"Don't say no, add a modifier" [3.5]

[Human Paragon 3]

In the second edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, the authors advise DM's
"Don't say no, add a modifier." This is in regards to players attempting preposterously improbably maneuvers, like throwing a longsword across the room and cutting the amulet off the Warlock Prince's necklace. Instead of just shaking your head and saying "your sword clatters uselessly to the ground," they suggest you come up with a situational attack roll modifier on the spot. For this particular attempt, for instance, I would have adjudicated about a -10.

Now a days, this rule has mostly been dispensed with and replaced with "Don't say no, say, 'Do you have a feat for that?'" With the enormous selection of feats available for players in a variety of splatbooks, this is a very reasonable question. In the above scenario, the feats necessary to attempt the move would be Throw Anything and Ranged Disarm. Many DMs would consider allowing a player to attempt the move without those feats unfair to the players spent their hard-earned feats to do the same exact thing. This is understandable, but can lead to blander combats that punish creativity instead of rewarding it.

Today, I was thinking why not combine the two mindsets via a house rule? Bring back the old "Don't say no, add a modifier" rule but update it for 3.5.

Here's what I came up with.

As a standard action, any player may make a single attack roll with the benefit of any one feat they do not have. This attack roll is made with a -5 penalty.

This rule gives high BAB character more room to be creative in combat without punishing the players who spent feats to be good at cool stuff. In addition, it gives a little more purpose for some of the cooler but less useful feats (like throw anything and ranged disarm) which are usually considered "not worth it." Naturally, problems will arise in play with this, but since we're trying to recapture a 2e mindset, we can let the DM handle those.

Would you consider using this house rule at your table?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

One problem with that: it's too easy to get absurdly high attack values to reliably and consistently perform absurd actions.

For example:

Munchkin: "I want to make a called shot at his eyeball"
GM: "Okay, but you are at -20 to pull that off"
Munchkin: "Fine. True Strike, and throw it!"
GM: "..."

either that or it ends with

Munchkin: "Okay, with my total modifiers I have a +86 on my to-hit, so as long as his AC isn't higher than 47 or so, I can only miss on a natural 1"

[Trodon]

I would that would be awesome

[arguskos]

Urr... in chapter 1 of the DMG it mentions that DMs should consider giving players a modifier for stuff they can't actually do, such as the above "I hurl my weapon at it!" It's early on somewhere.

That said, your thing works too. Whatever.

[sonofzeal]

Yeah, I'd do it. I usually allow stuff like that anyway.

Last session, a player got himself shishkabobbed by a Kuo-Toa Harpooner. The harpoons they throw are on chains, which the Harpooners can then use to pull the hapless victims into traps and otherwise restrict their maneuverability. These particular Harpooners were up on a ledge, with the wall covered with spikes, and they planned on pulling victims against the spikes. So, this guy's got a harpoon sticking out of him, with a chain anchored to the top of a very spiky ledge. He decides he's going to use his l33t Factotum ski||z to run up his own chain. I ask for a Use Rope, he succeeds and I say he wraps the chain around his arm to keep the pressure off the harpoon. I ask for Jump, he succeeds and I say he gets his feet up onto the chain (and is now swinging rapidly towards the wall). I ask for Climb, and he gets a good score but not really good enough, and I say he somehow, in defiance of several physical laws, manages to make it about halfway up before swinging full force into the spikey wall. He takes a bunch of damage, but is at least closer to the top then he'd been otherwise.

There's no rule to handle this, and if there was it'd probably be a Skill Trick from Complete Scoundrel, and he doesn't have those. But it was creative, entertaining, and made for a brilliantly fun combat round even though it ended up failing.

Point - I entirely support letting players attempt anything, and generally let a >=15 on the die mean at very least a partial success, no matter how ludicrous the stunt is. I especially recommend generosity if it's entertaining, and doesn't make things too easy for them even if they succeed - a skill check shouldn't kill a dragon, no matter how good, but even then if they nail multiple nat20's in a row I'd let it happen. Even a serious game can use the occasional moment of awesome.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah, I'd do it. I usually allow stuff like that anyway.

Last session, a player got himself shishkabobbed by a Kuo-Toa Harpooner. The harpoons they throw are on chains, which the Harpooners can then use to pull the hapless victims into traps and otherwise restrict their maneuverability. These particular Harpooners were up on a ledge, with the wall covered with spikes, and they planned on pulling victims against the spikes. So, this guy's got a harpoon sticking out of him, with a chain anchored to the top of a very spiky ledge. He decides he's going to use his l33t Factotum ski||z to run up his own chain. I ask for a Use Rope, he succeeds and I say he wraps the chain around his arm to keep the pressure off the harpoon. I ask for Jump, he succeeds and I say he gets his feet up onto the chain (and is now swinging rapidly towards the wall). I ask for Climb, and he gets a good score but not really good enough, and I say he somehow, in defiance of several physical laws, manages to make it about halfway up before swinging full force into the spikey wall. He takes a bunch of damage, but is at least closer to the top then he'd been otherwise.

