Some of my rulewonky solutions for mentioned badly-represented fantasy tropes. Most are at best partial solutions of simply "food for thoughts", some are probably game-breaking and all would change gaming experience of Pathfinder (I'll let you decide for the better or for the worst).
Clinging to Giant Monsters:
CMB seems the way to go, but not against CMD. I'd be inclined to say touch AC. Then it brings the question of why you would cling to the monster in the first place, and the only reasons I see would be to deliver a called shot to an otherwise out-of-reach location. Without a system of called shot, its cinematics only...
Parry and shield baring
Attacks of opportunity can be taken in order to deflect an incoming blow, either with a weapon or shield. In order to parry, make an attack roll. The result becomes your AC against the attack you intend to deflect (include clause stating that you cannot parry while flat-footed and denied Dex bonus etc...). Shield parry as shield bash + shield bonus as bonus to parry.
expect longer fights...
More to come latter
Don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I miss an active usage of shields, kinda. I'm not much of a big fan of the "extra AC" approach for shields where they are just passive objects hanging around - if a Parry ruleset where to be made, I'd like Shields to be the best parryers around.
A side note, from this...
I'm slowly (very, very slowly, too slowly) working on a system of my own. One of the biggest things that's been coming to my attention is the tradeoff between simulationism (and cool mechanics) on one hand, and game flow on the other.
What I mean by this is that I keep seeing or thinking up ideas that seem great... but then I think about what they would do at a typical table, and I think they're not so good an idea. I'm planning to use armor as damage reduction and wounds/vitality. Those aren't too bad, though I have minor concerns about players forgetting to subtract their DR from incoming damage (this is largely because it's not very common for players to have DR, especially if they don't often play at high level).
A great example is when I was thinking of doing criticals as "your attack exceeds the target's defense by more than X". I'm still doing that... but I had been thinking of making X vary by weapon (similar to how weapons have different threat ranges). But I just can't see a way to do that without constantly having to call out "I hit Defense 25 and crit Defense 19"... for every player and for the GM. So that's got to go. So instead, I'm keeping X constant, and will find other ways to differentiate weapons, to keep the game flowing more smoothly.
Basically, the more special cases you put in, the more options there are, the better the simulation there may be, and the more cool things may be explicitly supported by the rules... but the more there is to learn, and the longer each round will take. And while I've fought combats that took more than 3 full sessions to complete, I think that detracts from the tension and the story.
Also, in reference to swinging on chandeliers: this is my go-to example of something to ad-hoc. And I think it's something 4th edition D&D actually had right: it's something the GM should have tools to ad-hoc. Rather than attempting to codify everything, it has some guidelines, and some tables so that you can easily get a roughly right skill DC, and so on. 3rd edition's mentality of having full simulation rules can be stifling, especially when it includes the feeling that it's not ok to ad-hoc something that there's a rule for if you don't know the rule. I don't want to pause the game to look up the exact rules buried in one rulebook to resolve a single action, if I can avoid it. Or worse, to look up 2-3 related rules and then extrapolate how to handle the specific situation from a synthesis of those rules. I much prefer the sense that I can make a quick judgement and have it accepted.
|
Brawl First, Fight Later Most movies, books and tv shows don't jump straight into swordplay particularly in civilization. The heroes usually fight unarmed in bars, on streets or in towns. In fact, heroes usually look to escape rather than defeat their foes.
Solution This is more of a fluff than a rules problem. Explain to your players that being the first side to draw blade or spell is tantamount to armed assault and an arrestable offense. Furthermore as a GM, outnumber your PCs like 10 to One, and use non-lethal damage. If the players accuse you of playing unfair or rail-roading point to the chase cards and tell them: "You could have run."
|
A great example is when I was thinking of doing criticals as "your attack exceeds the target's defense by more than X". I'm still doing that... but I had been thinking of making X vary by weapon (similar to how weapons have different threat ranges). But I just can't see a way to do that without constantly having to call out "I hit Defense 25 and crit Defense 19"... for every player and for the GM. So that's got to go. So instead, I'm keeping X constant, and will find other ways to differentiate weapons, to keep the game flowing more smoothly.
