Grunker Where is the game in that? Just sounds like a group of people meeting to act for the sake of acting.
Sounds a lot like a game with few but clear rules (goals are rules, too) to me.But anyways the game is in who walks away with the best position. I was unable to secure the backing of the key boss (my former ally), so I ended up being exposed (I killed Anastasia) and taking a bullet for it. Though in that gamble to take over my part of the business that key boss also lost, because the three other players had secretly formed an alliance to take him down once my backing was lost to him. Their schemes won the day.Grunker Where is the game in that? Just sounds like a group of people meeting to act for the sake of acting.
I don't know, man.What difference does it make what you call it?
(goals are rules, too)
We are supposed to be talking about why to use additional combat rules if you can just say what you are doing and the GM arbitrarily hands you some bonus.
4E did have rules for making up combat effects for "Improvised Actions" in the DMGBut the idea "if it's not in the rules you can't do it," is not and has not been a part of any tabletop system pretty much since forever (except maybe 4th Edition D&D, though it's adherents may disagree).
In regards to the original question, special moves like trip, disarm, feint, etc, are only useful if:
1. They also deal the same damage as a normal attack
2. They make an enemy vulnerable to follow-up damage (a rogue feinting gives up 1d6 weapon damage in order to add 10d6 sneak attack damage)
3. The special move is decisive in some way (instantly defeats the enemy, such as pushing them off a cliff)
What about the case that you know you cannot kill the enemy in one go and you know that whatever he does the next turn(s) will be extremely harmful. In such a case, anything from stunning to disarming to grabbing to dazing to (well... whatever the system offers) is vastly preferable over just doing damage.
Situations like that are for the GM to create. With a good system, the GM has all the tools to create more interesting situations every now and then.
I once had a player in a 3E game who wanted to play a Fighter based around sundering opponent's weapons. He took all the sunder-related feats, his weapon was a great hammer, and he even worked out a homebrew prestige class which gave him even more sundering abilities. I thought it was a cool idea, so I let him do it. I even put in specific monsters and challenges that would allow him to showcase his sunder skill, such as animated armor enemies who were very resistant to all damage, but would die if their swords were broken.
Guess what happened? Over the course of an entire campaign, from levels 1-20, over a year of playing with dozens of sessions, he never made a sunder attempt once. Not one single time. His reasoning was obvious: "Don't want to destroy potential loot." I even warned him that he may be breaking valuable items when he made the character; he said it was an interesting trade-off. But when actual battle was drawn and he needed to choose tactics, just bashing the enemies was always preferable to sundering. Go figure.
It is a possibility. In DSA/RoA mages are more of a support class than anything else.Not only do these need to go, but AOE spells should be banned.
Curious, this is how most DnD discussions end. "Well, that sucks. But is MUCH better in this system, and this, and this..."
Well, split shield works well enough in some situations in Battle Brothers. I also remember disarm working in some wizardry clones i think... can't remember the exact title now. In TOME4 some of special attacks are useful (but they also usually do damage at the same time so that's makes it easier to make them useful).people who want trip, sunder, grapple, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun, feint, aid another, or anything I can't remember right off-hand
Someone actually uses this crap?
There are only two kinds of attacks: those that hit more often but deal less damage, and those that hit less often but deal more damage. Anything else is just a pointless bloat only useful to fill out the USP bullet lists. Grapple and feint, oh my god.
AD&D (3.5th)
His reasoning was obvious: "Don't want to destroy potential loot."
play a Fighter based around sundering opponent's weapons.
In Pnp? it kind of is, goes against the spirit of the game. The rules are there to give context to your actions, not to dictate them. The more the rules constrain your actions, the more gamey it feels.And that in a game! Unacceptable!
The same as virtually every other being in the entire world, meaning, i dont think anything of it, at all. Not even when brought up. If you like tables, knock yourself out.I wonder what you think about Rolemaster
Not really, its just the DM doing its job. If the base system is fun, then thats all that matters.Of course a GM may at any time adjust rules, grant bonuses, introduce new checks, etc. if it fits (in his mind).
It's just that if that happens all the time, a wrong system was picked.
Or just pick the system you think channels the most positive gaming experience and make up for whatever isnt written. Rules are like big metal bars, you need a few to keep the building standing straight, but the more you have, the more it starts to feel like a prison.So if you want special actions during combat, pick a system that has special actions during combat.
Because im not vying for an extreme, i look the sweet spot between larping and rule lawyering hell. AD&D hits that spot.Again, if you want to eliminate the need to roll the dice, don't use a rule system.
It does when said rules are toxic, and when most people pick the system because they believe rule complexity or playing the latest system = fun.You have to pick a system that everyone in the group is comfortable with. Doesn't matter if that means a shitload of rules or barely any rules.
There is no perfect system. So you adjust your expectations to reality and play the system which offers the best experience for what you are trying to do.But picking some and then trying to "avoid" it sounds more than just a little absurd. Should've just used another system instead.
Yeah, and there are DMs that play your character for you. Whats your point? that extremes are bad?I've been playing with GMs that are complete rule nazis (which is absurd and just disrupts the flow of the game, especially in fringe cases) and GMs that try to avoid rolling dice and stats wherever they can (which just makes the players unhappy who want to play by the rules, as they either feel like they are cheating or feel like they have been cheated).
You are just a spineless twit that rather hide behind a book than promote a good roleplaying environment.Personally, I don't like giving bonuses for "good roleplaying" other than maybe some more XP at the end of the day. It's just too arbitrary. That's what rules are for - to prevent such arbitrariness.
We are codexers, that is literally all we do. That and trying to define RPGs.Well, thank the stars for having Lhynn tell us what fun is
Also Grampy_Bone DnD isnt just about loot. Almost every campaign i played or have seen anyone wanting to DM has been low fantasy/low magic, and 3E wasnt made with low magic in mind. Half the classes fall horribly behind in a system with little magical items, the other half can literally take over the world with level 1 spells. And yet people still Dmed and played those, which tells me something about your proposition isnt right.
My theory is that the normalization of magical items isnt desirable. First because it takes the magic out of magical items, second because it kills a big part of the lure of exploration.
And thats what i believe, D&D became about exploration first the moment exploration became a thing. Loot was certainly an incentive, but it was about the adventure, with loot becoming a tool to further it. A magical sword is only cool if you got it through exploration and it has a reason to be. If you got it at a discount in the item shop and its just there to bloat your inventory it has no value.