D&D 2E A look at ADnD 2E: Fighter´s Complete Book and Maneuvers vs Power System

[RupertADnD]

A look at ADnD 2E: Fighter´s Complete Book and Maneuvers vs Power System

This trhead is irrelevant for thouse who don´t know this book. Today I was looking at my book shelves and reviewing my old “Complete Fighter Handbook” from AD&D 2nd. I remembered the old maneuvers and tactics available in the book. Called Shots, Disarms, Parry, Expert Disarm are just a few of them. I recall PCs had multiple attacks per round as they leveled up.

The simple fact that you could use one of your attacks/actions to parry an opponent’s blow, and then hit back really popped to my eyes, amongst other countless possible maneuvers and improvisations. Such system was based at the player´s description of whatever maneuvers he want to come up with ending up in several possible outcomes, some of them much like today’s “conditions”.

I´m a fan of the Power system for its simplicity, but I must confess It seemed to me the maneuvers system can be more comprehensive and more open to improvisation. Especially because of the freedom to add bonus or penalties, damage increase or conditions solely based on what the player is attempting at that moment. Once it´s updated and modernized, maybe combined with a power system it might lead to something interesting. Could it be the direction they are heading with 5E? Thoughts?

 

[Abstruse]

In core Next? No way. Too complicated, too many rules.

In the advanced combat module? Definitely. That sort of system would fit much more smoothly with the core rules they've presented so far than a power system would.

However, I would also expect to see a module that adds something...kind of similar to the power system, but not entirely the same. More like "If you perform this action, you must take a short rest before you can perform it again".

 

[Bedrockgames]

This trhead is irrelevanto for thouse who don´t know this book. Today I was looking at my book shelves and reviewing my old “Complete Fighter Handbook” from AD&D 2nd. I remembered the old maneuvers and tactics available in the book. Called Shots, Disarms, Parry, Expert Disarm are just a few of them. I recall PCs had multiple attacks per round as they leveled up.

The simple fact that you could use one of your attacks/actions to parry an opponent’s blow, and then hit back really popped to my eyes, amongst other countless possible maneuvers and improvisations. Such system was based at the player´s description of whatever maneuvers he want to come up with ending up in several possible outcomes, some of them much like today’s “conditions”.

I´m a fan of the Power system for its simplicity, but I must confess It seemed to me the maneuvers system can be more comprehensive and more open to improvisation. Especially because of the freedom to add bonus or penalties, damage increase or conditions solely based on what the player is attempting at that moment. Once it´s updated and modernized, maybe combined with a power system it might lead to something interesting. Could it be the direction they are heading with 5E? Thoughts?

I was just reading this book as well. I think the maneuvers worked as an organic outgrowth of D&D and how people played the game. Would like to see them adopt some of the stuff 2E nailed

 

[RupertADnD]

In that regard, I think Core Rules should be as simples as posible, as simple as Basic D&D. Maneuver should be optonal absolutely.

 

[Remathilis]

In core Next? No way. Too complicated, too many rules.

In the advanced combat module? Definitely. That sort of system would fit much more smoothly with the core rules they've presented so far than a power system would.

However, I would also expect to see a module that adds something...kind of similar to the power system, but not entirely the same. More like "If you perform this action, you must take a short rest before you can perform it again".

Actually, they weren't that hard. You took a +1 penalty to Init, a -4 to hit, and if you hit, you pulled the effect (trip, disarm, etc). There were a few modifiers (such as bonuses for having more legs or using 2-handed weapons) but they were really simple once you got down to it.

Next could do the same damn thing in less than a page, discussing how a Str. vs. Dex context could trip, an attack roll context could resolve disarm, Str vs. Str could be used as grapples, etc. It doesn't need to be elaborate like 3e or 4e defined, but I think it would really help that somewhere in the PHB or DMG they give a section on what normal "improvise" results should look like (with these and more as examples).