There's no rule to handle this, and if there was it'd probably be a Skill Trick from Complete Scoundrel, and he doesn't have those. But it was creative, entertaining, and made for a brilliantly fun combat round even though it ended up failing.

Point - I entirely support letting players attempt anything, and generally let a >=15 on the die mean at very least a partial success, no matter how ludicrous the stunt is. I especially recommend generosity if it's entertaining, and doesn't make things too easy for them even if they succeed - a skill check shouldn't kill a dragon, no matter how good, but even then if they nail multiple nat20's in a row I'd let it happen. Even a serious game can use the occasional moment of awesome.

But when the characters in question have sufficient skill to pull this kind of stuff off on a regular basis, even with a major penalty, it goes from awesome to mundane rules exploitation.

[HempRope]

I would say yes... but would probably say it doesn't apply to feats that provide bonuses to hit.

I would also probably say no to feats that provide bonuses to damage. I can see situations where characters with high attack bonuses (and presumably low damage) would, for example, take the penalty to get Power Attack, which I think very much is gipping (sp?) characters who took that feat.

[Brock Samson]

As a great portion of all things awesome is made up purely of luck, instead of tacking on a negative to a specific roll, you could always tell the player, "Ok, I'm going to give you a GENEROUS 5% chance you succed at this (or 10%, 20%, whatever), so that regardless of your ability to ka-stabity, you won't autosucceed or fail, it's a chance, as it should be. Of course this could be modified by the TYPE of player you are (and by this I mean your in character attitude/abilities, such as a very acrobatic person climbing their own harpoon-chain, but a wizard less likely at doing so, or the wizard figuring out the trajectory to ricochet a rock against 2 wall only to hit a trap-tragger using geometry.

[Human Paragon 3]

The house rule I suggest is a bit narrower than the situations described above. The called shot to the eyeball, for example, wouldn't be possible because there's no feat that allows it, and all the house rule does is let players simulate feats.

For Skills:

Once per round, a player may make a single skill check and be treated as if he had the benefits of a single skill trick he doesn't have. This skill check is made with a -5 penalty.

I think DM's can use their heads, too, on this. If players want to do something that isn't an official skill trick but is about equal in effect, just pretend it is one and slap on that -5.

The magic version:

As a full round action, a player may cast a single spell and apply the benefits of one metamagic feat regardless of whether he has that feat or not. This spell uses up a spell slot 5 levels higher than normal, beyond the listed spell level adjustment for that feat.

[For example, the Warlock Prince is grappled by Tom the Fighter. He doesn't have the still spell feat, but wants to cast Summon Monster III to get some back up in the form of delicious celestial bison. Still spell normally raises the spell level by 1 (making it 4) so he needs to burn a 10th level slot to cast the stilled summons. Bizarre, yes, but he can do it, and he will!]

That one might actually work better as a feat: Creative Metamagic or somesuch.

I would say yes... but would probably say it doesn't apply to feats that provide bonuses to hit.

I would also probably say no to feats that provide bonuses to damage. I can see situations where characters with high attack bonuses (and presumably low damage) would, for example, take the penalty to get Power Attack, which I think very much is gipping (sp?) characters who took that feat.

I don't see the problem of emulating a feat that gives an attack bonus. What feat gives more than a +5 to attack?

Same thing with damage bonus. If you're a really awesome, high-level fighter, I don't see the problem with emulating Power Attack, a feat that has no pre-requisites, and taking a -5 to hit for the privilege. And yes, I know Power Attack is a great feat, but I can think of few situations where I wouldn't take it because I could just emulate it via this house rule.

Urr... in chapter 1 of the DMG it mentions that DMs should consider giving players a modifier for stuff they can't actually do, such as the above "I hurl my weapon at it!" It's early on somewhere.

True, but I feel like it's been discouraged due to reasons stated in my OP.

[sonofzeal]

But when the characters in question have sufficient skill to pull this kind of stuff off on a regular basis, even with a major penalty, it goes from awesome to mundane rules exploitation.

Well, it all hinges on description, and the situation in question. If they're that leet at acrobatics, then heck, why not let them do crazy stuff? At that level/optimization the BSF should be pounding through solid walls or killing giants in a single blow, and the mage should be pimping out the laws of physics for loose change. If the game's reached that point, I see no problem with letting the rogue pull off stunts that'd make a kung fu movie hero take pause. Of course, the DCs are all in your head. If the guy has a 30-something modifier and wants to do something really nuts, set the DC as 50.

