Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2597297" data-attributes="member: 5143">That's how I use the rules.  I dumb it down to the simplest explaination for anything using the rules to reduce the number of rolls made at the table at to avoid rules arguements:In this case:Stepping off a table: Easy, no rollMoving through enemies threaten space: DC 15, likely 17 as you are doing it across uneven ground.  Done as part of a move.If he can get where he wants to go using the movement rate he has, he still has and attack action left and can attack.One tumble check and you are done and can be on to deciding the real question in the combat: Do you beat the enemies?  How much damage does everyone take?  So that when you have an answer you can get on with the story.This is, of course, just my opinion, and the way I play it.  I normally favor a sort of "you can do most things if you succeed in a DC 20 roll" idea.  I like the players to be able to accomplish whatever they want.  The more rolls I make them make, the less chance they have of succeeding in one.  Basically, if it gives no mechanical benefits, I will allow it with minimal rolls.In this case, does tumbling off a table give any benefits more than tumbling normally (or using a DC 25 tumble check to tumble THROUGH a dragon which we've done many times), so why complicate it other than to set up more chances to fail?  I love when my PCs do interesting actions and defeat the enemies.  They are supposed to win, they are the heroes.  I could say "alright, make a jump check in this case...you failed?  You lose your action this round, looks like you won't get there in time to save your friend."  I find we all have more fun when things succeed.Yes, I know there is no DC for "jumping directly over a wall without going too far".  I generally assume that if anyone wants to do LESS than what is listed, they can.  If someone makes the DC for jumping that high, they make it over, if they don't want to go 8 feet past, they don't have to.  Physics doesn't work the same way it does in real life, people can leap 40 feet in the air.You are right though, this is a situation that goes slightly past the rules so any rule someone came up with would be fine.  If a DM said "look, you need to jump straight up and land on the wall and then jump off the other side OR you have to jump 8 feet past the wall, those are your choices."  I'd be fine with that.  Once again, I've said, if you get beyond the rules, you should expect to be at the mercy of the DM, but still have a good guess as to what to expect.  Both of those options are supported by the rules and I would expect either of them.There ARE those edges, I will admit them.  10 feet you take damage, 9 feet you don't.  I've always just said that was the way physics worked in a D&D world in an effort to avoid remembering new rules and keeping the game simple to use.In this situation, for instance, I've had a DM say you still took damage at 9 feet because he didn't like that "edge", which then started an arguement about where the dividing line was and if 10 feet did so much damage, 9 should do less, but what about 8 feet 9 inches?  There was always a line somewhere and it was always just as arbitrary as 10 feet, and it only made one person, the DM, feel better.  Now, in order to make sure people know.  If I say about 8 feet up, my players expect to take no damage, I say 10 feet, they expect to take 1d6.The problem is, from our point of view, the game still IS a board game.  It isn't a life simulator, it's a set of rules to simulate a world remotely resembling ours.  If we get nitpicky about one rule, we can raise similar beefs with nearly every rule in the book.  It starts a slippery slope I don't want to start on.</blockquote>

Verification