 

[Abstruse]

Actually, they weren't that hard. You took a +1 penalty to Init, a -4 to hit, and if you hit, you pulled the effect (trip, disarm, etc). There were a few modifiers (such as bonuses for having more legs or using 2-handed weapons) but they were really simple once you got down to it.

Next could do the same damn thing in less than a page, discussing how a Str. vs. Dex context could trip, an attack roll context could resolve disarm, Str vs. Str could be used as grapples, etc. It doesn't need to be elaborate like 3e or 4e defined, but I think it would really help that somewhere in the PHB or DMG they give a section on what normal "improvise" results should look like (with these and more as examples).

Okay, that sounds "not that hard" and "really simple" the same way that people who played a lot of 2nd Ed tell me that THAC0 was "really simple". It might seem that way to you because you have a lot of experience with the edition and the rules, but I haven't played 2nd Ed since pretty much 3rd Ed came out and my re-reading was an attempt to figure out the basic core rules and how to make a character for a game my friend is "going to run really soon I just need to finish designing the dungeon" for the past eight months. I am completely and utterly confused trying to work that out.

 

[Remathilis]

Okay, that sounds "not that hard" and "really simple" the same way that people who played a lot of 2nd Ed tell me that THAC0 was "really simple". It might seem that way to you because you have a lot of experience with the edition and the rules, but I haven't played 2nd Ed since pretty much 3rd Ed came out and my re-reading was an attempt to figure out the basic core rules and how to make a character for a game my friend is "going to run really soon I just need to finish designing the dungeon" for the past eight months. I am completely and utterly confused trying to work that out.

Meh. Basic D&D had rules for such things (and they were actually more confusing than this). If "attack with a -4 to hit, if you hit the guy falls" is hard, I'm not sure what will be easier...

 

[RupertADnD]

Yes they can simplify it. But I would have it as a module. One thing that was nice was the parry maneuver, you could actually parry one´s attack, but you should attack his AC, which didn´t make much sense, I it would make more sense to use some sort of contest mechanic, as described in the playtest rules. I would like to see the same effect applied to Spells, like having a sort af an immediate interrupt, so the wizard could cast one spell to block the other as long is he announces it in his initiative.

 

[Abstruse]

Meh. Basic D&D had rules for such things (and they were actually more confusing than this). If "attack with a -4 to hit, if you hit the guy falls" is hard, I'm not sure what will be easier...

The generic at-will powers from 4e and the combat maneuvers from Pathfinder are the only time I've ever seen those sort of rules laid out in a way I was able to understand quickly, and even then I wouldn't call them "really simple".

All these sort of advanced combat maneuvers do belong in the game, don't get me wrong...and I do believe that some split between Paizo's approach with CMB/CMD and the 2nd Edition versions would be the best way to go...however, these should not be core rules. They clutter up combat and can be intimidating, especially to new players. The core rules should approach everything with a KISS attitude - "Keep It Simple Stupid" if you never had one of those motivational speakers show up at your work. I want those rules to be available if I need them, but they really need to be optional. The combat system as it stands (especially with the ease of attribute contests) does the job good enough for a basic, simple game.

 

[Rhenny]

Actually, they weren't that hard. You took a +1 penalty to Init, a -4 to hit, and if you hit, you pulled the effect (trip, disarm, etc). There were a few modifiers (such as bonuses for having more legs or using 2-handed weapons) but they were really simple once you got down to it.

Next could do the same damn thing in less than a page, discussing how a Str. vs. Dex context could trip, an attack roll context could resolve disarm, Str vs. Str could be used as grapples, etc. It doesn't need to be elaborate like 3e or 4e defined, but I think it would really help that somewhere in the PHB or DMG they give a section on what normal "improvise" results should look like (with these and more as examples).

I agree about making "Improvised" attacks more transparent. WotC needs a section to show examples using either Attribute Checks or Contests. With a handful of examples...players and DMs could then begin to build on them. They could even give a simplified way to adjudicate "improvised" maneuvers.

One of the problems with penalizing maneuvers (the -4 to hit from earlier editions) is that it actually will discourage their use.