PDA

View Full Version : [3.51] The Strangest Update Package



Doc Roc
2009-07-08, 03:36 PM
So I'm working on my own update package for 3.5, but in a totally different direction. My primary goal is to clean up and codify existing rules, lay into place the traditional rationality rulings, and create a bed-rock SRD in wiki format which offers a fully playable experience out of the box.

Target tasks include:
Action Timings
Grapple ::gulp::
Prestige Class qualification
Refurbishment of the LoS\LoE rules
Repair of Item Exploits
Return of stacking rules to elegant base cases.

This will attempt to be the definitive rendition of the game engine itself, rather than the definite fix for this or that class that no one can agree is actually bad. I will eventually offer such fixes, but they are NOT a priority. You are invited to offer suggestions, existing material, or just caper around.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-08, 03:41 PM
AMF and a couple of the other ill-defined spells need to be fixed, and so do those with no rational reason to exist(Astral Projection, Contingency).

Are you going for making the rules work or eliminating exploits?

Doc Roc
2009-07-08, 03:45 PM
Rules first. Exploits are well-known, and generally well-handled by individual GMs.
I'll be focusing on increasing the clarity of the rules themselves, which should have trickle-down benefits across the board. AMF does need work, certainly, as do dead magic zones. Those things, though, tend to be a matter of personal preference on a table-by-table basis, so I'm reluctant to get involved.

What I fundamentally want to do is provide a unique service, that of a simple, elegant, and clear articulation of the actual D20 Game Engine. Unlike True20, this will be CC\OGL licensed, and will follow a policy of minimal arrogance and minimal changes.

Ideally, backwards compatibility will be a total non-issue. The goal is to provide a underlying kit that can completely replace the rules compendium, transparently. Players should never feel like they aren't playing the same game.

Random832
2009-07-08, 04:04 PM
So I'm working on my own update package for 3.5, but in a totally different direction. My primary goal is to clean up and codify existing rules, lay into place the traditional rationality rulings, and create a bed-rock SRD in wiki format which offers a fully playable experience out of the box.

Note that the SRD itself doesn't attempt to offer a "fully playable experience" - most people know character creation and XP per level by heart, but not so much on the more complicated stuff like XP awards or arbitrary stuff like Wealth By Level.

Doc Roc
2009-07-08, 04:18 PM
And those are both badly broken. They're some of the things on my personal chopping block.

Eldariel
2009-07-08, 06:25 PM
I fully endorse this. While at it, you may want to clarify actions available in Grapple, what constitutes an attack action and which replacements for plain attacks are available with any given circumstances. Oh, and drowning. So much drowning. Readied actions are also a bit weird (right now, you can ready a move action to being attacked each turn, allowing you to elude a melee opponent only able to attack and move once per turn indefinitely).

I also sign all the problems brought up thus far. Spot & Listen DCs vs. opponents not hiding but under some other effects that make them harder to detect (flight as far as listening goes, invisiblity for spot, etc.) also need some clarification, as do the actions needed to Hide (or rather the fact that it's usually subsumed as a move action) and when exactly you are hiding and what happens when whatever you used to hide initially ceases to exist.

Especially as far as Hide in Plain Sight is concerned; detecting a HiPSing character and what exactly are the consequences of it (and whether a single character spotting a HiPSing character can somehow help others notice the HiPSer). Also, what exactly constitutes a "natural terrain" (with regards to Ex HiPS), and for that matter, touching ground and such could use definition too.


Also, ironically enough, I think the rules for starting encounters could use some clarification. Also, the rules for chasing someone with equal speed (opposed Dex-checks for a short period of time, followed by Constitution for longer runs) are completely non-sensible given that Dex has no bearing on speed in this game. Eh, I think you have your work cut out for you here.

Also, I trust you are aware of this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2096.0)?

Draz74
2009-07-08, 07:20 PM
Also the debate about detection spells (e.g. Detect Magic, Arcane Sight) vs. mundane Hiding. The last debate on that got interrupted by a 3-day server-downtime, and I was too busy to revive it ... but the rules certainly didn't provide an easy and unanimous verdict.

In general, you probably want to ask Lord Sylvanos for ideas about ambiguous rules that he's run into.

