Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
2 house rules for critique
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Thurbane" data-source="post: 3071418" data-attributes="member: 43273"><p>Again, thanks for the feedback, very well thought out. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The logic here is sound, but I really only want to apply this rule to the immediate group being fired at, rather than have the possibility of another combatant 100 feet away but in the line of effect be at risk. While this may refelct realism, I think it would add a bit too much complexity to our combats. Basically, what my rule does is to penalize people for firing "willy nilly" into a melee - another real world analogy I would use is that no matter how good a shot they were, no sane cop would fire at a perp who was toe to toe with his partner, for fear of hitting his partner.</p><p></p><p>I think it worded it badly, but that is the system I use. The accidental hit chance only comes into play if the miss is bad enough to also miss the intended target's touch AC.</p><p></p><p>True, trying to get too "realistic" with combat rules often doesn't translate well into game terms. For backpeddling, perhaps some kind of tumble check should be required to see if you get away without provoking an AoO.</p><p></p><p>Indeed - I believe the Feint rules under the Bluff skill do take this into account, meaning the better your BAB, the harder you are to Feint against. Also, if we are going with a Feint based withdraw action, I would also give bonuses to the roll for each allied creature who threatens the opponent, like a help another roll.</p><p></p><p>Thats true, of course. If players always played it safe, they wouldn't truly be "adventurers". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>Thanks - I guess I'm a little defensive. At a certain other forum, I really got torn to shreds for discussing these house rules. And thanks again for your suggestions, they have given me some real food for thought. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thurbane, post: 3071418, member: 43273"] Again, thanks for the feedback, very well thought out. The logic here is sound, but I really only want to apply this rule to the immediate group being fired at, rather than have the possibility of another combatant 100 feet away but in the line of effect be at risk. While this may refelct realism, I think it would add a bit too much complexity to our combats. Basically, what my rule does is to penalize people for firing "willy nilly" into a melee - another real world analogy I would use is that no matter how good a shot they were, no sane cop would fire at a perp who was toe to toe with his partner, for fear of hitting his partner. I think it worded it badly, but that is the system I use. The accidental hit chance only comes into play if the miss is bad enough to also miss the intended target's touch AC. True, trying to get too "realistic" with combat rules often doesn't translate well into game terms. For backpeddling, perhaps some kind of tumble check should be required to see if you get away without provoking an AoO. Indeed - I believe the Feint rules under the Bluff skill do take this into account, meaning the better your BAB, the harder you are to Feint against. Also, if we are going with a Feint based withdraw action, I would also give bonuses to the roll for each allied creature who threatens the opponent, like a help another roll. Thats true, of course. If players always played it safe, they wouldn't truly be "adventurers". :) Thanks - I guess I'm a little defensive. At a certain other forum, I really got torn to shreds for discussing these house rules. And thanks again for your suggestions, they have given me some real food for thought. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
2 house rules for critique
Top