Greetings :)
I'm working towards my own system as well, and am using something similar to this. Each 5 by which an attack beats a target's AC nets it a +50% to damage. (I'd have normal damage listed on character sheets AND whatever 50% of that is, so it's easy to add.) To differentiate weapons, rolling in a former threat range gives an effective +2 (or some other +Number) to the effective attack roll.
So, a Fighter with a +9 to hit with a Longsword rolls a nat 19. 19+9=28. But, since a Longsword's crit range is 19-20, he gets a +2: 28+2=30. if his target's AC was 25, he just got 1.5 times damage. I'm not sure how to do critical multiplier, though :(
The problem, though, is that when making races, Paizo seems to like using the Standard array the most.
Standard (0 RP)
Modifiers: Members of this race gain a +2 bonus to one physical ability score, a +2 bonus to one mental ability score, and a –2 penalty to any other ability score.But they do make races with dual +mental stats. Just look at Samsaran and Aasimar. For some reason, dual physical is out of bounds, though.
And "Genius Bruiser" even fits in their "standard" little physical/mental combo model. They just haven't made any options for it.
agree with you about the need for smart bruisers, even made a couple using the arg for my own games, however i tend to think dual physical is a bit more useful towards related classes than dual mental, i have used a hobgoblin to easily produce a "tank" fighter with less effort than most. I also want to point out hobgoblins do a great job reinforcing spellcasters defensively, though fluff-wise that tends to cheese.
Clinging to Giant Monsters:
CMB seems the way to go, but not against CMD. I'd be inclined to say touch AC. Then it brings the question of why you would cling to the monster in the first place, and the only reasons I see would be to deliver a called shot to an otherwise out-of-reach location. Without a system of called shot, its cinematics only...
You may be interested in this thing I'm working on:
|
My two copper
Add a new bad resource that you gain.
Demo:
Sneak attacks, crits, casting at full caster level, damage while flatbfooted, lack of sleep all give you this resource. When you have "x" you become fatigued and encumbered (including spell failure (med)). Then at "y" exhausted and hvy spell failure.At "z" you go unconscious
X = 2 x con mod (min 1)
Y = 3x
Z = 4x
The heal skill can remove the effects and maybe give remove one point. You clear the points after a full rest.
Resource is a bad term but I flipped it to increase instead of dropping like HP.
Didn't quite read the whole thread, but I'd like to point out that many of these are handled explicitly and in great detail by GURPS 4th edition (dodge, block and parry are all explicit actions and armor is separate from all three; wounds can be serious and debilitating; etc.).I have noticed that same thing. GURPS really does a much more thorough job on melee effects (even the helmets issue above is covered by GURPS armor and injury / hit location rules). Many things are very different. Crossbows in GURPS are *brutal.* Magic is very limited in range, and a mage attempting to cast a group-affecting spell will very likely be blowing his wad for the entire combat.
It's a very different beast than D&D/PF style gaming. Definitely an aquired taste.
In my own experience, both rules systems scratch different itches. Attempts to play GURPS and capture the 'feel' of D&D have failed to satisfy, while attempts to GURPS-ify D&D games just muddled things up.
We've never used the magic system in the GURPS core books, so I can't really comment on it much. (Thaumatology provide tons of really great stuff, so we've always used that instead.)
Have you ever tried the Dungeon Fantasy line? It's supposed to tell you how to flip all the right switches to play a D&D-style GURPS game successfully. I haven't tried it myself, but I've heard good things about it. I do mainly agree that GURPS is better for some of the genres D20 isn't so great at though (and vice versa).
And yeah, this is definitely a trade-off between simulationist and gamist styles.
What about super hero tropes?
Catching a falling friend: I don't mean grabbing someone a la falling while climbing; I mean you're at the bottom of a 3 story townhouse and your rogue friend chasing the goblin across the rooftops above zigs when she should've zagged and takes a swan dive toward the pavement.