Point is, I'd let awesome characters be awesome, and make anything too effective either take one excellent roll, several good rolls, or have an obviously horrible cost for failure ("okay, you can try to throw your shield like a discus, then run and jump on it in midair to give you that extra boost over the chasm... but if you flub, there's no way you'll catch the ledge, you sure you want to do this?")

[arguskos]

True, but I feel like it's been discouraged due to reasons stated in my OP.

Then encourage it by putting obvious hooks for random things in your game, not by adding another rule that requires EXTENSIVE knowledge of feat selections.

This isn't meant to be an attack mind you, just the thought that if you have a grievance with the mindset of the players, change it through action, not more rules. Just my opinion though. If you like rules, that one looks good.

[monty]

Maybe do something like the stunt system in Exalted, where even if it's impossible, if they describe it in a sufficiently awesome way, you let them pull it off anyway.

[Justin B.]

I may be falling victim to a fallacy here, but I believe that any DM worth playing with already allows you to do zany/crazy things without a feat for it.

The fact is, 3.5 has too many feats already. A feat should never be necessary for you to attempt something, however, it should be necessary for you to do so well.

Power attack is a good example:

Player: Kongol swings his greataxe wildly, going for power rather than accuracy.

DM: Take a -4 to hit, add 4 to damage.

Player: Kongol takes a swing with his greataxe wildly, focusing on damage rather than accuracy. I use my Power Attack Feat to add another 10 to my damage, and take 5 away from my hit.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

A good rule of thumb is that modifiers aren't always enough. Generally, doing anything other than hitting someone with a sword provokes. That should be carried over, so that at lest no-feat grappling is no worse than no-feat Rogue-throwing.

[Human Paragon 3]

Rogue throwing always provokes, it's a ranged attack!

[Devils_Advocate]

How about "If you don't have the feat for it, you can still do it, but you take a -4 penalty on the opposed roll, check, or attack roll, and you provoke attacks of opportunity."

That's in line with how all of those Improved _____ feats work.

I'm not sure how to handle maneuvers that provoke attacks of opportunity even if you have the feat. Are there any?

If something doesn't even involve a roll, I think I'd be hesitant to allow it at all without the feat. Quick Draw or Deflect Arrows, for instance.

[DragoonWraith]

If something doesn't even involve a roll, I think I'd be hesitant to allow it at all without the feat. Quick Draw or Deflect Arrows, for instance.

For the first, some chance of fumbling, stabbing yourself with the arrow, and wasting your standard action. For the second, lose all chance of not-be-hit if you fail to deflect, plus increase the chance of a critical, or something.

[Kurald Galain]

I may be falling victim to a fallacy here, but I believe that any DM worth playing with already allows you to do zany/crazy things without a feat for it.

Precisely.

D&D as written is handling creativity really poorly since 3E, and it has gotten worse in 4E. The ruleset as a whole points strongly to "say no to creative ideas unless you've got a feat/power that explicitly lets you do that", and the small section in the DMG tends to boil down to "say yes but give such a big penalty (or such a small effect) that the creative idea isn't worth using".

I'm for the Exalted approach (also used in TORG, Off the Edge, and so on) - giving players explicit bonuses for trying to be awesome, as an encouragement to be awesome more often.

[Farlion]

I may be falling victim to a fallacy here, but I believe that any DM worth playing with already allows you to do zany/crazy things without a feat for it.

I second that. My players get to be the kick-a*s heroes if they want (and are creative enough to do so).

Allowing your players to fulfill stunts that others remember even years later is even more rewarding than another +2 Longsword in a chest. I try to give every character his or her screentime in which her or she can take actions that will make him/her unforgettable.

On the other hand, this actually also allows me to drag them through the mud and throw shoes at them without upsetting my players. They know, that their time to shine will come again.

As a DM I don't like rules as such proposed by the Thread-opener. Rules tend to be abused, so I rather decide on a scene-to-scene basis. If I don't want the BBEG to be killed by a stunt, I don't allow it. If the players are super creative and absolutely astonish me with an Idea, I might even allow that ;-P

Cheers,
Farlion

[Tequila Sunrise]

Would you consider using this house rule at your table?

There are DMs who don't use this rule? Or one very similar. It seems a common sense rule unless you're intentionally stifling creativity.

[woodenbandman]

Few things:

The skill system is handled very poorly. It's too easy to boost super high, and if you're an epic mage who's been using rope all his life, you're not all THAT much better than some stupid Expert1. You can tie better knots, for sure, but you can't do cool stuff like disarm people with your rope.

That is why I like the skill sytem put forth in the DnD tome by Frank. It lets you do epic rope stuff like this.

[woodenbandman]

I may be falling victim to a fallacy here, but I believe that any DM worth playing with already allows you to do zany/crazy things without a feat for it.

