Combat Maneuver Questions

[Lord Dynel]

In preparing a "cheat sheet" of combat maneuvers (a bullet-point word document that will give a brief synopsis of all things possible in a combat round) for an upcoming campaign, I've been looking at the combat maneuvers available (from the PHB and CKG) and have a couple questions. Maybe I can get some answers/opinions from you guys on these various points:

1) Close Supporting Fire: Table says that you hit allies on 2-4, but description says 2-3. I tend to lean towards descriptions over tables, so I think 2-3 makes more sense.

2) Disengaging: I've come to peace with these rules, but I know my players are going to scratch their heads over it. Would trying to explain it in RP terms be best? As in, "no if you disengage, there are no rules that say the orcs can't follow...but they just dont," signifying that disengaging actually works. Mechanics-wise, this will give them fits. They've long lost sight of the possibility that if someone's trying to exit the field of battle, the other side lets them go sometimes.

3) Parry vs. Evade: Parry appears easily more powerful than Evade. With Parry, you don't need to roll initiative (so you get it at the start of the round), and you get a flat +4 AC for the round. With Evade, you do have to roll initiative (apparently) and you only get the +4 against one foe that you're facing. Neither allows additional actions - Evade doesn't say that outright, but does state that the Evading character is "using all one's energies to dodge and parry..." so I'm drawing that conclusion.
EDIT: the only possible benefit I could possibly see is that maybe, just maybe, Evade - like Dodge - can be declared anytime (though initially I wouldn't think so) while Parry must be announced at the beginning of the round(?). So if initiative rolls go badly, a PC can cut in with an Evade action? Just a thought...

I think those are the major questions I have at the time. Thanks in advance for any feedback!

[dunbruha]

I'd be interested in seeing your list when you have it finished (if you would be willing to share).

[Arduin]

Hmm. #2 there is nothing the rules that say that an opponent can't follow if they like. I always took the rule to cover what happens if you don't do a fighting retreat but, turn and flee instead.

[Lord Dynel]

I'd be interested in seeing your list when you have it finished (if you would be willing to share).

Sure thing, hoss. It's nothing too special, just a one-page info sheet to let my players know what they can do in combat. But I'll gladly share it!

Arduin, I agree that monsters can persue if they want. I guess that was part of my issue with it. If there's no real benefit to disengaging then why do it? But as I stated in the OP, I've made my peace with it - if the players get to the point when they are taking the action to disengage and retreat, then as CK I need to recognize that and consider letting them break off from combat with their lives intact. I just know they're going to scratch their heads at this rule and ask the question, "how is this help us?" I just wanted to see how others were doing it.

[Harlock]

Even evil goblins and not so smart kobolds know it is sometimes better to not press an advantage and run down a fleeing enemy. Maybe they are wounded. Maybe they don't have access to healing like PCs do (in fact, at low levels most monsters don't have access to healing at all in most published adventures). Maybe they feel like chasing them out of their dungeon is enough to keep the characters from coming back, after all, they can set a larger guard, lay traps, etc. Would you pursue an armed robber fleeing from your home after you just had a shoot out in your living room? Or, would you let the guy run, go back inside and make sure the wife and kids were all okay?

That said, some enemies will and do pursue, even if it means they die trying. But, most creatures of animal intellect or better are willing to let something get away if they are injured and not starving.

[Lord Dynel]

Even evil goblins and not so smart kobolds know it is sometimes better to not press an advantage and run down a fleeing enemy. Maybe they are wounded. Maybe they don't have access to healing like PCs do (in fact, at low levels most monsters don't have access to healing at all in most published adventures). Maybe they feel like chasing them out of their dungeon is enough to keep the characters from coming back, after all, they can set a larger guard, lay traps, etc. Would you pursue an armed robber fleeing from your home after you just had a shoot out in your living room? Or, would you let the guy run, go back inside and make sure the wife and kids were all okay?

That said, some enemies will and do pursue, even if it means they die trying. But, most creatures of animal intellect or better are willing to let something get away if they are injured and not starving.

Indeed, good sir. That pretty much sums up my feeling on the disengage maneuver now. Fresh from 3.5, I'll admit I was looking for the mechanical advantage of disengaging. Once I'd unlearned what I had learned, I then saw the beauty of it.

[Arduin]

I just know they're going to scratch their heads at this rule and ask the question, "how is this help us?" I just wanted to see how others were doing it.

I use to allow a retreat without being attacked from rear. Or, allowing a blocking/substitution by another PC to get an injured person out of combat.

[Omote]

I've been thinking about puting a document together exactly as you have stated LD. I was going to go so far as to include how far you can move depending on what type of action yoru character takes as well (since movement and actions aren't so simple in C&C).

~O

[Lord Dynel]

I've been thinking about puting a document together exactly as you have stated LD. I was going to go so far as to include how far you can move depending on what type of action yoru character takes as well (since movement and actions aren't so simple in C&C).

~O

Sounds pretty cool, hoss! I didn't include movements for each action - it took me a little bit of effort to keep it down to one page. I wanted a single page for a "newish" players to be able to look at and be able to see all the maneuvers they could attempt, but I hope it's useful to experienced players as well.

