But, yes, every 3 opponents grants 1 attack. Usually melee only, but it was not specified so I don't care how someone else treats an idea. Choice... unless you like the AD&D random allocation method. In general, it's going to be against those immediately near the fighter which would place a natural cap equal to however many enemies can surround. This last part is true even with the default rule so magic users will always be more capable against groups.

[serleran]

What was the original reasoning behind limiting Combat Dominance it to one hit die? Why would one hit die limit the fighter in his extra attacks?

Another thought, what about using the hit die of the monsters as a counter against the number of attacks? So a 12th level fighter is surrounded by 4 goblins and a bugbear. The fighter uses Combat Dominance, and can make 4 attacks. If he attacks the bugbear, it counts as 3 of his attacks (because the bugbear is 3 hit dice). It's not actually 3 attacks, it just uses up 3 of the attack 'slots'. The fighter would still have one remaining 'slot' to attack one of the remaining goblins. Or, he could attack all 4 goblins and deal with the bugbear in the next round.

Thoughts?


-Fizz

The original was due to a note, as mentioned, in AD&D. If that was not brought to the attention of the Trolls, CD would not even be in the book. Or, maybe it would be something else.

Your proposal is interesting. It makes mid level fighters significantly more powerful against mixed groups, which is what they'd likely be facing. It does tend to have an abacus feel, to me, but it'd just be getting used to it I suppose.

[Arduin]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

No it didn't.

Really? Exactly how didn't it work??

[Treebore]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

No it didn't.

Really? Exactly how didn't it work??

It didn't work in that it was useless suckage 99% of the time. Never got to use it after third level. An ability that "works" is one you get to use the entire time you play the character, not in very special, and ultra rare, situations.

[Arduin]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

No it didn't.

Really? Exactly how didn't it work??

It didn't work in that it was useless suckage 99% of the time. Never got to use it after third level.

That's entirely different. That would mean ANY ability that a GM doesn't give much opportunity to use "doesn't work". Of course that isn't what it means at all. It means that YOUR GM's didn't give you a use for it.

[Treebore]

From the AD&D 1st edition:

melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one
hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and
semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit
die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each
of his or her experience levels.

Worked well back then...

No it didn't.

Really? Exactly how didn't it work??

It didn't work in that it was useless suckage 99% of the time. Never got to use it after third level.

That's entirely different. That would mean ANY ability that a GM doesn't give much opportunity to use "doesn't work". Of course that isn't what it means at all. It means that YOUR GM's didn't give you a use for it.

And why should they? Why should a ability be so poorly written that a DM has to throw 1HD or less creatures at you when your 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th level just so they can make that ability useful? To me that is just stupid game design. My way the ability is useful at any level, anytime, against any opponent of any HD. Which also makes the Fighter a pretty devastating opponent on the battlefield, just like they are supposed to be. Dice rolls willing.

So I do what I have done, and the fighter can be very kick butt if they have the guts to jump in the middle of a bunch of opponents and they cut them down before they cut him down. Just as I believe it should be. If people like having the Fighter have a lame ability, by all means keep on doing so. I've made it something I like, and works.

[Fizz]

And why should they? Why should a ability be so poorly written that a DM has to throw 1HD or less creatures at you when your 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th level just so they can make that ability useful? To me that is just stupid game design. My way the ability is useful at any level, anytime, against any opponent of any HD. Which also makes the Fighter a pretty devastating opponent on the battlefield, just like they are supposed to be. Dice rolls willing.

By that logic, the ranger's Combat Marauder should apply to all monsters (otherwise he's subject to the DM's whim of using the right monster type), or the cleric's turn undead ability should apply to non-undead creatures (again, otherwise he's subject to the DM's whim). Why should those abilities be so "poorly written that a DM has to throw" specific monsters at them.

1 HD creatures can be very dangerous. I'd argue they're a staple in Fantasy settings- the hordes of goblins and orcs that appear in every LotR book is the most obvious example. Most opponents on a battlefield will be 1 HD, so your changes don't affect that.

Yours actually limits the fighter more since he's not allowed to distribute his attacks however he wants. 2-3 hit dice creatures will probably require more than one attack to bring down. If your fighter is surrounded by several 2-3 hit dice creatures, he may want to focus his attacks on just one of them to quickly reduce the number of attacks that come at him. (That is, kill one and the number of attacks targetting you next round is reduced by at least one.)


All that said- i'm not telling you how to run your game. If it works and your players like it, go for it. But i don't think the original is as bad in comparison as you think.


-Fizz

[Lord Dynel]

Did it work well? I guess you could say it did. But I share Tree's opinion - either you never needed it after the first few levels, or it was nothing more than a bit of a time saver (being able to mow down many low-level foes...that again, you never encountered after the first few levels). But I can see Tree's point - if it's an advantage, then it should remain so. Once it loses it's effectiveness, but becomes less a advantage.

[Just Jeff]

(being able to mow down many low-level foes...that again, you never encountered after the first few levels).

I have a hard time immersing in game worlds where the population is a function of PC levels. Consequently, I don't have a problem with rules like Combat Dominance.

[Treebore]

Yeah, lets remember this is C&C and, in my opinion, is all about making the game what you want it to be.

I think combat Dominance sucks, and is pretty much useless after about level 5, unless the CK goes out of their way to put in 1 HD creatures. So I think, since I don't even start getting additional attacks until level 4, its a really stupid and useless ability. Again unless the CK goes out of their way to throw seriously under powered 1 HD creatures at me just to say my Combat Dominance is useful.

So WOOOHOOOO! At 4th level, if I ever run into 1 HD creatures, I get to attack two of them each round. So awesome. Then, when I reach level 8, I get to attack 3 1 HD creatures per round, if I ever run into them in a combat situation. I'm melting with excitement over my Fighters awesomeness here.

Yeah, totally lame to me. So I have changed it, and I think its awesome, and my players who use it thinks its awesome. So for games I run, I am happy.