SurlySeraph
2009-07-08, 07:25 PM
I don't know how other groups do on this, but I've had enough discussions of how things other than simple bonuses stack (i.e. fast healing, damage reduction of the same type from different sources, etc.) that I think those need to be clarified.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-08, 07:38 PM
One word:

Grapple.

Clarify/fix this.

Doc Roc
2009-07-08, 07:38 PM
Also the debate about detection spells (e.g. Detect Magic, Arcane Sight) vs. mundane Hiding. The last debate on that got interrupted by a 3-day server-downtime, and I was too busy to revive it ... but the rules certainly didn't provide an easy and unanimous verdict.

In general, you probably want to ask Lord Sylvanos for ideas about ambiguous rules that he's run into.

They have no meaningful effect by RAW except perhaps allowing you a spot check when you'd otherwise not get one. They're still a vision-augment, so you still need to be able to see what you're scanning.

Eld, is that the one that Tshern is working on? If so, I've been talking to him about it. This project is intended to basically run underneath existing fixes transparently.

Drowning, by the way, is terrible! Have you seen the Drowned monster? It's basically deadly no matter what. Terribly balanced.


I'd love to fix grapple, but oh god where would you even start? I think it might need to be ripped out and rebuilt from the ground up to run in some elegant and transparent fashion. Grappling, in my mind, should be no more complicated than counterspelling, but I'm unsure of how to achieve this.

Tehnar
2009-07-08, 08:03 PM
Hmm I'm not seeing what a big deal about grappling is. I think the most basic concept of grappling is pretty solid.

1. Make a touch attack.
2. Make a opposed grapple check. If you win you are now grappling and step into opponents square (provoking as normal from others). Deal unarmed damage.
3. While grappling you have the following options:
a) deal more unarmed damage = win opposed grapple check
b) move grappled creature half your speed = win opposed grapple check
c) escape the grapple = win opposed grapple check
d) attack using natural or light weapons with a -4 penalty
e) pin a opponent = win opposed grapple check
f) and several others I cant remember of the top of my head.

For me it works fine, and don't really see why people think is so messy. The few gray areas I have is:
- if a monster with improved grab hits you with his normal attack, wins opposed grapple check does he now deal additional unarmed damage? (I rule no)

Gralamin
2009-07-08, 08:08 PM
You forgot the AoO that can immediately end the grapple, You cannot hold something 2 or more size categories larger then you (So a Fighter cannot manage to grapple a dragon.), You must move into their space, And you do not have Dex bonus to AC, Do not threaten... etc.

ericgrau
2009-07-08, 08:11 PM
I did something similar when I made my cheat sheets (sig). I tried to make the wording as clear as possible yet brief, sometimes based on FAQ explanations. I also made sure you never needed to know a rule from somewhere else. For example every time you provoke an attack of opportunity it says so in each and every individual action. Yeah, all of grappling is in there too. However, I only included rules that come up during game play. Leveling up / class stuff and dungeon / adventure creation aren't in there.

Tukka
2009-07-08, 08:24 PM
if a monster with improved grab hits you with his normal attack, wins opposed grapple check does he now deal additional unarmed damage? (I rule no)
I believe that is the correct ruling.


SRD, Improved Grab entry. Emphasis mine.

A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
I think the rules for grappling are fairly clearly explained ... it's just that there's a lot to remember. If you've got a member of the party who often uses grapple checks, it's not a problem, IMO, because you become familiar with the rules quickly enough. However, if a grapple only comes up once every 10 or 15 encounters, then everyone groans when it does come up, because nobody remembers the rules exactly and you have to spend a few minutes looking them up.

Thinker
2009-07-08, 08:26 PM
I recommend having some sort of Special Attack Bonus (SAB) equal to your BAB + [Str or Dex] + Special Size Modifier + Stability Modifier. The SAB would be used for Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Sunder, and any other Special Maneuvers (SM) you'd like to add.

To initiate any SM you must first make a melee touch attack that provokes attacks of opportunity. The attacker and the defender each roll their SAB's and compare the results. If the attacker wins, his SM is successful; if the defender wins, the SM fails. Sorry about formatting, I forget how to do tables on here.