I'm including the link to my sheet, but I'll preface it by saying that I make players announce their actions every round before initiative is rolled. Many actions, since they are "attack like" in nature, must be announced during the declaration phase of the round. Those actions are in red text. If you don't make the players announce actions, or otherwise disagree with what I decided were declaration-phase actions (though most are spelled out in the books, I only extrapolated on ones that didn't specify), just disregard that color difference in text. I prefer the declaration method becuase it allows for some serious tactical thinking without a ton of feats and stuff from later D&D editions (and it more than makes up for it, in my opinion).

Without further ado, enjoy! If you see any errors, please let me know so I can revise the sheet! Thanks!

[BudaZoa]

I love the list, thanks !


Have a questions as to the monks attack if he has obtained the level and a second attack with an open hand is there a penalty for two weapons , if the initial is made with a weapon ?

Granted I don't have a copy of the CKG or the new PHB yet, is a new rule or a house rule ?

[Lord Dynel]

I love the list, thanks !


Have a questions as to the monks attack if he has obtained the level and a second attack with an open hand is there a penalty for two weapons , if the initial is made with a weapon ?

Granted I don't have a copy of the CKG or the new PHB yet, is a new rule or a house rule ?

Glad you like the list! And you're welcome!

The monk rules for two-weapon fighting were in the 4th printing and in the newest printing as well, Buda. The exact wording is as follows:

A monk may use the two-weapon fighting rule to gain a second hand-to-hand attack before the character reaches 6th level. If the monk does so, both attacks suffer the penalties for two-weapon fighting and the secondary attack inflicts normal fist damage of 1d2 hit points. When a monk reaches 6th level, the character gains a secondary hand-to-hand attack. A monk’s secondary hand-to-hand attack ability does not suffer any penalty for two-weapon fighting and it inflicts the damage in the monk special ability chart. But, if a monk at any level fights with a weapon in one hand and attacks with his other hand, whether a primary or secondary attack, the monk suffers the standard penalties for twoweapon fighting and follows the preceding rules in this paragraph as to secondary attack damage.

So, I don't think it matters what hand he uses a weapon in, if he does he'll get the penalty.

[dunbruha]

Without further ado, enjoy!

Thanks. This will be useful.

I haven't played with action declarations before. I assume you have them declare spells also. Do you require them to state which spell they are going to cast? If so, if the situation changes during the round (before the spell is cast) so as to make the casting of the declared spell useless, do they still have to cast it?

[Arduin]

Good stuff.

I have one caveat I use on Touch Attacks. It is basically the same as your Reach attack if the defender is using something at least as long as a Short sword.

[Lord Dynel]

Without further ado, enjoy!

Thanks. This will be useful.

I haven't played with action declarations before. I assume you have them declare spells also. Do you require them to state which spell they are going to cast? If so, if the situation changes during the round (before the spell is cast) so as to make the casting of the declared spell useless, do they still have to cast it?

Well, yes, I have them declare the spell at the start of the round. To me, it adds a lot more thinking to casting spells. I go by this suggestion in the PHB about casting time:

Most Castle Keepers make you announce at the beginning of the round whether you are going to cast a spell. If so, and you roll a low initiative roll, then you have a chance of being struck before the spell goes off.

That way, casters have to take into account where they are on the field, how close enemies are to them, and the need to cast a spell (say, over getting to safety) before they cast. If a wizard announces they're casting a magic missile at the orc in front of him, but the orc wins initiative, then it's going to make for an interesting round. That wizard better think long and hard if casting the spell is better than backing up. If the wizard gets hit, he loses the spell he's casting, so it's something to think about.

[dunbruha]

If a wizard announces they're casting a magic missile at the orc in front of him, but the orc wins initiative, then it's going to make for an interesting round. That wizard better think long and hard if casting the spell is better than backing up. If the wizard gets hit, he loses the spell he's casting, so it's something to think about.

Thanks for your answer. But what happens to the spell if the orc dies (due to some other reason) before the caster's initiative? i.e., the caster has the spell declared, but there is no target for it. Is the spell lost?

[Lord Dynel]

If a wizard announces they're casting a magic missile at the orc in front of him, but the orc wins initiative, then it's going to make for an interesting round. That wizard better think long and hard if casting the spell is better than backing up. If the wizard gets hit, he loses the spell he's casting, so it's something to think about.

Thanks for your answer. But what happens to the spell if the orc dies (due to some other reason) before the caster's initiative? i.e., the caster has the spell declared, but there is no target for it. Is the spell lost?

I've ruled that the spell is lost. Maybe I'm a little too hard, but if the wizard is in the middle of casting a magic missile on a foe, and an ally comes along and kills the foe, the wizard is left hanging out to dry. I might would consider (and you may, too) that the wizard could pull the spell in at the last second and stops himself from casting the spell. However, since the rules state he can't do anything else for the round (namely, move), he still couldn't move that round.