Fastball Special: not with telekenesis; your Enlarged barbarian grabs the finesse fighter/quisinart and chucks him. Is this still considered Throw Anything or is the figther just a Splash Weapon that needs to land somewhere in the area?
Go for the weak spot!: you see it all the time with energy hurlers in comics; Cyke waits for Havok to hit the Sentinel, tracks the blast and adds his own Optic Blast at the precise moment and spot to overload the thing's defenses. Lights out, tinhead!
and finally...
Charging without running: Do the PF rules already allow for this? My monk has ridiculously high acrobatics and 45' speed. She stands upon a ruined wall with a clear path (through rubble and across a few tree branches) down at the raging barbarian 40' below. Could she make a bunch of acrobatic leaps and technically Charge the dude?
Parry and shield baring
Attacks of opportunity can be taken in order to deflect an incoming blow, either with a weapon or shield. In order to parry, make an attack roll. The result becomes your AC against the attack you intend to deflect (include clause stating that you cannot parry while flat-footed and denied Dex bonus etc...). Shield parry as shield bash + shield bonus as bonus to parry.expect longer fights...
More to come latter
I love this idea, and I'm really interested to see how this works for you. It would really make Combat Reflexes more valuable, and is just cool. Are you gonna allow unarmed parries?
|
@PhelanArcetus
Hey no stealing ideas :P
I am also making a system more down to earth fantasy/sci-fi, though and I also went armor as DR and wounds and vitality.
Lots of things in this thread are covered or will be when I add a sentence or row to a DC table.
Also I don't think the feeling of needing to look rules up has anything to do with 3rd ed. Many players I have played with, hate useing ad hoc and usually say if it's not covered by rules it's impossible.
They usually ignore rule 0 and only two players I have ever met actually tried to do something without looking to see if rules covored it first, none tried if the they knew the rules didn't cover it. That goes for ANY rpg in my experience.
My GMs often hate me because I always push the limits of what's covered, always trying to something that requires ad hoc ruling. Like jumping off a cliff after the bad guy and trying for a midair intercept with a backstab attached. Or as a friend once did, jumping on a glitterboys (a giant mech) head placing barrel tip directly on head and pulling trigger.
I love this idea, and I'm really interested to see how this works for you. It would really make Combat Reflexes more valuable, and is just cool. Are you gonna allow unarmed parries?
Parry and shield baring
Attacks of opportunity can be taken in order to deflect an incoming blow, either with a weapon or shield. In order to parry, make an attack roll. The result becomes your AC against the attack you intend to deflect (include clause stating that you cannot parry while flat-footed and denied Dex bonus etc...). Shield parry as shield bash + shield bonus as bonus to parry.expect longer fights...
More to come latter
I actually have experience with this. However, straight portability into Pathfinder bogs the system down for several reasons. Also, it boosts spellcaster unless you do something similar for counterspelling. This would probably deserve its own tread...
As for unarmed parry, I experimented with two options: 1) using unarmed attack and 2) making Reflex save to dodge.
@PhelanArcetus
Hey no stealing ideas :PI am also making a system more down to earth fantasy/sci-fi, though and I also went armor as DR and wounds and vitality.
Lots of things in this thread are covered or will be when I add a sentence or row to a DC table.
Also I don't think the feeling of needing to look rules up has anything to do with 3rd ed. Many players I have played with, hate useing ad hoc and usually say if it's not covered by rules it's impossible.
They usually ignore rule 0 and only two players I have ever met actually tried to do something without looking to see if rules covored it first, none tried if the they knew the rules didn't cover it. That goes for ANY rpg in my experience.
My GMs often hate me because I always push the limits of what's covered, always trying to something that requires ad hoc ruling. Like jumping off a cliff after the bad guy and trying for a midair intercept with a backstab attached. Or as a friend once did, jumping on a glitterboys (a giant mech) head placing barrel tip directly on head and pulling trigger.
