|
Disclaimer: I am not trying to stir up dissension or argue the finer points about which version sucks. I have a question. How would you "rule" this in 3.5:
But those simple rule changes do make life a hell of a lot easier. During our first game, my intrepid game designer buddy decided to throw a monkey wrench into the works by having his character dive under a table and kick it out from under two guys fighting on top of it. He smiled devilishly, looked at me and asked “How are you gonna rule that…DM?” I glanced at the book for a moment and realized “Strength check against their reflexes.” Huh. He shook his head. Made sense. He made the attack, hit the numbers and all of a sudden he had two opponents prone on the floor. The rules are so straight forward now, on the fly decisions are total cake.
See, I had something sort of like this pop up during our last session and this is pretty much how I ran it...
How would you "rule" this in 3.5:
Good question. What immediately popped to mind was an opposed roll: Str check vs. opponent's Balance or maybe even Reflex save. Quick input from the players to see what might be appropriate, and continue on. Failure results in table not going anywhere.
If successful, I'd probably allow the opponents a Tumble check to avoid going prone once they lost their table advantage. My players would expect nothing less if it happened to them.
Hmm . . .yeah I agree. My guess (hope) is that what this gentleman is saying is that the DMG offers some guidance for on the fly situations like these.
STR Check Vs. Ref Save.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to stir up dissension or argue the finer points about which version sucks. I have a question. How would you "rule" this in 3.5:
But those simple rule changes do make life a hell of a lot easier. During our first game, my intrepid game designer buddy decided to throw a monkey wrench into the works by having his character dive under a table and kick it out from under two guys fighting on top of it. He smiled devilishly, looked at me and asked “How are you gonna rule that…DM?” I glanced at the book for a moment and realized “Strength check against their reflexes.” Huh. He shook his head. Made sense. He made the attack, hit the numbers and all of a sudden he had two opponents prone on the floor. The rules are so straight forward now, on the fly decisions are total cake.See, I had something sort of like this pop up during our last session and this is pretty much how I ran it...
I HAVE seen situations like that pop up and remember one particularly frustrating night where I, as a player (but not the one doing the action ... kicking a chair to trip an enemy) had to sit through and wait while it was finally decided to treat the chair as a non-proficient weapon that made a Trip check vs. the Target with a size penalty for the Chair being small. It failed utterly, of course.
That was probably a lot more realistic, but not nearly as satisfying. It certainly didn't encourage that sort of behavior again and was convoluted enough to only please the rules lawyer in our group. I guess it serves as a minor example of why we all decided to drop 3E the instant 3.5 was announced and it looked like more of the same. I don't often get to play, since I'm usually the DM, and I remember that particular night vividly.
Same DM who gave out Boots of Spider Climbing but then literally made every wall or structure we ever encountered after that "slippery" so they wouldn't work. Poor guy never, not once, got to use his boots, lol.
straight up strenght check vs. either balance to remain on the table after it comes back down, or reflex to avoid falling prone. Their choice, their consequences.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yeah, I'd say STR check versus Balance check. I'd give the balancers a bonus if the table was especially heavy and the kicker a bonus if it were especially light. A standard wooden tavern table would be the "base" (i.e. no bonuses either way). If the kicker won by 5 or more, the balancers would be knocked prone (Reflex DC 10 + kicker's Strength mod to avoid). If he won by 4 or less, they would simply be forced off the table, though would land on their feet. I'd probably apply a size penalty to the balancers' roll if one was applicable as well.
Not that it will matter, but I think the significance of the whole "kick the table" move was not in how it was resolved at all.
It was that a new DM (with playing experience, to be sure) was able to roll with it and come up with a reasonable way to adjudicate the situation quickly and effortlessly. The mechanic used makes sense, and because it's the way that a lot of things seem to be resolved, probably sprang to his mind right away and probably actually FELT right, at the table.
