Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[GM Dave]

What I would love to see is something like the 'Master of Arms' supplement from Second World Simulations, which came out early in 3e.

It essentially used combinations of base and secondary (or even tertiary) attacks to pull off some excellent manoeuvres - and it provided the maths to back them up and help you develop your own if you wanted to.

e.g. Axe Beheading (battleax, greataxe, waraxe). Sacrifice the first attack to increase your base critical rate to 18-20 with the axe (i.e. you take only your secondary attack).

e.g. Blinding Slash (slashing weapon). Two step combination, you first make a targeting attack against the victims normal AC which doesn't do any damage. if the targeting succeeds you then follow with another normal attack which blinds the target for 1d6 rounds if Fort save failed.

e.g. Double Spin (bladed polearm: glaive, guisarme, halberd). You spin the polearm high on the first blow and follow up low at the legs. You take a -2 to your first attack in the sequence but +3 to hit on the second attack in the sequence.

The whole book has got lots more examples - I think it would be a great way of providing a huge, flexible range of martial manoeuvres (it also includes cloak fighting, three section staff fighting, immovable rod fighting and others!)

As you can tell... I'm a fan.

Cheers

The trouble with this and non-damaging attacks is that a person has to see more value in spending an attack that does no or less damage compared to simply smacking the creature.

Often the alternative that is more complicated needs to be a recognizably larger advantage or the person/player will select the easier option which is simply to hit the creature for strait damage. (this larger advantage when spotted then becomes often the focus of exploits though it is a 'reward' for the person that did not choose the simpler design mold).

This is a design problem where you can make adoption of the idea easier if you get damage and the extra rider.

The trouble of moving into a rider/proc system is that they add more complexity to each turn's resolution and can slow down play. This is again a trade off on value of quick resolution (hit and hit it more) verses keeping track of the effects of an attack that slightly stunned an opponent so their attacks are weakened (doing less damage per hit as a result with the risk of forgetting the effect on the target).

I like the concept but it is a tricky design goal to achieve with many associated problems.

 

[Plane Sailing]

There are many pages in the book which go into the maths of the system well, which explains how there can be extra value in a system that effectively gives up one of your attacks for a greater payoff later. It's very sound, and one of the advantages which you get in this system is that a PC can learn some fun combat options which are both cinematic and useful (e.g. a staff/polearm attack that lets you attack two people flanking you at the same time)

Essentially D&Dn wants to cater for simple PCs (I whack him for 1d8+9 damage!) and complex PCs (I use my "stick a fork in him he's done" technique - I attempt my first hit, great, now I make a second attack for half damage, got it, now I get etc etc).

The question of slower play or not largely comes down to the complex PCs or not (and of course the competence of the players! I've known people with wizards whose turn was over in seconds, and people with 1e fighters who could dither for a minute!)

Cheers

 

[gloomhound]

You know it occurs to me, that it's less useful trying to view D&DN through the lens of 4e or 3.5 for that matter. But as seen from the terra firma of AD&D you can just start to make it out off in the distance. ....or I just might be full of crap.

 

[RHGreen]

Minion Rules

How about something like:


HP 20 (4)

Damage 2d8 (7)


This creature has 20hp, but when you are level 4, if you hit it, you get an insta-kill.

It causes 2d8 damage, but if you can't be bothered to roll it causes 7 damage.


I always prefered the idea that if a minion gets potentially damaged from any source (straight hit, misses or anything) it makes a death save like players do. On a 9 or less it dies, 10 or more and it struggles on. (Though I'd prefer 11 or higher to survive.)

 

[keterys]

Well, I'd suggest 2d8 (9) for damage myself

The instant kill at a certain level is interesting, though. What about non-hit damage? Ex: splash damage, half damage on save, aura, zone, cleave, _whatever_ that does... let's say 5 damage.

 

[RangerWickett]

I like what they're saying here. I feel good about what they're saying here.

 

[Hussar]

As [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] said, this sounds CN, not unaligned. I would compromise on unaligned and removed old notions of "true neutral" from the game, with maybe a sidebar explaining how TN could replace unaligned if wanted.

Only problem is, Hassassin is wrong. CN is a conscious choice for one. For another, CN also embodies irresponsibility and being fickle. Neither of those things are present in the example. CN is not simply, "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, but, what I want to do is be a team player and be totally responsible all the time". CN is a jerk. He's the guy who falls asleep or wanders off during a watch. He cannot be trusted. Ever. That's what irresponsible means. Sure, he's not malicious. He doesn't want to dominate you like a CE would. But, OTOH, he's the guy who you would never, ever consider asking to watch your house for the weekend because you KNOW he'd have half a hundred of his "best friends" over to party and stick you with the mess and the $2000 noise compaint.

