So... Combat Dominance, what's it good for?

[Relaxo]

also, let's not forget there were like, 5? years of playtesting when the trolls designed the game?
(anyone with a clue got a real answer for that?)

[Go0gleplex]

Taking out the part where you stop their movement takes out the only thing that makes the power useful. A major part of the fighters job has always been protecting the wizard, but prior to the invention of Combat superiority, he was not at all effective at that, since monsters can just casually walk past him and attack the wizard anyway.

Who ever said it was the fighter's job to protect the wizard? That's never been their job. Their job has been to be the front line combatant, usually against the tougher foes. Aggro control has never been their purview.

That's a major reason why in 1st and 2nd edition D&D, you seldom see fighters. Everyone plays Rangers and Paladins. Cause the in those editions, the Ranger fought WAY better than the Fighter (two weapons, no penalty) and the Paladin fought exactly as well as the fighter, but could also heal the Wizard if he went down.

Actually, I saw a lot more fighters than I ever did the other two. Mainly because getting the requisite attribute scores in 1e was not that easy. In 2e there were still plenty of fighters being played since they didn't have any restrictions upon their actions or abilities. If you seldom encountered any, then I'd say that's a comment on your gaming groups, just as my observations are about my gaming groups and cons.

Now, I concede that the attack and the stopping power might be a little much (I wrote the conversion on the spot, it wasn't meant to be a final draft) so maybe it should be more like, the attack does only STR Mod (plus specialization bonus) damage, plus the stopping effect (and/or maybe the target gets a save)?

The fighter's attack does STR mod and spec bonus normally. Forcing the target creature to make a save or be prevented from completing their movement seems reasonable, though proper team tactics will make it irrelevant anyhow.

I don't see why he should have to give up his normal attack for it though.

He's not really giving up his normal attack. He is delaying it and potentially gaining a second or more attack as well as gaining a AC bonus, which can be huge in C&C.

Combat Superiority gives the same number of possible uses as the RAW for Combat Dominance, but with even less likelihood of you getting to use them. Whether you get to use Combat Dominance at all is a question of whether the GM puts you up against low level monsters (which you'd mow through anyway). But IF he puts a high level PC's against 1HD monsters, its going to be A LOT of them (guaranteeing you the use of all your Dominance attacks), but superiority is based around the number of monsters 1) wanting to move past you in one round and 2) being dumb enough to do so in arms reach, after they see what happened to the first guy.
Its VERY unlikely that you'd ever get to use all the extras from higher levels.

This depends on a lot of factors. Are the monsters actually intelligent vs, say, an insect swarm or other creature that is less likely to perceive the fighter as a threat rather than just food. Is the CK going to have intelligent creatures use tactics against the party...which if this happens things will get ugly real fast, especially if the enemy is present in numbers...at which point it may be a full frontal assault is the only thing to break their attack while the spell casters are trying to avoid being pincushions. At this point Combat Dominance makes a major difference vs "minion" monsters.

As to moving past, again we go back to good team tactics vs relying on the concept of aggro control. In my experience, the key to getting the most out of the fighter has never been about their abilities, but to play them as aggressively as possible whenever the situation allows for them to do so...without being stupid about it.

Now, if Combat Dominance is a problem RAW, then maybe the thing to do is to allow them to take on progressively tougher minions as they advance. Say at 8th level they can use it against 2HD critters...and at 12th, 3HD critter though the resulting effect will be less than mowing through the the 1HD minions like a reaper.

Or, as some have noted, incorporate the Cleaving Strike advantage as a skill gained around 6ht or 7th level. Or change Dominance to a second level skill and have Cleave at 5th.

There are a lot of ways to modifiy it if you want, but for me, success has never been about the ability, but in how you play the class and the teamwork amongst the party.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

Not when they're dead.

a 2nd Ed Fighter with 18(00) str was +3 to hit and +6 to damage... add the +1/+2? (or +1) for Weapon Specialist and that's a min of 8 points of damage before rolling the damage die... with a 3/2 attack rate that's two 1 HD baddies killed the first round, 1 the next... lather, rinse, repeat. So 18(00) is supposed to be really rare, at 18(-whatever to 99), they were still +2 and +5.... death incarnate at 1st level.