Results of various SMs:

Trip - The opponent becomes prone*.
Disarm - The opponent's weapon falls to an adjacent square.
Sunder - The attacker rolls damage and deals that damage to the weapon/armor/item; recommend broken items be able to be repaired.
Grapple - The opponent becomes grappled* and the attacker becomes grappler*

*Condition

Conditions:

Prone - The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. A prone character may only move 5-ft per round, which provokes an attack of opportunity. Standing up is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Grappled - The character has been grabbed by an opponent. A grappled character is flat-footed by anyone not grabbing him. A grappled character takes a -4 penalty to melee attack and may not use ranged attacks. Grappled characters cannot move. To break a grapple, the grappled character must make his own SM against his grappler, but needs not make the normal touch attack.
Grappler - The character has grabbed an opponent. As a standard action he may do any of the following with a successful SAB against his opponent:

-Move self and opponent up to max speed.

-Deal unarmed damage to the opponent.

- etc.


Sorry for the long post, I got a little carried away. Hope you find some good ideas in the rambling.

Tehnar
2009-07-08, 08:42 PM
You forgot the AoO that can immediately end the grapple, You cannot hold something 2 or more size categories larger then you (So a Fighter cannot manage to grapple a dragon.), You must move into their space, And you do not have Dex bonus to AC, Do not threaten... etc.

Yeah there is a lot of stuff in there, but most of it is pretty logical. Then again we use grapple fairly often, and know lots of the rules by heart. And having the rules compendium helps (or at least the printout of the WoTC online articles about this and that).



Actually what always stumped me is can you make trip attacks if you have the improved trip feat, but are wielding a longsword and heavy shield or a greatsword.

9mm
2009-07-08, 08:47 PM
y'know, I'll never understand the complaints about grapple rules; but maybe that's because I love playing grapplers so much that I'm just used to them. So here's my attempt to clarify them (while making a few changes of my onwn):

The Grapple; Grappling is the pefered method of combat of brawlers, wrestlers, and anyone who loves fighting within their oppenet's personal space. It has many benifits and risks for all inloved, opening new options for the aggressor, while limiting the options of the defender, however, maintaining that advatage is far harder than it sounds.

Starting the Grapple: this repersents the Agrressor clinching up, attempting to bearhug, or generally grab on and hold the defender.
1st: attack of opportunity, closing in to grapple is an extremely dangerous enterprise, see any numerous knockouts in the UFC of countered shoots.
2nd: Touch attack, few defenders would want to grapple and will actively avoid the aggressors grasp.
3rd: Control Check: The agressor, having caught his quarry now must wrestle to control it, the defender however just wants to get away (usually). both partisipants make a Control check (opposed streath+size), if the Agressor wins, the grapple is established and maintained. If the Defender wins he has two options, either throw the agressor off him, ending the grapple attempt, or become the NEW aggressor and automaticly essablish a grapple. the defender recieves these options WHENEVER he wins a control check unless otherwise noted.

Consequences of grappling: this applies to both Aggressor and defender,
No threaten squares
No dexterity bonus against those out side the grapple
No Normal movement.

Actions in a grapple:
As the AGGRESSOR:
Deal damage equal to your unarmed damage (attack action): bear hugging/yanking body parts in directions they weren't meant to.

Pin your oppennet(standard action): you muscle/trip them to the ground and keep them there, this requires a control check, if you win, the defender is pinned.

Activate a magic item(standard): any item that requires a physical motion to activate or needs to touch its target requires a control check.

Cast a spell(standard or faster): if a somantic coponent is needed, Control check.

draw item or light weapon(move): control check. (exemption: those with quick draw can grab the item fast enough that they won't risk losing control)

Attack with a light weapon(attack): -4 penelty to attack rolls. if useing two weapons, a control check is requied for off hand weapon attacks.

Use oppenents weapon (standard): control check; -4 penelty to the attack roll.

take something from defender(standard): Control Check, must be able to fit in one hand, anything bigger will require a -4 on the check and an end to the grapple if successful.

End grapple(free)

Throw down defender(attacker): Control Check, move defender into free ajacent square, and prone. This ends the grapple

Agressively move defender(standard): Control Check, Use result as bull-rush Agressor must move with defender.

defender options to come

Doc Roc
2009-07-08, 08:47 PM
Trust me when I say that getting a sharp object in the leg can make you fall over. Right now, I'm not committing to changes regarding grappling, because I'm not sure where I'd go with it precisely. That said, the ideas so far look pretty much sterling, and will be really useful to me.



SAB is not a new concept, but I'm not sure how to make it elegant.
I really like the systematic qualification of each action type re: grappling.
I'd like to make the grapple rules fairly modular, so that new fixes can be layered easily on top because it's clear that I won't be able to satisfy everyone.



