This is the rule corner of this board. This is a place where you make rule questions and expect rule answers.
|
To make cinematic scenes is necessary focus to the description of what happens, and not just say que you took 11 damage for example.
SOMETIMES a few extra effects like throwing players in the air by the big impact (explosions, gargantuan creatures attacks, storms, etc).
No makes sense the affected characters stay where they were after the devastating attack.This is cinematic combat guys, is simple and because of the immersion the player may rather want to climb into a dragon or make other uncommon manouver.
Cinematic combat is still all left up to the imagination of the players and DM invovled. Any modifiers or effects from from coming up with a grand display of how you're doing whatever it is your doing.. is entirely GM Fiat, and has nothing to do with the actual rules.
I've had players jump onto, and off of bar counters.. running jumps attacks, I recently had a Brawler charge a Tatzlwyrm from horseback, and jump off it to land a flying grapple.
Any bonuses or penalties given to those were entirely made up by me on the fly, based off of altered combat rules.
You're wanting to argue your merit for what would be a houserule on a RAW messageboard.
You exaggerate, I said that these effects are SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES (read as exceptions to the climax of the adventure).
Never should wear it all the time, the focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.|
|
Then you describe the scene well, and stick to the rules.
This works, and many groups have fun doing it.
None of this bland, stone faced combat, lacking any description, resembling a group of bored folks playing a board game, that you say is the only alternative.
You are so stuck on your superior gaming style, that it borders on willful self delusion.
DM - Roll your first attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.
Could you describe for me how you do the sequence above?
|
|
The cinematic visual fluff in a fight, which i'm sure a lot of GMs might excitedly describe (I know i do) has absolutely nothing to do with the rules regarding how to jump/climb/vault onto, stay on, and attack(be it sneak or regular) a dragon.DM - Roll your first attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.
The question is this: the more descriptive you are more the players feel encouraged to do different things that often do not have in the rules.
This is called immersion.
The question is this: the more descriptive you are more the players feel encouraged to do different things that often do not have in the rules.This is called immersion.
You don't have to bend the rules to keep immersion. You can be as descriptive as you want to be, while still making your players roll the appropriate rolls.
In this case.. Jump onto a dragon = Acrobatics check... Not Falling = Grapple check.
How descriptive you want to be has no bearing on what the rules say.
*edit - What ninja BBT said.. :)
|
|
Could you describe for me how you do the sequence above?DM - Roll your first attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.
DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.
P1 - Ok, I attack.DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?
|
|
You are still ignoring what is being said.
We know dang well what immersion is.
No one, is saying to not describe a scene.
You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.
Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.
For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.Others DMs do whatever want.
DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.
P1 - Ok, I attack.
DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?
I couldn't help but notice you didn't have them roll to hit ;p
Still, that omission aside what you described is about what 90% of seasoned veterans do, and notice it has nothing to do about the rules. The rules say roll to hit and roll damage, how you describe it is up to you.
I do things a bit differently than you however, I have them roll all attacks and damage first, and then I dive into the description of the attack sequence. It saves precious time that way.
You came on a rules forum, and, to paraphrase, proceeded to say people who follow the rules are bad DM's. Expect the reaction you got from people.
|
|
DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.
P1 - Ok, I attack.
DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?I couldn't help but notice you didn't have them roll to hit ;p
Read again my friend, the rolls are there.
You are still ignoring what is being said.
We know dang well what immersion is.
No one, is saying to not describe a scene.
You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.
Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.
For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.Others DMs do whatever want.
Except now you're adding effects to fireball that are not in the rules. To explain what you feel is an explosion worthy of pushing people back.
I wont even get into the fact that fireball specifically states that the explosion creates almost no pressure, invalidating the explosive pushback.
What you need to do is describe the effect for what it is, not create additional effects for cinematic purposes. Make the description fit the rule, not the rule fit the description.
|
|
DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.
P1 - Ok, I attack.
DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?I couldn't help but notice you didn't have them roll to hit ;p
Still, that omission aside what you described is about what 90% of seasoned veterans do, and notice it has nothing to do about the rules. The rules say roll to hit and roll damage, how you describe it is up to you.
I do things a bit differently than you however, I have them roll all attacks and damage first, and then I dive into the description of the attack sequence. It saves precious time that way.
You came on a rules forum, and, to paraphrase, proceeded to say people who follow the rules are bad DM's. Expect the reaction you got from people.
This whole discussion began when some said climb on top as the Dragon is on the cover of the book is absurd, was entered when the concept of description and immersion contradicting robotic game of who sniffed to maneuver against the Dragon.
|
|
Well, if only one day, we can all climb to the top of this majestic high horse of gamemastery you elegantly ride upon.
I mean, what have any of us been doing with our lives, having such a foolish peasant's version of "fun".
Slithering through the muck of "rules", we are incapable of anything but short gurgling statements. Descriptive words, and phrases are impossible in this sludge.
Will we ever be truly immersed in the story, or are we only to be immersed in our own filth, of "rules".
My good man, you have shown us that there is hope, and you are it.
May we never have the wrong kind of fun.
We know now, your grand style of fun, is the right kind of fun, even if it is not fun for us.
