Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4943892" data-attributes="member: 386">Alex has some very good points.I think you do want to make the DM judge the effect of an action because then it will tie you to the situation at hand.&nbsp; The fictional situation becomes very important.This is how I imagine the &quot;off-balance&quot; thing working.&nbsp; The player declares the PC's action: &quot;I swing my sword at him in order to knock him off-balance.&quot;&nbsp; The DM then clearly states the effect of that.&nbsp; &quot;Str vs Fort, Str damage and he'll be off-balance and have a -2 to attacks.&quot;&nbsp; The player can change his mind after that.&nbsp; (This works better with simultaneous initiative, I think.)The next PC might say, &quot;Since he's off-balance I'm going to try and use my 'Spinning Sweep' exploit.&nbsp; I spin beneath my enemy's guard with a long, powerful cut, and then sweep my leg through his an instant later to knock him head over heels.&quot;&nbsp; (The basic idea is that I can't use the spinning sweep at the start of combat because he's not yet off-balance.)&nbsp; The DM says, &quot;1[W] + Str or Dex vs AC and he falls prone.&quot;Then the next PC might say, &quot;I jump on his prone body, putting my legs on both his arms to pin him down and stab my sword up through his chin.&quot;&nbsp; That attack is going to deal some high damage.&nbsp; The DM says, &quot;3[W] + Str vs AC and he's grabbed.&nbsp; On a miss you fall prone in his square as he rolls away.&quot;The DM's job here is to reinforce internal consistency.&nbsp; He must make fair and impartial rulings.&nbsp; He can't care if the monsters win or the players win.&nbsp; This is how you handle the &quot;realism&quot; problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 4943892, member: 386"] Alex has some very good points. I think you do want to make the DM judge the effect of an action because then it will tie you to the situation at hand. The fictional situation becomes very important. This is how I imagine the "off-balance" thing working. The player declares the PC's action: "I swing my sword at him in order to knock him off-balance." The DM then clearly states the effect of that. "Str vs Fort, Str damage and he'll be off-balance and have a -2 to attacks." The player can change his mind after that. (This works better with simultaneous initiative, I think.) The next PC might say, "Since he's off-balance I'm going to try and use my 'Spinning Sweep' exploit. I spin beneath my enemy's guard with a long, powerful cut, and then sweep my leg through his an instant later to knock him head over heels." (The basic idea is that I can't use the spinning sweep at the start of combat because he's not yet off-balance.) The DM says, "1[W] + Str or Dex vs AC and he falls prone." Then the next PC might say, "I jump on his prone body, putting my legs on both his arms to pin him down and stab my sword up through his chin." That attack is going to deal some high damage. The DM says, "3[W] + Str vs AC and he's grabbed. On a miss you fall prone in his square as he rolls away." The DM's job here is to reinforce internal consistency. He must make fair and impartial rulings. He can't care if the monsters win or the players win. This is how you handle the "realism" problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification