Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5858303" data-attributes="member: 5143">Bad rules cause huge issues.&nbsp; And I agree that a well improvised rule is better than no rule.Though, you have WAY more faith in the average DMs rulings.Hussar's example above was stolen almost word for word from a post I made a while back, which could be an example of any number of rulings a number of our DMs made back in 2e.I suspect that the average DM would come up with a ruling that either gave you a 5 percent chance of ever succeeding in your bullrush or gave you nearly a 100% chance.&nbsp; Knowing the DMs I played under, it would be something arcane like &quot;Make an attack roll to hit at -4 because you are running headfirst at them in order to push them off, followed by an opposed strength check to push them off.&nbsp; If you miss the attack roll, you are unable to catch yourself and you go flying off the cliff.&nbsp; If you fail the opposed strength check, he pushes YOU off the cliff instead.&quot;Our DMs liked to run things at the micro level, a roll for each small thing you do.&nbsp; And they really liked penalties for failure that were meaningful.&nbsp; &quot;You don't succeed&quot; was less satisfying for them than &quot;You accidentally cut off your own head&quot;.Best to stick to things in the rules where the penalty to failing was spelled out by sane people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5858303, member: 5143"] Bad rules cause huge issues. And I agree that a well improvised rule is better than no rule. Though, you have WAY more faith in the average DMs rulings. Hussar's example above was stolen almost word for word from a post I made a while back, which could be an example of any number of rulings a number of our DMs made back in 2e. I suspect that the average DM would come up with a ruling that either gave you a 5 percent chance of ever succeeding in your bullrush or gave you nearly a 100% chance. Knowing the DMs I played under, it would be something arcane like "Make an attack roll to hit at -4 because you are running headfirst at them in order to push them off, followed by an opposed strength check to push them off. If you miss the attack roll, you are unable to catch yourself and you go flying off the cliff. If you fail the opposed strength check, he pushes YOU off the cliff instead." Our DMs liked to run things at the micro level, a roll for each small thing you do. And they really liked penalties for failure that were meaningful. "You don't succeed" was less satisfying for them than "You accidentally cut off your own head". Best to stick to things in the rules where the penalty to failing was spelled out by sane people. [/QUOTE]

Verification