:(

9mm
2009-07-08, 09:03 PM
Defender Actions:
Fight for Control(attack) : Control Check.

Any Aggressor Action: while not in control, the defender is not defenseless and can attempt any agressor action with a -8 penelty.

Pinning:

When Pinned the Defender is held immoble, and the Agressor can prevent the defender from speaking. the defender also takes a -4 to ac to anyone other than the agressor. The Agressor may take any grapple actions except, "pin", "move", and "throw." The defender can ONLY fight for control as a standard action, except he cannot escape from the grapple on a success, instead she is no longer pinned and now the aggressor.

multiple grapplers: to enter a grappler requires a sucessful touch attack against either the defender or agressor. If you attack the Defender, you become a Second Agressor, and impose an additional -4 penelty to ALL defenders actions. if you attack the Agressor you becom a second Defender and grant a +4 to all defender actions, if the EITHER defender passes a control check, both can become new agressors.

9mm
2009-07-08, 09:07 PM
Trust me when I say that getting a sharp object in the leg can make you fall over. Right now, I'm not committing to changes regarding grappling, because I'm not sure where I'd go with it precisely. That said, the ideas so far look pretty much sterling, and will be really useful to me.



SAB is not a new concept, but I'm not sure how to make it elegant.
I really like the systematic qualification of each action type re: grappling.
I'd like to make the grapple rules fairly modular, so that new fixes can be layered easily on top because it's clear that I won't be able to satisfy everyone.



:(

take it from a guy who's trained in ju-jitsu; there is no easy fix or simple way to repersent this, and its like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLdp9YtqO9Q). this is why I suggest the "agressor"/"defender" idea, so that not only is grappling more fluid, but can give dm's an idea how to treat actions people may want to take but aren't in the rules.

Eldariel
2009-07-08, 09:10 PM
Eld, is that the one that Tshern is working on? If so, I've been talking to him about it. This project is intended to basically run underneath existing fixes transparently.

I don't know how great Tshern's involvement in that particular project is, but there are some fundamental mechanical clarifications/changes there that might bear checking out.


Drowning, by the way, is terrible! Have you seen the Drowned monster? It's basically deadly no matter what. Terribly balanced.

Stating what stops drowning would be nice. Oh, and that it'd have nothing to do with HP.


I'd love to fix grapple, but oh god where would you even start? I think it might need to be ripped out and rebuilt from the ground up to run in some elegant and transparent fashion. Grappling, in my mind, should be no more complicated than counterspelling, but I'm unsure of how to achieve this.

You could start by fixing it as-is; all it takes is making the possible action-lists more complete (or rather, make a barred-actions list, which seems more sensible). A complete rewrite seems like too much hassle.

Myrmex
2009-07-08, 09:11 PM
I like the rules here, or at least what they tried to do:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=681572

I think that there is one thing that everyone wants to try to do when they first start playing, but soon realize they can't do it because the rules don't let them:

Climb onto a bigger creatures back and heroically stab them.

Thinker
2009-07-08, 09:17 PM
Trust me when I say that getting a sharp object in the leg can make you fall over. Right now, I'm not committing to changes regarding grappling, because I'm not sure where I'd go with it precisely. That said, the ideas so far look pretty much sterling, and will be really useful to me.



SAB is not a new concept, but I'm not sure how to make it elegant.
I really like the systematic qualification of each action type re: grappling.
I'd like to make the grapple rules fairly modular, so that new fixes can be layered easily on top because it's clear that I won't be able to satisfy everyone.



:(
I'm well aware that SAB is not a new concept. It is more elegant than the current representation of special maneuvers.

I'm partial to having conditions to replace things in the rules. You could even make a pdf of index-sized cards, each one with a single condition to make them easier to reference on the game table.

If you want realism, you won't get a simple rules-fix for grapple. If you want streamlined, elegant rules, you will have to sacrifice something.

Je dit Viola
2009-07-08, 09:27 PM
...

I think that there is one thing that everyone wants to try to do when they first start playing, but soon realize they can't do it because the rules don't let them:

Climb onto a bigger creatures back and heroically stab them.

I think that a climb check or something could work, if there were a couple rules here and there...