Minion Rules

How about something like:
HP 20 (4)
Damage 2d8 (7)
This creature has 20hp, but when you are level 4, if you hit it, you get an insta-kill.
It causes 2d8 damage, but if you can't be bothered to roll it causes 7 damage.

I always prefered the idea that if a minion gets potentially damaged from any source (straight hit, misses or anything) it makes a death save like players do. On a 9 or less it dies, 10 or more and it struggles on. (Though I'd prefer 11 or higher to survive.)

Now that's not a bad idea. Just keyword in the insta-kill effect. Once you reach a certain threshold, the creature becomes a minion. That threshold could be different for every creature if you wanted. Nice. Simple. Elegant.

 

[gyor]

Here is how I see alignment.

Lawful Evil-Totalitarian Communism or Facism
Lawful Good- Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism
Choatic Evil- Violent Anarchany (as apposed to peaceful Anarchists)
Choatic Good- Moderate Liberatianism
Chaotic Neutral- Neo-Liberalism
Lawful Neutral- Technocracy
True Neutral-Non political
Neutral Good- Reform Liberalism
Neutral Evil- Normal Dictatorship, Authoritianism

I tend to translate alignment into idealogies it just makes it easier to picture. I will say Chaotic Neutral was the one they had the hardest time with, it always drifted into murderious Chaotic evil, but Chaotic Neutral is not being psychotic butcher, but rather its the Alignment of the average street level Pot Dealer or A deregulating Banker whose drive for deregulation leads to the fincial crisis. The're Hedonists who don't care about society, but he lack the hate or personal cruelty to be chaotic evil.

Chaotic Evil is the war torn country in Choas were mass murder is a way of life.

Lawful Good, think Sweden or Norway.

Neutral Good think Canada

Chaotic Good think pre Regan 1970's America (modern America has drifted into Chaotic Neutral while).

Divine examples Chaotic Good Sharess, Church likes to party, but still cares about the well being of others. Neutral Good Chauntea, goes with what benifits society most. Lawful Good Torm, society needs to be protected, both against killers, but against things like poverty as well.

Just some thoughts on Alignment, not meant to be Political, just for illustrative purposes.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, I'm just pointing out that this distinction is very philosophically fuzzy.

And what I'm saying is that from a practical standpoint, the two are more distinct than the one.

If you have just Neutrality, it might mean that the character is a keeper of the balance ([MENTION=6689976]KesselZero[/MENTION] 's Checkered Knight) or it might mean that the person is simply unaligned with any other philosophy. Saying that someone is Neutral means two very different things. If you're trying to stop a thieves guild that has overrun a town, the first guy will probably help you (in the interest of restoring balance) though he'll also try to prevent your victory from being complete, while the second guy is only likely to help you if you can make it worthwhile for him.

On the other hand, if you have Unaligned and Neutral as distinct from each other, those two become quite distinct. Bears would be unaligned, having no interest in preserving balance, but rather simply concerned with the simple things bears are concerned about. Druids, on the other hand would be Neutral, interested in preserving the balance. Two very distinct outlooks.

All those sentences could be describing Neutral just as well as they could be describing Unaligned.

In early D&D, there were only Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. While there was a bit more to it, Lawful was effectively Good, while Chaotic was effectively Evil. Since I don't hear anyone suggesting we return to that 3 alignment system, I'm assuming that differentiation is a good thing.

If I have a character who will not risk his life to save others, but also not do horrible things to other people, who does not believe the world is entirely logical, nor that it is entirely unpredictable, and doesn't care about balance...I could be either Neutral or Unaligned, and have the same belief system.

It's not about about being unwilling to risk his life to save others. It's about someone who requires more motivation than mere philosophy to risk his life. More precisely, someone unmotivated by philosophy. This is a mercenary adventurer type. Someone who isn't evil, but also won't risk his neck without compensation.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a pretty huge distinction between someone unmotivated by philosophy and someone motivated by the philosophy of preserving the balance. Just because you can lump them both under the umbrella of Neutrality (just like you could lump Good in with Lawful) doesn't mean you necessarily should.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

None of the last 2 descriptions of Chaotic Neutral are what I fully see all of Chaotic Neutral as, and are generally coloured by a bias against the alignment. It's many things, and a variety of personality types in much the same way other alignments also cover a variety of personalities. Chaotic Neutral also isn't completely a single political political ideology, as there clearly can be chaotic neutral or any sort of alignment on both sides of the political spectrum.