Combat Dominance

[Treebore]

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 targeting you next round is reduced by at least one.)
-Fizz

I actually want it that way as a limiting factor. I want it to be a scary decision when the Fighter's player decides to leap in among the masses. Which is why they may not necessarily do it all the time. Much like how a wise Wizard or Cleric waits for the right time to use those Fireballs, Flame Strikes, Blade Barriers, etc....

[Just Jeff]

I've been rewatching some of the old Troll Lord vidoes. This one has always been my favorite due to the gaming stories (and also put Monsters & Treasure of Aihrde at the top of my to-be-acquired list):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ZEEtUno7A

The fun, which relates to higher-level characters fighting goblins, begins around the 5:30 mark. (No indications as to what the character levels are other than it's the end of the series.)

"My wife wouldn't leave my side, so I killed her."

[Arduin]

(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.

Yes that is the sign of an incompetent GM. Inability to create an even somewhat believable setting.

[Just Jeff]

Yes that is the sign of an incompetent GM. Inability to create an even somewhat believable setting.

Incompetence is a funny thing. I had a GM who was brilliant at bringing NPCs and monsters to life. I've never seen his equal. (I'll never forget the battle against three trolls, but I wish I had video of it to show others. The height of his skill.)

That same GM had this hangup about "challenging" us. Toward the end of the campaign PC levels ranged from 12 to 19. Some things needed to be a cakewalk for us to continue buying into the world, yet we were continually scrambling for our lives. It's like the silliness in Elder Scrolls games where every bandit is running around in powerful and expensive armor because the PC is high level.

Some of our most memorable games were the very rare occasions on which we dealt with situations that didn't "challenge" us. We'd hold those up as proof that great gaming sessions don't require an enemy able to go toe to toe with you, but it wouldn't sink in. Very frustrating.

[Traveller]

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

Reading that link I'm reminded just why I don't visit other boards. Interesting how one person can derail a thread with pseudo-religious rhetoric.

It IS an interesting topic, but I'm convinced that the added stuff in Chainmail was left out for good reasons. Still, it might be interesting to see a variant fighter based on Chainmail abilities.

[Treebore]

Yes that is the sign of an incompetent GM. Inability to create an even somewhat believable setting.

Incompetence is a funny thing. I had a GM who was brilliant at bringing NPCs and monsters to life. I've never seen his equal. (I'll never forget the battle against three trolls, but I wish I had video of it to show others. The height of his skill.)

That same GM had this hangup about "challenging" us. Toward the end of the campaign PC levels ranged from 12 to 19. Some things needed to be a cakewalk for us to continue buying into the world, yet we were continually scrambling for our lives. It's like the silliness in Elder Scrolls games where every bandit is running around in powerful and expensive armor because the PC is high level.

Some of our most memorable games were the very rare occasions on which we dealt with situations that didn't "challenge" us. We'd hold those up as proof that great gaming sessions don't require an enemy able to go toe to toe with you, but it wouldn't sink in. Very frustrating.

Thats precisely why I have plane travel come into play at higher levels, when the monsters simply aren't tough enough to challenge the PC's anymore. While in a world of millions (like Faerun) it is very plausible for their to be plenty of opponents running around with good gear, most players don't think about the few they run into compared to the millions they have not. So to have such opponents be more plausible, its time to travel the planes and see other worlds.

[Just Jeff]

Thats precisely why I have plane travel come into play at higher levels, when the monsters simply aren't tough enough to challenge the PC's anymore.

I never liked extra-planar adventures, although we had several with that group. Too weird for my taste. But it wasn't necessary for monsters to be able to challenge us in a fight for us to feel challenged. My character in that campaign was a master spy, and one of my favorite sessions involved him dismantling an amateur (to him) goblin-backed spy ring by leaving a trail of breadcrumbs without letting his involvement become known to the local garrison commander. (Got nabbed leaving town after it was all over but the shouting.)

Despite how much the GM and I both enjoyed that session, that kind of adventure was very rare, because it didn't "challenge" me. Usually when soloing I was sneaking past certain death, and when running with da boys I was a 12th level neck-deep in situations the GM thought suitable challenges for the otherwise 16th-19th level party. (I think the GM was a little disappointed when I opted not to join them in their final battle against the reconstituted and unkillable Vecna.)

[mbeacom]

(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.

Same here. The higher level you go, the fewer level-appropriate enemies there should be. Yet the challenge needs to be there. In a more believable world, those fewer and more powerful enemies will necessarily enslave, subjugate and manipulate lower level baddies in order to achieve their goals. Even in high level confrontations, my NPC baddies will have hordes of underlings to soak up damage and attacks, erect defenses, flank and generally cause mayhem or the like. Servants, cultists, slaves, thralls all in large numbers play a part even in very high level adventures. You don't know how powerful a fighter is until you see him cutting through absolutely ridiculous numbers of a horde of waves of enemies. I never liked games/worlds/rulesets where the tacit assumption was that the number of enemies generally stayed the same, but on only their level or challenge rating changed. That always felt very one dimensional to me. But it's certainly a matter of taste.

[Valens]

Treebore can you post your version up?

[Rigon]

Treebore can you post your version up?

Look in his house rules. You can find them in the online gaming section in the Monday Wilderlands thread. Itshould be one of the first couple of posts.

R-

[jeffb]

I have done a couple versions of combat dominance. One was at every level.divisible by 3, the hd of the creature went up one. So 3rd level works against 2 hd. 6th level.works against 3hd, etc.

The other and I think the one I will stick with is is similar the Great Cleave of 3.x/ PF if you drop a foe, then you can attack again, however only the initial foe has to drop..subsequent foes only need be hit to make another attack..max# of attacks = level/2 round up if there is a fraction. So 1st level fighter has max 2 attacks. 5th level has 3 attacks, etc.

I am experimenting with making this ability work with any weapon a .Fighter specializes with...so, if you have a archer fighter, it will work that way for them too.

[Ronin77]

We just use it as is. Not all level 10 villins can afford lv10 henchmen. Cannon fodder 1HD minions can always be deadly, just the groups get bigger.

[Treebore]

We just use it as is. Not all level 10 villins can afford lv10 henchmen. Cannon fodder 1HD minions can always be deadly, just the groups get bigger.

Was just cutting down a horde of 1HD level creatures a couple of weeks ago. Boring. Especially since we were 7th level and only getting to attack 2 per round. Much prefer my house rule. But hey, if I want to play, I got to pay.

[Ronin77]

We just use it as is. Not all level 10 villins can afford lv10 henchmen. Cannon fodder 1HD minions can always be deadly, just the groups get bigger.

Was just cutting down a horde of 1HD level creatures a couple of weeks ago. Boring. Especially since we were 7th level and only getting to attack 2 per round. Much prefer my house rule. But hey, if I want to play, I got to pay.

I'm pretty sure I was not telling you how to do anything. Just how we do it. I think its great that your way works for you. Wonderful.

I'll give you an example of how this usually works in my game. Some time ago the party ran into a few highwaymen who tried to hold them up. The party ran them off and laughed about it. After a few adventures (and a few levels) the party cross those same woods. The highwaymen spot them, and instead of just jumping out and demanding gold as they did last time. They brought a few friends to ambush the party. Sure there all 1HD. Now there is a few in trees with bows, one or two with crossbows behind a log ahead of them.

Did the same with some goblins, Next time the players meet up with them they are lead by a hobgoblin who has a few goblin shaman with him.

You dont have to wade through the same 10 goblins every time.