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-08, 09:34 PM
How about this:

Want to increase the power of the Fighter? Make combat options feats. Because let me tell you, if you don't know how, you aren't going to be able to grapple ANYONE with a weapon. You're gonna get skewered. Allow these feats as bonus feats for Monk.

If you don't have the feat, you CAN NOT use any of the combat options, which are considered to be an attack option, and can be used as an attack in a Full Attack option.

Trip: Makes opponent Prone
Throw: Makes opponent Prone in a different square
Disarm: removes weapon from opponent's grip. Additional feat to equip it as a free action and be able to use it against him in that same attack phase, if you have enough iterative attacks left?

Grapple: Why? Seriously, it is almost never a good idea to grapple an opponent. It makes you easier to hit from anyone else, and ties you up with your opponent, even if you're on top.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-08, 09:37 PM
You should still have the option to do a maneuver, although anyone not trained or experienced in combat wouldn't be able to succeed, and might even get themselves killed.

Myrmex
2009-07-08, 09:41 PM
How about this:

Want to increase the power of the Fighter? Make combat options feats. Because let me tell you, if you don't know how, you aren't going to be able to grapple ANYONE with a weapon. You're gonna get skewered. Allow these feats as bonus feats for Monk.

If you don't have the feat, you CAN NOT use any of the combat options, which are considered to be an attack option, and can be used as an attack in a Full Attack option.

Trip: Makes opponent Prone
Throw: Makes opponent Prone in a different square
Disarm: removes weapon from opponent's grip. Additional feat to equip it as a free action and be able to use it against him in that same attack phase, if you have enough iterative attacks left?

Grapple: Why? Seriously, it is almost never a good idea to grapple an opponent. It makes you easier to hit from anyone else, and ties you up with your opponent, even if you're on top.

I don't like any of these ideas. Why can't I try to trip someone? I'm pretty sure I'm only a 1 or 2 HD expert, but I've tripped people before. I've also punched them in the face. Do I need feats to do that?

rogueboy
2009-07-08, 11:08 PM
Especially as far as Hide in Plain Sight is concerned; detecting a HiPSing character and what exactly are the consequences of it (and whether a single character spotting a HiPSing character can somehow help others notice the HiPSer). Also, what exactly constitutes a "natural terrain" (with regards to Ex HiPS), and for that matter, touching ground and such could use definition too.

I assume you're referring to the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability? For reference, here's the text from the PHB, for anyone who doesn't want to go looking it up:

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed.
First off, I will agree that "natural terrain" is poorly defined, and appears to be left up to GM interpretation. However, I don't see the difficulties in understanding HiPS once you've dealt with that issue. All it does is remove the restriction on the Hide skill that you cannot hide while under direct observation. In other words, you don't need the benefit of cover or concealment to make the hide check - all other restrictions and rules apply as normal. If your Spot check beats the Hide check, you can see them, with or without HiPS. I remember seeing something about pointing out something hidden, but I can't find it in either Spot or Hide, so I'm not sure where it was. But it would apply the same if the target had HiPS or not. Hope that helps, or at least makes sense :smalltongue:

erikun
2009-07-08, 11:30 PM
The first thing I'd like to see cleaned up is the combat. There are a lot of maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, etc.) which are completely worthless without a half-dozen feats and a specific weapon. The problem is that 3.5e assumes you should get something for spending all those feats... thus stuff like the chaintripper, who can dominate everything on two legs within a 15' area.

My first recommendation is to clean up Bull Rush, Disarm, Feint, Grapple, Sunder, and Trip so that they are practical (if not always useful) in combat. If the feats remain, simply modify them into providing bonuses to these actions.

4e can help with inspiration making combat maneuvers useable.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-08, 11:48 PM
One minor Spot issue: The retry action. If you fail a spot check, it's a move action to try to spot it again. That means that if you spot the ogre 200' out, you have no idea what equipment he has when he's bashing your face in from 5' away unless you spend a move action. Not good for realism or for balance IMHO.

Frosty
2009-07-08, 11:51 PM
THis sounds like the CMB idea from Pathfinder.

erikun
2009-07-08, 11:56 PM
Here's a few fixes I whipped up. They could use some review before you include them, though. (They also assume all the same feats exist, which may not be the case.)


Sunder:
Make an attack roll with your weapon against the target. AC = 10 + defender's dex + size + magic modifiers. Success indicates dealing half damage to the target. (It is hard to properly whack a moving target.)