I think we're all stealing everybody's ideas, especially the couple that tons of people seem to be doing. There's a few things I'm specifically not sharing as a just-in-case. And I really, really need to get to iterating on some numbers.
I don't think 3rd edition is exclusively responsible for the "there needs to be a rule in the book for that" attitude, but I definitely think it contributed, at least in the D&D-space. I only played a little 2nd edition, but I got the sense quickly that a huge amount was left to DM fiat, while in 3rd edition, there became formal simulationist rules for a lot of things.
There are definitely RPGs out there which are rules-light, and provide the expectation that, in this game, there is no formal rule for a specific task, but 3rd edition is definitely not one of them. Nor is Pathfinder. I think Rule 0 is under-appreciated (it seems to be seen mostly as a way for the DM to screw the players, rather than a way to not be totally bound by what is and is not in a book).
I dislike ad-hoc'ing in the sense that it can be inconsistent, not just from table to table but even within the same session. But I like the flexibility to do it, instead of being totally bound by the books. 2nd edition, and most bits I've seen of rules-light systems, give little to nothing in terms of guidelines. Honestly, those charts in the 4th edition DMG were possibly the best thing in the whole edition. Not that they're necessarily applicable or reproducible for any other edition.
Clinging to Giant Monsters:
CMB seems the way to go, but not against CMD. I'd be inclined to say touch AC. Then it brings the question of why you would cling to the monster in the first place, and the only reasons I see would be to deliver a called shot to an otherwise out-of-reach location. Without a system of called shot, its cinematics only...
My players use this because if you successfully "pin" the creature (that is the hidden state in my rule) then it can no longer attack you but you can attack it. It also satisfies the conditions for sneak attack, which I found really captured the feel I was going for.
Also, it boosts spellcaster unless you do something similar for counterspelling. This would probably deserve its own tread...
I'd had a thread on the topic a while back, but there was a decided lack of interest from the boards so I went ahead and playtested. As it stands, here's a link to the rules I currently use for counterspells and they've been quite fun (we also use parry rules). I tried to update for all counterspelling rules at the time.
My players [cling to monsters] because if you successfully "pin" the creature (that is the hidden state in my rule) then it can no longer attack you but you can attack it. It also satisfies the conditions for sneak attack, which I found really captured the feel I was going for.
...interesting...
Continuing with bits of solutions (or suggestions) for fantasy tropes...
Being Wounded
There has been treads about this before. I like the fatigued at 50% hp, and exhausted at 75% hp that has been proposed before by Kitrh Gersen (you know, the Kirthfinder...) Typical issue with using fatigued/exhausted is the lack of penalties for spellcasters, who then get a free ride. Kirth did away with revising the effects of fatigued/exhausted to also include caster spell DC.
There then the application of [penalty] upon receiving critical hit or failed save, leaving the possibility to be affected from the top of combat or not at all during a fight. Usually, the biggest element of discord among ruleswonks is the definition of [penalty]...
Buckled Swashes, et alia
The ability to actively parry, dodge and deflects blow (see parrying above) fixes that issue best, short of redesigning the combat system a la Rolemaster where heavy armour = often hit, rarely wounded and no-armour is rarely hit, badly wounded when it happens. System using defense modifier vs. attack and armour as DR vs. damage might achieve that better than vanilla Pathfinder.
The Gladiator with One Armored Arm
Not sure about this one. Similar issue to lack of effect of helmets.
The Nutcracker using
Again with non-descriptive AC (high AC can equal high Dex or thick armour), this is hard to address. What I ended-up doing was conferring certain weapons a circumstantial +2 bonus on attacks rolls vs armoured opponents.
throwing one's body at another. Be it Jumping at or onto. CMB kind of covers this as a grapple or trip. However I think at least some sort of bonus for throwing one's entire body into the movemenet despite the fact that you have no control of stopping yourself should come with some kind of bonus.
Sure a big strong guy could just grab your ankle and trip you, but even a weakling could launch their body at an enemy as a projectile.
