Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2326647" data-attributes="member: 32164">The word for what I'm talking about is "verisimilitude" - or, the level of "sensible & consistent" (as Zappo put it) necessary for suspension of disbelief. Fantasy worlds have gigantic flying lizards that breathe fire. However, for the world to feel real, the same task should be exactly as difficult to accomplish one time as the next. I also think RPG rules should handle person-to-person combat between two human beings in a reasonably sensible and consistent manner.I admit, I was including those. That's one thing I consider "equivalent to an AoO" and the fact that it has existed since the earliest editions of the game just means that the game has always been reasonably consistent on this subject (allowing AoOs without naming them "attacks of opportunity").Other than that, I don't know how many AoO provoking actions have come up in our C&C game. Nobody's bothered to try a trip, disarm, or grapple, that I recall. IIRC, C&C gives a character who's being "grappled" a "free attack" against the person doing the grappling. AD&D used to give a free attack to anyone who dropped out of combat to drink a potion - via the same "fleeing combat" rule you mentioned above. I imagine C&C hasn't done away with that either.I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that a character trying to run past "mooks" to engage their spellcaster boss would also provoke a free attack. Am I wrong?It's nice to know that I can try anything I want in C&C. Of course, it would be helpful to me as a player to have some idea what my chances of success are before I try it. For instance, I had been assuming that my wizard wouldn't have a great deal of success attempting to trip, disarm, or grapple an opponent. As a wizard player, this doesn't bother me a great deal. However, I tend to evaluate all games from the perspective of a fighter, rogue, or ranger player, as those are what I tend to prefer playing. As a wizard, I have plenty of "tactical options" in C&C. But as a fighter, I'd have to guess what my chances are of pulling off a disarm, trip, feint, or whatever. If I have to ask the CK every time, it's not worth the effort. If I get nailed with a huge penalty, I'm not gonna bother doing it. I really do see where you and the others who like C&C are coming from, and maybe it is true that I want more "handholding" from the rules. But I fail to see why making them up DCs of whole cloth on some "very easy-easy-average-difficult-very difficult-challenging-nearly impossible" is better than having rules guidelines you can refer to. Aren't you at all worried you won't be consistent?As an example, what's the TN for opening a "good" lock in C&C? Where does that number come from? Just curious.</blockquote>

Verification