Improved Sunder = You gain a +4 bonus on the attack roll, and deal full damage.

Improved Sunder + Cleave = If you destroy the target, you may make a followup attack against the defender.


Trip:
Make a basic attack roll against your opponent. (BAB + Str + size modifiers) If this hits the opponent's touch AC, they must roll a Reflex save to avoid falling prone. Save DC is equal to your attack roll.

Weapon Finesse = You may use Dex rather than Str for your attack roll.

Improved Trip = You gain a +4 bonus to the roll, and may use a weapon designed for tripping in the attack. All modifiers for the weapon apply to the roll.

Weapon Finesse + Improved Trip = You may only use Dex for your attack roll if Weapon Finesse applies to the weapon you are using.


Feint:
Feinting is a move action.


Grapple:
Make a basic attack roll against your opponent. (BAB + Str + size modifiers) If this hit the oppnent's touch AC, you are grappling them. Your opponent is allowed an AoO when you attempt to grapple.
- A stardard attack will deal damage, but not prevent the grapple.
- Succeeding in an opposed Grapple check will prevent the grapple.

You may use either Str or Dex when trying to escape from a grapple, along with Escape Artist.

Improved Grapple = You gain a +4 bonus to all Grapple checks. Your attempts at grappling still provoke AoOs, though.

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 12:17 AM
The first thing I'd like to see cleaned up is the combat. There are a lot of maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, etc.) which are completely worthless without a half-dozen feats and a specific weapon. The problem is that 3.5e assumes you should get something for spending all those feats... thus stuff like the chaintripper, who can dominate everything on two legs within a 15' area.

This is, unfortunately, outside the purview of the first wave of fixes I'll be pushing out. Wiser men than me can adjudicate such things.

erikun
2009-07-09, 12:40 AM
Oh? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what changes you're looking at making, then.

If we're looking at making changes to qualifying for prestige classes, might I suggest the same be done for feats? Combat options like Feinting, Sundering, Spring Attack and Shot on the Run are all sub-optimal and very situational. The fact that you need to spend 2-3 feats to acquire each one only makes them worse; the only time you see Spring Attack on a character is when they are build around getting the feat, and frequently lose a lot of utility in doing so.

Or were you looking at just clarifying the rules, and not changing them?

Eldariel
2009-07-09, 07:32 AM
First off, I will agree that "natural terrain" is poorly defined, and appears to be left up to GM interpretation. However, I don't see the difficulties in understanding HiPS once you've dealt with that issue. All it does is remove the restriction on the Hide skill that you cannot hide while under direct observation. In other words, you don't need the benefit of cover or concealment to make the hide check - all other restrictions and rules apply as normal. If your Spot check beats the Hide check, you can see them, with or without HiPS. I remember seeing something about pointing out something hidden, but I can't find it in either Spot or Hide, so I'm not sure where it was. But it would apply the same if the target had HiPS or not. Hope that helps, or at least makes sense :smalltongue:

I was thinking more about the whole "Ok, out of enemy party, one guy spotted me but no matter what he does, others can't see me; at most attack my square with a 50% miss chance" and "Ok, one guy spotted me, but after I move next round and Hide again in the same goddamn spot, he doesn't see me anymore".

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 10:30 AM
At the same time, Eld, we need to make sure we don't gimp hiding characters.
How can we do that?

Realism doesn't interest me. Only balance. I'm a gamist, not a simulationist.
But the issue with hiding is problematic because it defies reasonable player expectations.

Oslecamo
2009-07-09, 10:42 AM
At the same time, Eld, we need to make sure we don't gimp hiding characters.
How can we do that?

Realism doesn't interest me. Only balance. I'm a gamist, not a simulationist.
But the issue with hiding is problematic because it defies reasonable player expectations.

Please define "player expecations". Because I believe diferent players will have diferent expecations. And that's why we have OVER 9000! 3.X fixes by now, because each of those "fixes" was made by people with diferent expecations.

So if what you're seeking is balance at all costs, hey, there's a really balanced game out there called D&D 4e, dunno if you heard of it. Clear rules as water, and little else. Looks like what you're looking for.

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 10:52 AM
Was that really called for? Did I sound like such an extremist?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-09, 01:52 PM
Was that really called for? Did I sound like such an extremist?