... and a few more...
On helmets
My solution for armour pieces: give them effects against attacks that are not flat bonus to AC.
coif-of-mail or open face-helmet: +4 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 25% fortification / negate 1st critical in combat
Great helm or visored helmet: +8 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 50% fortification / negate two first criticals in combat.
gauntlet: +4 AC against disarm attacks
Thick leather boots: +4 save vs non-flying swarms.
etc.
On shield
Other than the active use of shields, the protective value of shield could be enhanced by treating shields as cover, or allow some kind of ready action granting cover bonus on Reflex made against AoE spells and attacks as in this!.
... and a few more...
On helmets
My solution for armour pieces: give them effects against attacks that are not flat bonus to AC.coif-of-mail or open face-helmet: +4 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 25% fortification / negate 1st critical in combat
Great helm or visored helmet: +8 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 50% fortification / negate two first criticals in combat.
gauntlet: +4 AC against disarm attacks
Thick leather boots: +4 save vs non-flying swarms.etc.
On shield
Other than the active use of shields, the protective value of shield could be enhanced by treating shields as cover, or allow some kind of ready action granting cover bonus on Reflex made against AoE spells and attacks as in this!.
That is pretty brilliant 'findel. I think I would probably halve your bonus numbers, but the application is brilliant!
... and a few more...
On helmets
My solution for armour pieces: give them effects against attacks that are not flat bonus to AC.coif-of-mail or open face-helmet: +4 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 25% fortification / negate 1st critical in combat
Great helm or visored helmet: +8 AC against confirmation of critical hit / grant 50% fortification / negate two first criticals in combat.
gauntlet: +4 AC against disarm attacks
Thick leather boots: +4 save vs non-flying swarms.etc.
You'd probably want to add a -1 or -2 to perception rolls (both listen and spot) for certain types of helmets. Some of those things are a b**** to see/hear out of. In addition, plate armor, for example, was vulnerable to piercing weapons like the pick, so it wouldn't grant the +4 AC bonus against crit confirmation, for example, or am I overthinking it?
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Yet in d20, if you have the drop on an opponent, your only good choice is to attack hard or lose the advantage.
In my old group we used similar rules for helmets, but since I switched we haven't bothered.
We used this:
Light helmet: +1 AC vs confirmation rolls, -1 perception (skull caps, heavy leather hoods etc).
Medium helmet: +2 AC vs confirmation rolls, -4 perception (bascinets etc)
Heavy helmet: +4 AC vs confirmation rolls, -8 perception (visored helmets etc)
It worked pretty well, some used and some did not, didn't break anything but provided for some choice.
Every 1 point of Wound damage suffered grants a -1 cumulative penalty to all attacks, ac, saves, skills, +5% spell failure rate, etc.It occurs to me, Da'ath, that the real trouble behind damage penalties that are equivalent for casters and everyone else, it that the game doesn't really have proper mechanics for penalizing spellcasters. It has a few disparate systems, (concentration checks, arcane spell failure) but they are either arbitrary (as ASF, and % doesn't integrate well with other modifiers) or ineffective (concentration DCs? hahahahaha).
So I'm starting to feel like any real damage penalty solution needs first to fix (and unify) concentration checks, arcane spell failure, and maybe also negative levels. I'd love more discussion on this, perhaps over here.
Wizards and sorcerers have no armor till after they cast a spell. Giving them hours on Mage Armor somewhat balances that. At first level they need to hire a torch bearer wearing full plate to hide behind.
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Yet in d20, if you have the drop on an opponent, your only good choice is to attack hard or lose the advantage.
Combat manuver: Hostage. You roll to hit, then stop just short. Add the potential damage to your bluff. If your hostage has initiative on you they can grapple.
Wizards and sorcerers have no armor till after they cast a spell. Giving them hours on Mage Armor somewhat balances that. At first level they need to hire a torch bearer wearing full plate to hide behind.
I'm confused. What does mage armor have to do with asymmetry in condition penalties?