Thank you.
|
|
You are still ignoring what is being said.
We know dang well what immersion is.
No one, is saying to not describe a scene.
You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.
Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.
For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.Others DMs do whatever want.
Except now you're adding effects to fireball that are not in the rules. To explain what you feel is an explosion worthy of pushing people back.
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;> rules
Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.
I like it. This may be what the OP is looking for.. a nice house rule for that kind of situation.
|
|
You are still ignoring what is being said.
We know dang well what immersion is.
No one, is saying to not describe a scene.
You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.
Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.
For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.Others DMs do whatever want.
Except now you're adding effects to fireball that are not in the rules. To explain what you feel is an explosion worthy of pushing people back.
I wont even get into the fact that fireball specifically states that the explosion creates almost no pressure, invalidating the explosive pushback.
What you need to do is describe the effect for what it is, not create additional effects for cinematic purposes. Make the description fit the rule, not the rule fit the description.
This is your mistake, u are thinking in a fireball spell, I already had in mind a fireball thrown by a catapult attacking a castle.
Made of explosive material.
Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.I like it. This may be what the OP is looking for.. a nice house rule for that kind of situation.
It also works for goblins/kobolds/etc crawling on PCs. Good fun.
|
|
Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.
Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.
It's simple and solid rule.|
|
Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.
It's simple and solid rule.
Really? I was sure you were above such things as "rules".
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.
but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)
---
Me, I personally see no reason to change perfectly good rules to fit some imagined narrative of how I think it should work, when it tells me right in the spell exactly how it works. When I describe a fireball, I describe it more like Napalm blast than an explosive Bomb. It fits the rules and still provides plenty of cinematic description to the game.
Really? I was sure you were above such things as "rules".Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.
It's simple and solid rule.
Walk away Blood, you're both trolling.
Peace out, fellahs!
|
|
Really? I was sure you were above such things as "rules".Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.
It's simple and solid rule.
Use almost 98% of the rules, if I modify the system in mecanics or feats i can throw all bestiaries by the window because will be unbalanced.
|
|
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.
but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)
I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.
If the DM does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.
but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)
I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.
If the master does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.
You seem to be under the impression that people who follow the rules can not have immersion. This is patently false.
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that people who follow the rules can not have immersion. This is patently false.
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.
but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)
I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.
If the master does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.
Typically, those who can not get soaking after playing sometimes do not play anymore.
I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.
I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.
The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that people who follow the rules can not have immersion. This is patently false.
Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.
but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)
I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.
If the master does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.
I said the same thing. His stance seems to be willfully ignorant of such a possibility.
|
|
I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.
I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.
The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.
That's what I like, that kind of scene that the rules do not provide.
And I just mute some details for the sake of plot, this is very important.
I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.
I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.
The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.
That's what I like, that kind of scene that the rules do not provide.
And I just mute some details for the sake of plot, this is very important.
Except, the rules do provide for the scene. I gave them to you right there.
I'm going to bow out of this thread. I'm getting the impression that you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you so that you can continue to insinuate that people who follow the rules are bad GM's.
Whether this is on purpose or not, I'll never know. But I get the impression that english is not your main language, so it could just be mis-communication.
Again you are free to change the rules how you see fit. That is GM's prerogative. It doesn't make you any better or worse a GM than anyone else.
Good day, Sir.
|
|
I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.
I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.
The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.
That's what I like, that kind of scene that the rules do not provide.
And I just mute some details for the sake of plot, this is very important.
Except, the rules do provide for the scene. I gave them to you right there.
I'm going to bow out of this thread. I'm getting the impression that you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you so that you can continue to insinuate that people who follow the rules are bad GM's.
Whether this is on purpose or not, I'll never know. But I get the impression that english is not your main language, so it could just be mis-communication.
Again you are free to change the rules how you see fit. That is GM's prerogative. It doesn't make you any better or worse a GM than anyone else.
Good day, Sir.
Correct, I speak Spanish and Portuguese, sorry if my english is intermediate.
Uma boa tarde pra você rapaz. xD
A Bad GM is someone who focuses only on story telling and ignores most of the rules.
A Bad GM is someone who focuses on the rules and ignores the storytelling.
A good GM does both the rules (the crunch) and the storytelling(the fluff). Balancing the crunch and fluff is never easy. The rules are there for a reason and changing them is something to be taken with care. It's important that when you break a rule to first understand why that rule is there.
|
|
I have a special rule for asymmetric size in grapples called "Cling". It's in my account lists somewhere. I can't link to it, I'm on my phone.
It's a happy medium between rules and awesome.
I treat like the Attach Monster Rule, except for that the size modifiers for CMD/CMB are inverted.
Its a my condiment.
Ketchup or mustard?
Oh or pickle relish?Mayonnaise (unless its miracle whip.... ewwww)
Or my favorite honey mustard.... or barbeque sauce
Eww I hate pepper salt only
|
Cristiano, with the direction you're taking - willing to ignore some rules for the sake of cool - the easiest way to deal with this is to either just let the player do it when they think of it, or have them make an Acrobatics check to balance (in terms of "the Legolas maneuver").
That's part of the rules too, keeps it simple, and does what you want - even though it's not technically correct and what Legolas does might not even be considered very realistic.