Well, saying "I care about balance and don't care about realism" and invoking GNS is a bit provocative, you must admit (and speaking as someone who prefers the reverse, I agree with Oslecamo in that "player expectations" should be strictly defined). I do think Oslecamo was a bit out of line with the sarcasm, however.

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 02:12 PM
As said, it's merely my personal philosophy, which I suppose I expect to be treated with at worst respectful scorn.

I'm here for feedback, concrete suggestions, and precise answers. Not defamation, gesticulations, and the baseless suggestion that balance and good design are somehow magically separate. To clarify my question, I guess what I mean is that D&D is generally about superhuman feats of derring-do, and I simply have to ask what realism means and if it's something that should be supported by the GM or by the rule-set or by both?

Because I cannot tailor to every table, provide an appropriate articulation of the game world in the rules for every game world. What I can do is provide a better set of guidelines, and make changes that I think are important. I can't offer any guarantee that they will be good, or useful.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-09, 03:09 PM
As said, it's merely my personal philosophy, which I suppose I expect to be treated with at worst respectful scorn.

I'm here for feedback, concrete suggestions, and precise answers. Not defamation, gesticulations, and the baseless suggestion that balance and good design are somehow magically separate. To clarify my question, I guess what I mean is that D&D is generally about superhuman feats of derring-do, and I simply have to ask what realism means and if it's something that should be supported by the GM or by the rule-set or by both?

Because I cannot tailor to every table, provide an appropriate articulation of the game world in the rules for every game world. What I can do is provide a better set of guidelines, and make changes that I think are important. I can't offer any guarantee that they will be good, or useful.

"Player expectations" are irrelevant to the realism issue--you can assume they expect realism, or not, as long as you say what you assume they expect. Do players expect realistic Hide? Do they expect something else? Doesn't matter, as long as you pick one and state which one.

Myrmex
2009-07-09, 10:54 PM
As said, it's merely my personal philosophy, which I suppose I expect to be treated with at worst respectful scorn.

I'm here for feedback, concrete suggestions, and precise answers. Not defamation, gesticulations, and the baseless suggestion that balance and good design are somehow magically separate.

THIS IS THE INTERNET. YOU GET NOTHING.

/scorn
/caps

ericgrau
2009-07-09, 11:03 PM
I like the rules here, or at least what they tried to do:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=681572

I think that there is one thing that everyone wants to try to do when they first start playing, but soon realize they can't do it because the rules don't let them:

Climb onto a bigger creatures back and heroically stab them.

Just do what Rich did when OotS fought the ridiculously huge devil. Rule that you don't do much damage against a big monster's ankles. Call it half or w/e you feel like. Simple, done. Then the normal climb or flight or jump or w/e rules work from there. Don't forget you need new climb checks when you take damage. IMO add climb modifiers for violent motion. Also IMO deny the target dex to AC if you latch onto it; after all it can't dodge any more. Also means rogues can climb to the creature's vitals, which is downright epic.

Myrmex
2009-07-09, 11:12 PM
Just do what Rich did when OotS fought the ridiculously huge devil. Rule that you don't do much damage against a big monster's ankles. Call it half or w/e you feel like. Simple, done. Then the normal climb or flight or jump or w/e rules work from there. Don't forget you need new climb checks when you take damage. IMO add climb modifiers for violent motion. Also IMO deny the target dex to AC if you latch onto it; after all it can't dodge any more. Also means rogues can climb to the creature's vitals, which is downright epic.

That's nice.
It would be nicer if it was canonical.

Random832
2009-07-09, 11:35 PM
Some aspects of it are in RAW if you actually read them.

Sneak Attack: A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to:
* Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

rogueboy
2009-07-10, 12:33 AM
I was thinking more about the whole "Ok, out of enemy party, one guy spotted me but no matter what he does, others can't see me; at most attack my square with a 50% miss chance" and "Ok, one guy spotted me, but after I move next round and Hide again in the same goddamn spot, he doesn't see me anymore".

My point with the comment about pointing out something hidden was that I remember seeing something (I wish I could remember where, but I apologize for not being able to) that gave a bonus (something like a +4) if someone pointed out what you should be looking for. I'm going to make my point as though the character hiding doesn't have HiPS, since that's easier for most of us to picture and, as I pointed out in my earlier post, HiPS doesn't change the mechanics of hiding except for removing the requirement to have cover or concealment to make the check.