It's all minutia anyway... at a certain point, it's just about having fun. You can always improvise, instead of "just attacking", grab a kobold and use it as a club... a good old skool DM will roll with it (pun intended) and whatever. Fewer rules = fewer limits.

Well, I was never talking about 1HD baddies (My version of Combat Superiority can be used on anyone), but lets leave that aside for a minute.
So, lets give an example of what I'm getting at, using low HD monsters.
The group of 4, 2nd edition PC's comes into a room with 4 Orcs. The first round of combat the Orcs start out outside the Fighters reach (lets say, he's a mellee Fighter, since they almost always are). The Orcs march up to have one fight each PC (this happened a lot in most of the groups I played in, since most GMs didn't want to look like they were picking on any one player, but with differences in HD, some classes SHOULD be attacked more than others). One of the Orcs walks right past the Fighter and hits the Wizard with a broadsword. Now, even for a 4th level Wizard, this one attack might drop him, and even if it doesn't, it will be a sever strike. The Fighters badass combat stats are worth nothing here, since the Orcs started out out of reach, then walked right by him.
Yes, he can kill one of the Orcs on his turn, but there's nothing he can do to stop the Orc from just casually traipsing by and killing the squishy classes.

[Go0gleplex]

Two words. Team tactics.

[mgtremaine]

Yes, he can kill one of the Orcs on his turn, but there's nothing he can do to stop the Orc from just casually traipsing by and killing the squishy classes.

I think you trying to put to much detail into the combat system. It's 6 seconds of abstract combat. If a fighter says I'm holding back the line, and he can kill 1 [or more of the opponents] per 6 second exchange then allowing anyone to waltz on passed him is silly. DM like that and you'll find yourself without many players. IMHO.

In play I think Combat Dominance works just as it should. It's a fighter only combat feature at 4th level that is actually pretty useful. But as has always been the mantra of these games, if you don;t like it change it.

-Mike

[Relaxo]

So, lets give an example ...[snip] The Orcs march up to have one fight each PC (this happened a lot in most of the groups I played in, since most GMs didn't want to look like they were picking on any one player, ,,,snip.

That example is very revealing.

Not to be a douche, but sounds like that GM is unrealistic. If you're the guy with the wand, pointy hat and no armor, it's clear you're the wizard, and that means you can kill things with magical power. it also means you therefore must be the first target eliminated (from the enemy's point of view).

I mean, if you were in a dungeon room, eating a turkey drumstick and counting your 1d12 copper pieces, and suddenly saw 4 people enter a room... how do you decide which one to kill first? One hides, two are wearing armor and one looks like he's about to blow you up, who would you attack first (assuming you don't flee?).

In your example, this wizard should hang back in the hall way and pick off orcs from the relative safety of his superior position. or at low level, cast Strength on the fighter so the fighter can chop up more orcs more quickly (wind 'em up and let 'em go!).

I mean, yes, this isn't Sun Tsu's The Art of War, but really, why does the thief sneak up on the bad ass? because the thief is a wimp. Wizard? more wimpy, but can kill your ass in a POOF! so that puts a huge target on his face. Comes with the territory. if you can't take the heat, stay out of the potion brewery and be a stable boy instead of reading that tome or arcane knowledge and becoming a wizard. LOL

Am I too Hackmaster?

Bottom line is this: whatever works for you works for you, so it's all good, and I don't mean anything I've said as a personal attack,, so I hope it never sounded like one.

[REHowardfanatic]

By Crom, if the little man in the silly pointy hat isn't going to fight, then he'd better get out of the damn way! Let the orcs feast on him in hell if he won't run- I am not here to defend him!

