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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5858674" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think you say reasonable things, but for me the problem is that these examples are more or less the result of having too much of a straightforward approach to the combat phase (I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about all of us gamers in general), where people only ever think in terms of damage because the only strategy they can think of is killing monsters and take their stuff.I don't say that it's badwrongfun, I just say that if this is the only reference then of course everything else than "I attack" works only if you can evaluate in terms of equivalent damage (or like you say, in terms of how many rounds it takes to kill the monster if you use this other option), and then the possible outcomes are:a- the alternative action is equivalent to more damage than "I attack" -> broken! the fighter with this option is using it all the time!b- the alternative action is equivalent to less damage than "I attack" -> useless! the fighter is never using it!c- the alternative action is equivalent to the same damage than "I attack" -> same as b OR it's used just for flavorThere seems to be no escape... but there is!The point is that those alternative options should not be always a/b/c, but they should shift among the three cases depending on (1) circumstances, and (2) purposes.Just the first example coming to my mind, since you mention bullrushing: I've never seen bullrushing used to get flanking or something other minor advantage, I've seen it used instead when it might really make a difference, for example to push someone off a bridge/cliff or into a very bad place (trap, lava, river...).For circumstances, the DM is responsible to provide them and the players are responsible to think about them. I don't know however if the rules should really get wordy on this! Maybe it's best that the books provide guidelines and suggestions, and the actual handling of this is left to the intelligence of the gaming group.For purposes, clearly the players are responsible, but the DM is too. I mean, picture a RL pub fight: if A trips B once, then B gets up and continues the fight, if A trips B twice or thrice, I think B gets the point and leaves the fight. If A grapples B, then B tries to break free or strike from grappled, but if A holds the grapple long enough, B realizes he hasn't much chance and gives up. Again, I'm not sure if I want the rules to get too specific here, because they can actually cause more problems than not, but if the players+DM do not want to ever play anything different than "fight to the death until one party kills the other" then I don't blame it on the system. I understand that you want the system to provide tools to make something else than attack/damage more "efficient", but I think the problem is here: that "efficiency" is the only mantra everybody has in mind. But if that's the case, maybe we're just crafting our own design trap.</blockquote>

Verification