Let's say that Bob is trying to hide from Joe and Susan. He's hiding behind a bush. On the first check, Susan notices him (Joe doesn't, even after Susan tells him what to look for [I've had those days, I don't know about you -- "can't you see the deer?" "what deer?" "the one in the tree" "what? I don't see it" etc). Since Susan pointed him out to Joe, Bob knows he was seen, so he tries to hide again. This time, he tries to make sure that he won't be seen, shifting himself from a patch of leaves that he can see through to a thicker patch of leaves and branches about a foot to his left. Bob has, without moving, improved his hiding spot, allowing him to avoid being seen by Joe or Susan. If we extend this to a character with HiPS, we don't even need the bush to hide behind, we just have to realize that he can hide because he's just that good at it. And if he's seen? He can change his hiding spot/method (taking another action to hide) and try to get a better hide check result.

This changing of hiding spot/method deals with the "he didn't move! why can't I see him now?" issue. The trick is to avoid thinking of "the same 5-foot square" as "the same spot", since there's probably 7 places/ways someone can hide in those 25 square feet of ground. More for someone who has HiPS.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-10, 07:42 AM
My point with the comment about pointing out something hidden was that I remember seeing something (I wish I could remember where, but I apologize for not being able to) that gave a bonus (something like a +4) if someone pointed out what you should be looking for.

You may be thinking of the +4 bonus on a save against an illusion if someone who made the save tells you it's an illusion. I don't remember seeing a rule that lets you give a second Spot check at +4 if you didn't make the first one, though it certainly could be in there somewhere.

Tehnar
2009-07-10, 08:50 AM
Stacking rules: I think existing stacking rules are ok, except that you have way too many different bonuses that do the same thing. I would just keep enhancement, circumstance, dodge, morale and luck. And lump most things into enhancement with very rare cases of other bonuses. Also there are a lot of untyped bonuses in various spells. I would move them to one of these categories.

Repair of Item exploits: I usually ban metamagic rods and animated shields in my games. Was that what you meant?

rogueboy
2009-07-10, 08:52 AM
You may be thinking of the +4 bonus on a save against an illusion if someone who made the save tells you it's an illusion. I don't remember seeing a rule that lets you give a second Spot check at +4 if you didn't make the first one, though it certainly could be in there somewhere.

That's quite possible. Oops. Oh well, then that part still has issues matching up with reality, but can be dealt with fairly easily by giving a circumstance bonus to spot something that's being pointed out.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-10, 10:37 AM
That's quite possible. Oops. Oh well, then that part still has issues matching up with reality, but can be dealt with fairly easily by giving a circumstance bonus to spot something that's being pointed out.

You could still use Aid Another to achieve a similar result, except it would have to be a more proactive "Hey guys, let me direct your searching so we can find the guy" (everyone Aiding Another the one with the best Spot) rather than a reactive "Hey guys, he's right there, you missed him the first time" (the best Spotter letting others Spot again).

Doc Roc
2009-07-11, 05:28 PM
Generally, it does allow you, if you aren't flat-footed, to try and warn someone or talk to them. You can always tell someone what square another person is in, since talking is a free action.


Ever fired blind at a 25 square foot patch of ground hoping to hit a person who occupies maybe 1 square foot of it after a friend tells you someone's there in the course of six or less seconds?


Yeah, it's perfectly easy! ;)

Yahzi
2009-07-12, 01:42 AM
I've got a fairly radical rules change you might want to think about:

XP is tangible.

Just like coins, it can be bought, sold, or used to make magic items. One XP = 5 gold (just like it says in the DMG). XP only comes from killing things.

It sounds weird, but when you start to think about it, it starts to make an awful lot of sense.

I explain this in somewhat greater detail in my world-book (see below).

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-12, 01:46 AM
I've got a fairly radical rules change you might want to think about:

XP is tangible.

Just like coins, it can be bought, sold, or used to make magic items. One XP = 5 gold (just like it says in the DMG). XP only comes from killing things.

It sounds weird, but when you start to think about it, it starts to make an awful lot of sense.

I explain this in somewhat greater detail in my world-book (see below).

"Your GP or your XP!"

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-12, 01:50 AM
Bandit:"Your GP or your HP!"Psion:How about PP? Mind Crush!
Barbarin:PA
Rogue:SA
Wizard:XP?
DM:RP!