Plus, in my experience, the spell mage armor is rarely relevant.
(concentration DCs? hahahahaha).
That just depends on how high they are. Say, for example, all spells having a DC of 2*Spell Level + (total damage you've taken from full), could be nasty in the long run. As long as you're unwounded you don't have to roll though. Take 15 damage and the DC for a 3rd level spell is 18 (at 5th level we're looking at +5+5=+10 or so, so a 40% fail risk). You've taken a total of 30 damage and want to cast a 6th level spell? DC 42.
I was saying wizards should not be given additional condition penalties. They are already plenty squishy. Giving them extra damage because they are not wearing armor is a brilliant way to create a low magic campaign.
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Good one!
Too many times has the lone player told me "nah, I'm at full health; I'll take my chance against the 12 crossbowmen. 42 points of damage? That's alright, I still have enough to escape by jumping out the 10th floor's window..."
*sigh*
--OOPS, I forgot for a minute that this thread is on multiple sub-topics. Obviously, I am referring to the posts that were discussing 'findel's helmet house rule. Sorry.
____________________________________________________________________
I should point out that I believe the assumption is that you are wearing head protection commensurate with the type of armor you are wearing. I know, it never says that in the rules. But you know what else it doesn't list? Helmets.
Now, 3.x D&D mentioned helmets in some of the descriptions of armors. I don't know why, but Pathfinder removed that language. And, back in 1st Edition, it was explicitly stated in the DMG that you should wear a helmet.
"It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer." And further, "if a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head." In other words, in 1st Edition, not wearing a helmet in combat was suicidal.
I realize that depictions of heroes, whether in art or our own imaginations, often show no head protection. And sometimes it just plain looks cooler without a helmet. But this is a lot like chain mail bikinis; as much as I adore them, they are ridiculous.
But, to each his own. I would just prefer the game encouraged you to guard your gourd.
-Cheers
Now, 3.x D&D mentioned helmets in some of the descriptions of armors. I don't know why, but Pathfinder removed that language. And, back in 1st Edition, it was explicitly stated in the DMG that you should wear a helmet.
"It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer." And further, "if a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head."
From 3.5's SRD
- Breastplate comes with helmet.- Chain shirt comes with steel cap (curiously chainmail doesn't, unless you consider chainmail to be an upgrade including the parts of chain shirt, steel cap and all).
- half plate also doesn't specify helmet, unless you assume that half plate is a step-up from breastplate and include it in half-plate.
- Banded mail, arguably by the roman lorica segmentata, also doesn't include helmet.
I agree that given bonuses were too high; best head gear should negate whatever feat gives bonus on critical confirmation, and work down from there. Penalty to Perception is also in order. In my games, open-faced helmet is flat 20% fortification, -2 perception checks / full helm = 50% fortification, -5 perception checks. There are no armour fortification otherwise in the game. Freebie. That would probably be too much for general crowd, therefore the suggestion to critical confirmation.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with weapon type for simplicity's sake, but YMMV.
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Good one!
Too many times has the lone player told me "nah, I'm at full health; I'll take my chance against the 12 crossbowmen. 42 points of damage? That's alright, I still have enough to escape by jumping out the 10th floor's window..."
*sigh*
How about, if you catch an opponent when it is flat-footed or denied its Dexterity modifier to AC, you threaten a critical hit (but need to confirm it normally).
That way you can still have Mexican standoffs and the like.
|
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Ooh, good one.
"I ready an action to slit her throat!"
"Okay, roll 1d4 damage."
"..."
How about, if you catch an opponent when it is flat-footed or denied its Dexterity modifier to AC, you threaten a critical hit (but need to confirm it normally).
That way you can still have Mexican standoffs and the like.
Improved invisibility for unlimited crits?
|
|
Better perhaps to tie it into some sort of thing you can only do with a light or one-handed piercing weapon (or loaded crossbow, or a monk's fists of fury) to a person you have in a grapple, since the maneuver in cinema is generally used with a knife (or gun...) to someone that the bad-guy has grabbed and is holding with the other arm.
