Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 1428786" data-attributes="member: 463">Yes, I remember some horrific experiences with critical hit rules in 1e/2e!&nbsp; As far as routine use of abilities goes, my assumption is that the rules present the default-optimal tactics for general use.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If something is possible in reality, I won't disallow it just because the rules don't cover it.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Most prefer just to roll to-hit.&nbsp; 1e &amp; 2e were just the same in this regard.&nbsp; Other RPG systems seem to be much better for encouraging player creativity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 1428786, member: 463"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification