Attacker declares a maneuver. If the to-hit roll is a success, the defender can choose to either accept the maneuver OR take normal weapon damage.
If the attacker rolls a successful to-hit, the attacker can perform a maneuver in lieu of dealing damage to the defender. That maneuver is constrained to weapon type and other fesibility.
And I think it might have to stay with the attacker. It does take away agency from the defender, but that is the point of a maneuver in lieu of damage- the ability to manipulate your target without them being able to interfere. In the asymmetric, combat-as-war realm of classic-play D&D this can really help the PCs overcome otherwise indomitable threats. Sand to the face, blinds, and allows the PC to run. Dis-arming prevents the gnoll captain from landing blows with the two-handed sword. The wizard and the thief tackling a vampire might allow the cleric to stake it.
But if the option remains with the defender, then the DM might choose to negate any of the advantages of the maneuver simply by taking the damage. And if PCs can build up enough damage that the DM would choose the maneuver then they most likely didn't need the maneuver anyway.
Another more minor problem that is created is that because the DM knows the HP totals of all combatants and therefore has complete information the PCs don't have, the DM needs to come up with "rules" for which opponents will choose a maneuver all of the time, some of the time or never.
This might have to range over humanoids, animals, insects, fay, dragons, talking animals, oozes, puddings, skeletons and ghouls etc. In the end, if the decision is back on the attacker to call damage or maneuver most of this is reduced down. These attacker-decided maneuvers were demonstrated in this battle I ran.
Another possibility: let the defender make a saving throw (probably against paralysis). Success means the defender chooses between the maneuver or damage; failure means the attacker decides.
ReplyDeleteThat gives the defender a shot at keeping agency (and with a paralysis save, it might look something like struggling to keep his balance), and it still gives the attacker a shot at accomplishing the maneuver at times when the defender would never choose it.
Thanks for the read! Certainly you can do that, but (1) it starts to remove the elegance of the OP rule by adding (maybe needed qualifications); (2) I feel like that's creating another gate for the attacker to have to pass for a mechanics that is being used in an instance where attacking is already difficult. AND for a maneuver to work in BX D&D, the attacker often needs another element to help like either a pit to shove someone into or another friend to provide a follow-up attack on the prone enemy-- this is sorta its own "gate".
DeleteThose are good points! I'll try it without the saving throw.
Delete"AND for a maneuver to work in BX D&D, the attacker often needs another element to help like either a pit to shove someone into or another friend to provide a follow-up attack on the prone enemy-- this is sorta its own "gate""... so you could make this an explicit requirement. The attacker can force the non-damage outcome provided the manouevre somehow exploits the presence of "another element", be it terrain, character, monster, environmental condition etc.
ReplyDelete