a question of tact, appropriateness and Cha based skills

[Mark]

I've seen the other guys roll first, realize (or at least think) they were screwed, and make very little effort from there. No mas

Another good reason for the hidden roll...

 

[S'mon]

Well, my "rule" predated my adoption of 3e as the system I use, so I start more from twisting 3e to fit my world & playstyle rather than seeing the rules as a thing-in-themselves. I use the rules to help simulate my gameworld's reality rather than as being definitional of that reality, ie if there' a conflict I change the rules, not the reality. BTW I'll be running the Conan RPG tomorrow, this reminds me I should tell the players they can get combat bonuses for good tactics etc, it's particularly appropriate there I think.

Actually, for the Conan game I think I actually will give bonuses for 'cool' descriptions of combat maneuvers, it seems in-genre.
I think Feng Shui does something similar. Of course for Conan, the moves still need to be somewhat sensible, it's not a case of the more OTT the better.

 

[Hand of Evil]

You do, then see if you see if succeed or fail as the dice and DM decide.

With CHA based skills I like to listen to the player talk / interact with the NPC and as a DM will sometimes adjust the success or failure based on the entertainment value or lack of. Knowing the outcome first (high die roll) will mean the player can just say anything and screen the interaction, which will impact the interaction between DM and group.

 

[Mark]

Specifically re Feinting, I'm a bit unhappy that you can't really Feint in combat without the Improved Feint feat. I think some feints (combat uses of Bluff) should be move-equivalent or even free actions; they may not render the opponent flat-footed & open to sneak attacks but they might give you +2 to-hit them or such.

What you are describing seems awfully generous, IMO. I think the point to it denying a Dex bonus is because only someone with a Dex bonus could react fast enough for a Feint to make a difference. A slow-on-their-feet person wouldn't have the quickness/chance to let down their guard before the follow up came through.

(Just to have the rule available...)

Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

 

[S'mon]

What you are describing seems awfully generous, IMO. I think the point to it denying a Dex bonus is because only someone with a Dex bonus could react fast enough for a Feint to make a difference. A slow-on-their-feet person wouldn't have the quickness/chance to let down their guard before the follow up came through.

(Just to have the rule available...)

Hm, I don't agree. I think most people should be able to bluff in combat as a move-equivalent action, and get a benefit if successful. +2 to-hit is hardly OTT to my mind, that assumes a plausible bluff and a successful roll. Some cases might be a standard action but give a free attack if successful, ie if you fail you get 0 attacks that round.

3e's tactical-wargame approach does tend to discourage improvisation outside the rules, I've noticed. Certainly I want my Conan RPG players to be thinking about combat maneuvers and gripping descriptions, as well as battlegrid tactics.

 

[Mark]

Hm, I don't agree. I think most people should be able to bluff in combat as a move-equivalent action, and get a benefit if successful. +2 to-hit is hardly OTT to my mind, that assumes a plausible bluff and a successful roll. Some cases might be a standard action but give a free attack if successful, ie if you fail you get 0 attacks that round.

3e's tactical-wargame approach does tend to discourage improvisation outside the rules, I've noticed. Certainly I want my Conan RPG players to be thinking about combat maneuvers and gripping descriptions, as well as battlegrid tactics.

Yup. I hear you. It's a temptation, always, for us old-schoolers to tamper with the rules, here and there, to increase the various things that don't seem to work the same way as they did in previous versions (or as they did in comparison to house rules we might have used in previous versions to fill gaps that were there). Problem is, once you make that adjustment you run the risk of creating a rule/move/advantage that everyone takes because it becomes just too useful to ignore in comparison to other things that now seem underpowered.

Personally, rather than tinker with the bits and bobs, I've run games where I simply advanced all characters after one or two sessions so that the fundamental balance isn't shifted but the options become more readily available across the board. When you think about it, even if you allow advancement ever other session, even in a campaign where you get to play every other week, it'll still take over a year before you get close to level 20 characters.

 

[S'mon]

Yup. I hear you. It's a temptation, always, for us old-schoolers to tamper with the rules, here and there, to increase the various things that don't seem to work the same way as they did in previous versions (or as they did in comparison to house rules we might have used in previous versions to fill gaps that were there). Problem is, once you make that adjustment you run the risk of creating a rule/move/advantage that everyone takes because it becomes just too useful to ignore in comparison to other things that now seem underpowered.

Yes, I remember some horrific experiences with critical hit rules in 1e/2e!

As far as routine use of abilities goes, my assumption is that the rules present the default-optimal tactics for general use. No house rule should make a particular tactics more _generally_ useful than the default rule - eg, if a character already needs a '20' to hit an opponent, making a desperate stab to the head for -10 to hit/+5 damage will just cause an automatic miss, because the auto-hit-on-20 rule assumes the attacker is doing their utmost to hit. However particular tactics may be better than the general rule in some situations, and while the 3e rules cover many posibilities - trips, disarms, grapples, etc - they can't cover everything. If something is possible in reality, I won't disallow it just because the rules don't cover it. The extreme case would be an attempted instant-kill attack, spear through the eye, say - sure you can try it, but with a huge to-hit penalty, and the opponent will get a fairly easy Ref or Fort save to negate it.

A player who uses the same tactic against a bugbear as against a drow definitely shouldn't get a bonus in both cases. The player who uses different tactics might well deserve a bonus.

If anything, in 3e I find players don't use nearly enough tactics, not even the ones included in the book, like trips and sunderings. Most prefer just to roll to-hit. 1e & 2e were just the same in this regard. Other RPG systems seem to be much better for encouraging player creativity.

 

[FireLance]

So, if one of your players describes a wonderfully detailed sword stab aimed at the enemy's guts, would you give the enemy a -10 to his AC?

Just asking.

I prefer to use (and have used, earlier in this thread) the question of whether a doctor or a certified first aider who gives a step-by-step description of how to administer first aid should get any kind of bonus to his Heal checks. I think this is something that more people can relate to than stabbing an enemy in the gut.

 

[S'mon]

I prefer to use (and have used, earlier in this thread) the question of whether a doctor or a certified first aider who gives a step-by-step description of how to administer first aid should get any kind of bonus to his Heal checks. I think this is something that more people can relate to than stabbing an enemy in the gut.

If he can plausibly describe stabilising a dying person in under 6 seconds while using the tools available to a D&D healer, yes he definitely deserves a bonus! If he tries to describe operating procedure that would actually take 5 minutes of realtime, sorry but the patient bleeds out...

 

[Umbran]

A circumstance bonus (or penalty) is applied to skill checks. I've never seen it suggested in the rules that it should be applied to combat.

I think that they are there, in a sense. The bonuses for certain things in combat (like flanking, a feint, grapple, disarm, charge, surprise, etc) are spelled out in the rules. For social skills, the bonuses are ad hoc.