Most of us are experienced DMs. I don't think that any of us will be caught not knowing at least three different ways to handle a situation, but if 4E can help new DMs learn what they're doing WITHOUT such a long trial by fire, than that's great. We need more DMs in this hobby. You have DMs, you'll find players. DMs are a key and if they can make good use from the DMG, than that is fantastic.
Remember, Nicolas Logue praised the DMG as a great book (didn't mention the rest). That, at least, bodes very well. After they've gotten a little wet behind the ears than I'm sure they will be able to branch out and find their own identity a bit more, as we all did.
I'm just looking forward to more (decent) DMs out there. I miss being able to play sometimes, it happens so rarely.
I don't think that any of us will be caught not knowing at least three different ways to handle a situation, but if 4E can help new DMs learn what they're doing WITHOUT such a long trial by fire, than that's great. We need more DMs in this hobby.
What "trial by fire"? Both the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG give new DMs advice on how to handle a situation like this, and it's pretty much exactly how 4e (apparently) suggests. It's not like 4e has suddenly come up with the idea of an "opposed check" to resolve an unusual combat move.
What I don't get is why so many people are failing to realize that 4e is just reinventing the wheel. Opposed Strength versus Reflex save? Oh, my god! How revolutionary!
Please. It sounds very simple to a DM, but look at it from a new DM's perspective. He's just read the rules on Grappling, then the ones on Attacks of Opportunity, Touch Attacks, Turn Undead, and then a smattering on the different bonuses and which could stack with what and then one of his players does the slide under the table move and he ... what? He turns some pages, and then either says "you can't do that; don't you want to make a Full Attack?" or he just makes something up. Sink or swim.
The mechanic of 4E isn't that different at all. One of the primary differences, though, is that nearly every action is made against a targets Defense, whether that be AC, Fort, Reflex, or Will. That's the game. Seems the beginner guy would find it a bit easier to figure out how to resolve things in that situation.
yep opposed checks been a rule of thumb for a long long time, i think its in the 3e dmg i could be wronge but its pretty much a no brainer if your dm takes more then 5 mins to fig that out i really dont know what to tell ya sept it gets better with practice.
First: Tumble check to get under table (Easy)
Second: Attack table leg (roll to hit AC 5)
Third: Damage (This is where it would probably fail, 1d3 + str vs. hardness and hp of wooden table strong enought to hold up 2 armored men)
Fourth: Tumble or dex checks for men on table to land on their feet.
>> but if 4E can help new DMs learn what they're doing WITHOUT such a long trial by fire, than that's great.
Except that it looks like the 4E DM got it wrong in this instance. According to ENWorld, Trip/Disarm is not allowed in 4E without special powers. So the DM should have ruled, "sorry, that can't be done."
I honestly don't see the big deal is about this. This just seems to be another random rules decision that will exist in either edition. I really doubt that it is really easier to make a ruling like this on the spot.
As I posted in the other thread, and another great mind posted above, Str. Check vs. Reflex save, where the strength check results in the DC for said Reflex save.
So already at 1st level you have a situation where the rogue is very likely to remain standing and the wizard is moderately likely to take a spill.
Advance everyone to about 10th level and try again.
You raise a good point, but it assumes something I'm not sure everyone would agree on: that higher-level fighters should be any better at kicking out tables from underneath people.
But let's assume that we agree they should. Fine. Make it opposed BAB + Str vs. Reflex and voila! Problem solved.
My point is this: not only do we not need a new edition to solve this "problem" for us, but a new edition isn't going to make it significantly easier to solve it for ourselves, either.
I couldn't help but notice that there were a half dozen different ideas on how to handle the table kick in 3.5 given by different people, and I think that was the reviewer's point. There are no universally agreed-upon rules in 3.5 for this situation. Many people said they've used the same formula that 4e uses, but everyone that said something else was just as authoritative and sure that they were right. This is the same attitude I've seen in other veteran players of 3rd edition, the idea that their way is the correct way and all other opinions are to be ignored at worst or taken with a grain of salt at best. I haven't been playing the game for as long as some, but I've been told I was wrong about rules or interpretations of rules enough times to know that veteran players make as many mistakes as anyone else. The difference is largely attitude, and anyone who's had to sit through a heated debate between two seasoned players would probably agree that there comes a point when you just want to say, "shut up and play the game."