Sometimes, in TV or movies, the hostage turns the tables on the bad guy.
Use escape artist or start a grapple.
They're also discrete ideas, that could be ruled in
Tell me what this means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrete
They are seperate, unique ideas that could be added to the existing rules, according to EL.
Okay, I was about to rail against "tropes" and the people who cling to them, but Keeper0 saved you all from my rant. "Don't Move or I'll Shoot" is a pretty important one. I actually spend time with each RPG system trying to figure out how to make this one work.
Tropes in and of themselves are not significant. They're useful to writers who are trying to sell their scripts to studios, but not much good for anything else.
Improved invisibility for unlimited crits?How about, if you catch an opponent when it is flat-footed or denied its Dexterity modifier to AC, you threaten a critical hit (but need to confirm it normally).
That way you can still have Mexican standoffs and the like.
Forgot about invisiblity. I originally came up with this rule idea for a d20 Modern/Future Firefly campaign. No Predator invisiblity cloaks.
Yet.
Okay, I was about to rail against "tropes" and the people who cling to them, but Keeper0 saved you all from my rant. "Don't Move or I'll Shoot" is a pretty important one. I actually spend time with each RPG system trying to figure out how to make this one work.
Tropes in and of themselves are not significant. They're useful to writers who are trying to sell their scripts to studios, but not much good for anything else.
Tropes are just named, commonly used pieces of story. They're useful to writers in general to more easily find what's been done and where. And rules writers are still writers. (I don't think studios care one way or another about tropes.)
Don't move or I'll shoot! AKA One false move and the elf gets it.
Think of all the movies where one character holds a blade to another chacter's throat, or where one group is held at gun/arrow point.
Dramatic dialogue & intense pressure ensues.
Good one!
Too many times has the lone player told me "nah, I'm at full health; I'll take my chance against the 12 crossbowmen. 42 points of damage? That's alright, I still have enough to escape by jumping out the 10th floor's window..."
*sigh*
How about, if you catch an opponent when it is flat-footed or denied its Dexterity modifier to AC, you threaten a critical hit (but need to confirm it normally).
That way you can still have Mexican standoffs and the like.
What about:
Readied Coup-de-Grace: As a full-round action you can ready to make a single attack against a single target that is standing still. You must designate the target and the intended attack when you take the action.
If you get to make the attack and the target is within melee range (or, if you're using a bow, gun or crossbow, adjacent), you automatically threaten. In addition, if the target takes damage from the attack it must make a fortitude save (DC10+damage taken) or die.
You cannot do a readied coup-de-grace if threatened, and if you're at any time threatened between when you take the action and when the attack occurs, treat it as a normal attack instead.
Okay, not perfect, and certainly not written in proper legalese, but what do you think of the content? Would it be broken? Useless?
As per the OP request, starting a thread on the "Don't move or I'll shoot" idea.
See you all there.
@ helmets:
Funny how different people come up with the same idea.
I had introduced the "helmets give AC against Criticals" in my Generic Armor Rules too.
I think it's a good concept.
(+AC vs. crit, -x to perception)
-------------
@ Gauntlets:
Why not just let them count as light weapons?
You wear gauntlets? Okay, unarmed strikes don't provoke AoO anymore.
@ Gauntlets:
Why not just let them count as light weapons?
You wear gauntlets? Okay, unarmed strikes don't provoke AoO anymore.
I thought that was already the case.
No, they only do lethal damage but still count as UAS.
(check the weapon table)
Exception are Spiked Gauntlets.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've understood the lack of helmets to be a nod to the art and marketing teams. Back in 1st Edition, Deisel would sometimes draw a party with all the fighters in historically accurate armor. Of course, they all pretty much looked the same, with a pair of eyes peeking out of the salet. The 2nd Edition "helmet" was mostly a cap with mesh hanging down the back, sort of like a metal mullet, sometimes with a nasal.