[dunbruha]

I've ruled that the spell is lost. Maybe I'm a little too hard, but if the wizard is in the middle of casting a magic missile on a foe, and an ally comes along and kills the foe, the wizard is left hanging out to dry. I might would consider (and you may, too) that the wizard could pull the spell in at the last second and stops himself from casting the spell. However, since the rules state he can't do anything else for the round (namely, move), he still couldn't move that round.

Thanks. I'm interested in trying this out.

[mbeacom]

My thoughts:

1) Close Supporting Fire: 2-3 or 2-4. Take your pick. I agree with you 2 or 3 feels "right".

2) Disengaging: I think these rules make pretty good sense and for my group, they function as intended with no narrative backflips (Read: They actually do work). I have some min/maxers in one of my groups and they use these rules regularly. They're pretty useful. The orcs can follow or not, I play it the way that feels right. Would they follow? According to the rules, if they do give chase, they most likely can't also attack. The way I see it, if you're not in range of an orcs charge (and you wouldn't be if you disengaged and used your full running movement), he will most likely hurl something at you and/or growl/roar threateningly, thinking he has defeated you and sent you packing. (He kind of has). So it makes sense to me. And, if they give chase, well that's fun too, but since neither group can attack if they're using their full running speed, it ends up being a fun set of skill rolls as those running try to create enough mayhem to slow their pursuers, or to disguise their trail or trick their pursuers into thinking they went a different way, etc.

Now, If you choose a fighting disengagement, that's not to flee, but to change position on the battlefield without provoking an attack, which is also pretty useful when the layout changes and introduces an extra element of tactics to combat.
So, ultimately, both mechanics work and serve a pretty important purpose during combat.

3) Parry vs. Evade: I don't know that I would call parry "more powerful". I think they're both useful in very different circumstances. I don't think you'd frequently be in a position to need to choose one or the other since the fill distinct mechanical and narrative niches. Parry seems to work best as an overt strategic maneuver. Example: The Fighter/Paladin/Knight/Etc tank wades into battle in an effort to draw attacks. He knows he won't have the opportunity to counter as he'll be too busy deflecting blows. But this will give his allies a chance to change position, flank, retreat, sneak,disrupt a ritual etc.

On the other hand, Evade seems designed for the desperate squishy (or any near death PC) who finds himself pinned down (or actively engaged) and with bad initiative. It gives him a bit of a lifeline to survive until his turn where he can then unload/rescue an ally or get the heck out of dodge, (probably using disengage). I think you raise a good point though. The description of Evade is a bit vague. As you mention, the "using all your energy" part makes it sound like you can't also attack, however, the "but remains engaged in combat" makes it sound like perhaps you can, and that really the only cost is your ability to move. So if you use evade, you can evade one enemy, AND you can attack, but you can't move. I'd love to hear the trolls chime in on this one for clarification.

[Lord Dynel]

1) Close Supporting Fire: 2-3 or 2-4. Take your pick. I agree with you 2 or 3 feels "right".

Awesome.

2) Disengaging...I play it the way that feels right.

The resposes I've gotten on this have pretty much reinforced how I've begun to look at it over the past months. These two maneuvers, in my mind, aren't necessarily there for their mechanical operation. It involves a lot more than that. And I think that's important - it's one of many C&C maneuvers that proves that combat is not just a "you swing, I swing" without all the nifty feats and comabt abilities of other systems.

3) Parry vs. Evade: I don't know that I would call parry "more powerful". I think they're both useful in very different circumstances. I don't think you'd frequently be in a position to need to choose one or the other since the fill distinct mechanical and narrative niches. Parry seems to work best as an overt strategic maneuver. Example: The Fighter/Paladin/Knight/Etc tank wades into battle in an effort to draw attacks. He knows he won't have the opportunity to counter as he'll be too busy deflecting blows. But this will give his allies a chance to change position, flank, retreat, sneak,disrupt a ritual etc.

On the other hand, Evade seems designed for the desperate squishy (or any near death PC) who finds himself pinned down (or actively engaged) and with bad initiative. It gives him a bit of a lifeline to survive until his turn where he can then unload/rescue an ally or get the heck out of dodge, (probably using disengage). I think you raise a good point though. The description of Evade is a bit vague. As you mention, the "using all your energy" part makes it sound like you can't also attack, however, the "but remains engaged in combat" makes it sound like perhaps you can, and that really the only cost is your ability to move. So if you use evade, you can evade one enemy, AND you can attack, but you can't move. I'd love to hear the trolls chime in on this one for clarification.

You know, I never looked at it like that - Evading and still being able to attack. It actually never crossed my mind. Since I figured you couldn't attack with Dodge, I assumed the same with Evade. I don't necessarily think Parry is as powerful as I used to (and by "used to," I mean at the start of the thread ) because I think if can be Evade considered a "non-declarable" action, it's power is that you can basically change your intended action to Evade for the round. I don't know if I would allow an attack with Evade, for reasons I mentioned above. But yes, the wording is a little vague. I would also love to hear the Trolls input on this one. Maybe I'll creat a poll to hear others opinion on this, specifically.