[Omote]

Not to be a douche, but sounds like that GM is unrealistic. If you're the guy with the wand, pointy hat and no armor, it's clear you're the wizard, and that means you can kill things with magical power. it also means you therefore must be the first target eliminated (from the enemy's point of view).

Conversely, perhaps the orcs know that the opponent is a wizard and are terrified to face him in combat (given the stories that exist about what wizards can do).

~O

[mgtremaine]

hmm.. My take on that is Orc's are stupid bullies, tactics and logic is for someone else.

If 4 "humans" break into the room. Two of which have swords drawn, coming at you and your buddies, then guess who needs to be dealt with in the 6 secs after the door opens. Yes the dudes with the swords. If there are lots of Orc's then all the better. "Red Fang, and Frankie with me, lets kill this guy." [Because deep down I'm chicken and I hope Red Fang and Frankie die while I get my killing blow in.]

Orc's friends for life [Or next week which ever comes first]

-Mike

[REHowardfanatic]

My orcs are far more dangerous than yours! I've always ran them as analogous to Huns, including being master riders, albeit on wovles, and master archers. Thus, in my campaign 1HD enemies are still very dangerous.

[Go0gleplex]

You want to aggro orcs...just toss the elf in the room first. *evil laughter*

[Lurker]

hmm.. My take on that is Orc's are stupid bullies, tactics and logic is for someone else.

If 4 "humans" break into the room. Two of which have swords drawn, coming at you and your buddies, then guess who needs to be dealt with in the 6 secs after the door opens. Yes the dudes with the swords. If there are lots of Orc's then all the better. "Red Fang, and Frankie with me, lets kill this guy." [Because deep down I'm chicken and I hope Red Fang and Frankie die while I get my killing blow in.]

Orc's friends for life [Or next week which ever comes first]

-Mike

Good point and close to how I play my common/average Orc (and goblin too). Basic tactics at best and willing to attack in mass (and run away if the initial attack doesn't go well). After that "cowardly" tactics which can actually work better than the initial rush. However, if they are lead by a more intelligent monster/NPC they can have a few ugly tricks up their sleeve.

My orcs are far more dangerous than yours! I've always ran them as analogous to Huns, including being master riders, albeit on wovles, and master archers. Thus, in my campaign 1HD enemies are still very dangerous.

Now to me those are the Uruk-hai/Great Orcs. Not as common as their weaker kin but much more dangerous!

But, back on track to the original thread ...

Now, if Combat Dominance is a problem RAW, then maybe the thing to do is to allow them to take on progressively tougher minions as they advance. Say at 8th level they can use it against 2HD critters...and at 12th, 3HD critter though the resulting effect will be less than mowing through the the 1HD minions like a reaper.

Go0 funny you mention that idea, that is what I've been thinking of doing for a while. It makes Combat Dominance more powerful but doesn't muddy the water with more rules.

[REHowardfanatic]

I always use orcs as a player character race of barbarinas who have been labelled "evil" by racist elves. For that matter, my dark elves were once enslaved and fought a rebellion for their freedom and also were labelled "evil." Not a fan of elves, lol. As it was said often in Sgadowrun: 'Never trust an elf.'

In any case, my point is that Combat Dominance's usefulness is directly proportional to how the DM uses 1HD monsters. If you use them as brainless fodder, then the ability is useless and so you probably should modify the rule. For my players it will be a very welcome advantage, since 1HD creatures like orcs and goblins are among my most dangerous opponents- not because they have lots of HP, but because they are organized and effective warriors.

[Relaxo]

Good points all around... There are stupid sword fodder orcs and maybe the others only with some leader type.

[Piperdog]

I was also a bit disappointed in the fighter when I got into C&C....especially as I compared the combat capabilities of the ranger to the fighter. That being said, playing the game has actually swayed my initial opinion a bit. As previous posts have pointed out, the CK doesn't have to suddenly scale everything to the player's level. I run a pretty gritty game, and balance is not on my mind in the least. Most civilized areas are populated by 0 level folks, with the fighter types being 1st level. Goblins, kobolds, and orc fodder don't just disappear just because the party is more powerful later on. The new combat advantages (like feats) do a lot to bring some of the old 3e flavor back for fighters, like Cleave and Power Strike, but also some new and interesting ones that do a lot to add flavor while still keeping things low key.