The fact is, 3.5 has too many feats already. A feat should never be necessary for you to attempt something, however, it should be necessary for you to do so well.

Power attack is a good example:

See, the thing is, you're supposed to take feats for things your character can do. Doing that without the feat is like SAYING your character plays an instrument without any actual ranks in the Perform skill.

Agreed that there are too damn many feats. I generally ask players what they're going for, and suggest feats. I do this a little or a lot depending on how good the player is, and sometimes they don't need any help at all.

EDIT: and the reason that the adding of modifiers worked so good in 2.0 was that the difficulty of things was rather static. You always had to roll under your int, or you usually had to roll about a 10 to hit the enemy. The penalties were relevant because they were rather easily guaged and the numbers were small and crunchable. In 3.5 there are over 9000 ways to boost your check.

[shadzar]

someone tell me where it says that.

Why ever add a modifiers when you have the ability scores to directly roll against for such things.

The are called checks.

DEX-check, etc.

Someone wanting to walk on the ceiling under normal circumstances get told a big fat floppy NO~~~.

Jumping across a bunch of rocks, etc is just a series of DEX-checks, with a potential save-or-die affect from falling damage if you don't succeed on another DEX check to catch your balance.

I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of combination in newer editions, but I don't really play them.

You don't need a feat for everything but they sometimes come in handy.

You can add modifiers for the new DC(?) type things to just make it harder.

You just may want to codify yourself a list for things you do so if they come up in the future you can repeat things without being called out on the modifiers by the rules lawyers.

water on wood gets +1 to DC vs slipping. oil on wood gets +2, etc

whatever types of things you you want to alter with the modifier system of feats.

[Glyde]

Stuff

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#climb
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/Balance.htm


The OP is talking about things that haven't already been covered by skills and feats (or feats that characters don't usually take, like ranged sunder). A simple ability score check isn't always the answer.

[Starscream]

I usually allow stuff like this, if for reasons of Rule of Cool than nothing else. For something really tough I'd increase the modifier to -10 though, and maybe even -15 at higher levels.

The thing about rules like this is that they are balanced provided you let NPCs do it to. If a kobold tries to snatch the amulet from the party's cleric, he should have a shot as well.

[Kurald Galain]

Jumping across a bunch of rocks, etc is just a series of DEX-checks, with a potential save-or-die affect from falling damage if you don't succeed on another DEX check to catch your balance.

See, that is precisely what I'm talking about. You technically allow "jumping across a bunch of rocks", but you give it such a small chance of success (a series of checks, no less!) and such a nasty effect on failure (death!) that it isn't worth using.

water on wood gets +1 to DC vs slipping. oil on wood gets +2, etc

This is another example; these DC mods are pretty much insignificant, and much overshadowed by the stretch of the dice (i.e. luck). "Reward clever ideas by an insignificant bonus" (or in this case, perilous ideas by an insignficiant penalty) is a problem related to the above.

[shadzar]

See, that is precisely what I'm talking about. You technically allow "jumping across a bunch of rocks", but you give it such a small chance of success (a series of checks, no less!) and such a nasty effect on failure (death!) that it isn't worth using.

Heaven forbid someone should die from falling damage. Please tell Roy he has wasted 150+ strips of this sites comic dead for nothing.

The chance of success would depend on your ability score, if you don't have a skill for it.

That is what these things are for, is for things without rules so you don't need to find or write a rule for everything and can handle chaotic ideas from a player on the fly....or at least that is how the game used to be played before a nap would cure all woulds of late.

[Glyde]

A nap hardly cures all wounds.

Falling damage and dying from a few rocks is just silly. I hop across rocks all the time, and if I had a 5% chance (Thats failing on a natural 1 only) to fall and DIE then I'd probably be dead by now.

Falling off a dragon that's really high up in the air after taking a ton of damage from nukes is a lot more reasonable.

[Kurald Galain]

Heaven forbid someone should die from falling damage. Please tell Roy he has wasted 150+ strips of this sites comic dead for nothing.

Thank you for completely missing the point.

What is happening here is that a player wants to try something unusual (jumping over rocks) and your response is "sure, you can try... but you have a huge chance of failure and will die if you fail". (in D&D, ability checks are difficult and rather random, and asking for a series of them exponentially decreases the chance of success). If being creative is treated more harshly than just doing the normal stuff, the result is that people are being discouraged from creativity.

A nap hardly cures all wounds.

It does in 4E. Even if it's only six hours on a rocky surface with no food available.

Falling damage and dying from a few rocks is just silly.

Precisely. It's akin in silliness to stabbing yourself with your own sword one time out of twenty.

[Glyde]

It does in 4E. Even if it's only six hours on a rocky surface with no food available.

Ah. I haven't played 4E (And don't really intend to). I still make the assumption everything is 3.5e