I'm not sure 4e is going to be a better game. Maybe it's not even going to be as good as 3.5. If it means an end to the sort of rules-bickering that stuff like the table kick can easily lead to, with simple, easily defined mechanics for every conceivable situation, I'm on board. I'll leave my doubts at the door, play it long enough to see if it really is easier and more fun to play, and then I'll see what my players think.
I couldn't help but notice that there were a half dozen different ideas on how to handle the table kick in 3.5 given by different people, and I think that was the reviewer's point.
Personally, I consider it a strength of a game system that there are multiple ways to resolve an action like the "table kick." It doesn't matter to me if a new DM picks the Very Best Possible Mechanic available in this situation, but I for dang sure don't think a One Size Fits All Mechanic is going to wind up being a good thing for the game in the end.
Let's try 20th level.
The figher's strength check will be at +10 or +12, maybe. The rogue's Ref save will be +24 or so, his skill check will be in excess of +30. Even the wizard will likely have a save at +10 or +11, but still a skill check at +0.
I suspect that a 20th (or even 10th) level ftr has better options than kicking a table and if the characters are 20th they are likely flying. These types of 'mundane' maneuvers generally get supplanted at higher levels by more effective options. The 'snap' 4E ruling isn't that impressive to me and I wouldn't let a 3.5 ruling grind the game to a halt-its not like this involved the dreaded grappling mechanic.....
|
I HAVE seen situations like that pop up and remember one particularly frustrating night where I, as a player (but not the one doing the action ... kicking a chair to trip an enemy) had to sit through and wait while it was finally decided to treat the chair as a non-proficient weapon that made a Trip check vs. the Target with a size penalty for the Chair being small. It failed utterly, of course.
That was probably a lot more realistic, but not nearly as satisfying. It certainly didn't encourage that sort of behavior again and was convoluted enough to only please the rules lawyer in our group. I guess it serves as a minor example of why we all decided to drop 3E the instant 3.5 was announced and it looked like more of the same. [...]
Same DM who gave out Boots of Spider Climbing but then literally made every wall or structure we ever encountered after that "slippery" so they wouldn't work. Poor guy...
This sounds much more like the DM was crappy than the rules were bad. This problem isn't going to go away because 4e has different mechanics. No amount of rules simplification is going to improve a game with a poor DM. My advice: don't buy the 4e books until you have a consistently good DM. This will prevent you from throwing down 4e in disgust when the DM makes another boneheaded decision.
(I don't know if someone already gave this answer, if so sorry)
Well the table isn't moving so tipping it over is an automatic success if the character has strength enough to push the table plus two people (quick estimate 400 pounds depnding on table and size of the fighting folk). Might be an attack of opportunity if the table is bigg enough. Then a reflex-save for those on the table to land on their feet.
But look at all the folks above you in this thread who didn't see that solution and honestly tell me that you saw that solution before I pointed out the problems with their proposals. The fact is that it's anything but obvious and even experienced gamers are not likely to see it.
"Problems"? The solutions were features, not bugs - I, for one, first thought about using the Ref save for the defenders specifically because it scales with level.
The results that you noted in your first post, based on the different levels, were exactly what I had expected. Those are the proper results, AFAIC. They certainly would be for my players and their expectations (which is the only thing I can base my rulings on).
Indeed - why think about doing that maneuver vs. 10th+ level characters at all? That type of move sounds like it would only be useful against mooks - not higher level characters (at least, again, as far as my players are concerned). Further, as another poster mentioned - and he's right - at higher levels, that type of mundane attack methodolgy probably is not the best (or smartest, or even most interesting) way to go.
The solutions suggested certainly sound like the right one(s). I, for one, don't want mundane moves to be "playable" across all levels. My players sure don't.
I think most would agree that it should.
"Most"? Mmm-hmmm. Good luck with that!