The rangers, who have the very powerful Combat Marauder skill, will overshadow the fighter in a campaign that revolves around fighting humanoids; in a campaign like that, I wouldn't mind granting that ability to the fighter as well. Heck, in the old game Arcanum, all fighter types add their level to all damage, to any and all foes. In a cinematic campaign, that may be pretty cool for fighters.

[zarathustra]

My latest thoughts are to leave combat dominance as is and give the fighter 3/2 against any opponent at 5th level as well.

btw i removed Combat Marauder from ranger, imc they choose from horseriding (knight), combat sense (bbn), poisons (assassin) or missile expert (roll 2 dice to hit with chosen missile, take best result).

As for my orcs i also go the "barbarian" route, the Norsemen & Avars in my semi historical setting are orcs.

[Just Jeff]

the old 3e flavor

This made me giggle. It's like the first time I heard classic rock on an oldies station.

[Fizz]

I get the idea of Combat Dominance- let the fighter plow through insignificant foes so that a simple tactic of overwhelming him isn't easy. But it just feels artificial to me- just a mechanic because they needed something.

Instead, i let my fighters do a 'flurry of attacks', where they suffer a penalty to hit in exchange for more attacks. This gives the fighter a choice- focus one strong attack, or make a slew of reckless attacks. Against high AC opponents, it's better to use the single attack. Against multiple less-armored foes, it's better to split them. Thus, this takes on the same role as Combat Dominance (letting the fighter sweep out annoying goblin vermin) but scales with level and opponents better.

give the fighter 3/2 against any opponent at 5th level as well.

I do this as well, it's a nicer smoother progression than just jumping to 2/1 at 10th level. They then get 5/2 at 15th, and 3/1 at 20th.


-Fizz

[zarathustra]

I get the idea of Combat Dominance- let the fighter plow through insignificant foes so that a simple tactic of overwhelming him isn't easy. But it just feels artificial to me- just a mechanic because they needed something.
Fizz

To be fair combat dominance is based on a mechanic (the ability to make several attacks against 1HD foes) that has been around in D&D for fighters for a long time, under different names. It is more a "traditional" ability than one invented by the Trolls out of artifical need.

[Fizz]

To be fair combat dominance is based on a mechanic (the ability to make several attacks against 1HD foes) that has been around in D&D for fighters for a long time, under different names. It is more a "traditional" ability than one invented by the Trolls out of artifical need.

True, the ol' sweep rule. I should have specified- i didn't mean to accuse the Trolls of making it. Rather i was referring to original mechanic that has migrated from edition to edition.

-Fizz

[REHowardfanatic]

I reread the Weapon Specialization, Combat Dominance, and Combat Marauder abilities. I don't really think the Combat Dominance ability is underpowered, but I do think Combat Marauder is OVERpowered. Also, I do think the Fighter needs more oomph, though I prefer to link such oomphage to Weapon Specialization.

My options are these:
Weapon Specialization allows a +1 to to hit, damage, and initiative with the weapon, with these increases progressing as described. Combat Marauder allows the Ranger to add HALF his level, round down, to damage against humanoids.

ALTERNATELY--

Combat Marauder is unchanged. Weapon Specialization allows a progressive bonus to hit, but allows the fighter to add double his STR bonus to damage when using a melee weapon. When using a ranged weapon, the specilaization allows a progressive bonus to damage, but allows the fighter to add double his DEX bonus to hit.

I think either of those changes are small enough to not be intrusive and balance the classes a little better. I'm still not sure which option I prefer, but I am leaning to the former.

[maasenstodt]

If you want to beef up the Fighter at bit, I'd recommend allowing Weapon Specialization to add an additional attack every other round (i.e., 3/2) like in AD&D.