Can I Make My Games More Like Pirates of the Carribean?

[ruleslawyer]

I think that requiring movement is a bit harsh. There are already plenty of tactical factors in the game that encourage people to take at least one 5' step each round; I can't remember ever DM-ing a 3e combat in which someone didn't do so, unless his back was to the wall.

As for PotC: This is rather predictable (I'm beginning to feel like the IH equivalent of diaglo [OD&D] or Nightfall [SL]), but I'd definitely suggest taking a look at Iron Heroes, or at least Book of Iron Might, since it has the following stuff that would be useful:

1) Loosened, streamlined AoO restrictions.

2) More skills for fighter-types. This is one of the principal issues with swashbuckling combat in D&D. If fighters can't Tumble, then they won't really be able to move around much without getting whacked by AoOs.

3) More skill uses, opposed skill checks, and skill challenges. IH encourages lots of jumping, tumbling, and maneuvering by providing clear mechanical benefits for certain movement-based skill uses. Opposed checks allow PCs to get past mooks with ease while still making fights with CR-appropriate opponents tough.

4) Defense bonuses to AC. IMX, this is the only way to get fighters out of their armor and into swashbuckler mode, and practically every d20 game that tries to do this seems to have this feature, from d20 Modern to Conan.

5) Zones. Want people to swing from chandeliers and slide down curtains using their swords to rip a path? IH has the rules for it.

6) Stunts and combat challenges. This is the biggie, and BoIM has some of this as well if you don't feel like taking on a new d20 game or just don't like IH enough to buy the book for the stuff I mentioned above. Basically, stunts are just a mechanical reward for a creative skill use.

I'd say that introducing any of the above elements into your game will get it closer to the freewheeling, swashbuckling feel. You hardly need to change that much, but throwing one or two of these elements in would help greatly IMHO.

 

[JohnSnow]

As for PotC: This is rather predictable (I'm beginning to feel like the IH equivalent of diaglo [OD&D] or Nightfall [SL]), but I'd definitely suggest taking a look at Iron Heroes, or at least Book of Iron Might, since it has the following stuff that would be useful:

Funny you say that bud, I was just thinking the same thing about MYSELF!

GMTA, I guess.

Seriously Khuxan, the system does a great job of encouraging a different kind of emphasis in your games. It is a system designed to make combat more interesting. Yes, it can take a little longer to resolve, but not a lot, and it's a whole lot more fun.

You don't HAVE to use all the Iron Heroes elements, but I think you'll find many of them are semi-addictive. With Mike (Mearls) at WotC now, I imagine you'll be seeing some similar rules showing up in future D&D products. *cough*Player's Handbook II*cough*

 

[Sejs]

Institute a 'do something cool, get a circumstance bonus' house rule.

Player: I move 30' foreward and attack.
DM: Roll it.

vs.

Player: I run foreward, grab that low-hanging beam and swing into the guy.
DM: Nice. Give me a Dc 10 jump check to pull it off, if you do, take a +2 bonus on your attack roll.

 

[Stalker0]

A misconception I've seen a lot of times is people feel that fighters should be able to tumble around and have more skillpoints.

A "pure" fighter mechanically best represents a soldier. A guy who fights in big battles, is a mercenary, basically, who stands on a battlefield and kills people. Note: This is not even a special forces fighter we are talking about, I mean a pure I'm on the field I kill stuff soldier. A pure fighter is not the classic heroes you see on TV and movies, the guy that jumps around, can take on any situation , etc.


But fortunately, DND has multiclassing to fix that. A fighter/rogue or fighter/ranger can do an excellent job of making a more swashbuckling type fighter. You still get many of the fighters benefits (good hitpoints, feats), but you incorporate more skills and better reflex saves in the mix.

 

[fuindordm]

All this is good advice. I only have one suggestion to add:

Vary the 'winning condition' of the fight. In addition to killing/knocking out your enemies, you might have to:

Force your way past them within a certain time, while they are just trying to delay you;

Fight to favorably impress a third party spectator (watch me Karen, as I humiliate this buffoon who insulted your father!), or in truly hopeless scenarios to allow yourself to feign death and defeat convincingly.

Fight to gain control of an important object and get away with it (the Sloth vs. the dodos in Ice Age).

Cooperate to capture something small and elusive (fox hunt--I did one of these recently and the players enjoyed it).

Can anyone think of other variations on the winning condition?

Ben

 

[werk]

Can I Make My Games More Like Pirates of the Carribean?

I recommend liberal use of rum.

I have a great recipe for grog!

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

Good thread. Funnily enough, I started my new Skull and Bones game last night. I've looked at Iron Heroes stunt rules, but the Swashbuckling Cards look so cool (and fun!) that I think I'll give them a go instead.

I haven't seen PotC2 yet, but the first film has exactly the feel and style of what I'm trying to achieve.

Cheers


Richard

 

[Umbran]

2) More skills for fighter-types. This is one of the principal issues with swashbuckling combat in D&D. If fighters can't Tumble, then they won't really be able to move around much without getting whacked by AoOs.

Be wary of this. In a piratey game, most of your PCs are likely to be Rogues and Fighters, right? Well, then you're rapidly approaching the case where everyone's using tumble, and tumble ceases to be particularly interesting - it becomes a ubiquitous die roll you have to make before acting. That's not so grand.

I think multiclassing with rogue does the job pretty nicely.

 

[ruleslawyer]

A misconception I've seen a lot of times is people feel that fighters should be able to tumble around and have more skillpoints.

A "pure" fighter mechanically best represents a soldier. A guy who fights in big battles, is a mercenary, basically, who stands on a battlefield and kills people. Note: This is not even a special forces fighter we are talking about, I mean a pure I'm on the field I kill stuff soldier. A pure fighter is not the classic heroes you see on TV and movies, the guy that jumps around, can take on any situation , etc.

Actually, the flavor text pretty clearly indicates that the "'pure' fighter" you're talking about is in fact the Warrior NPC Class.
Fighters are supposed to be the special forces types. Now, I agree that there are tanks and there are swashbucklers. The problem is that the latter archetype is pretty severely gimped under the current D&D rules, which do not feature classes like the OGL Conan Pirate, the Arcana Evolved Unfettered, or the Iron Heroes executioner, harrier, or man-at-arms. The Complete Warrior swashbuckler is, IMHO, a very weak fix.

Be wary of this. In a piratey game, most of your PCs are likely to be Rogues and Fighters, right? Well, then you're rapidly approaching the case where everyone's using tumble, and tumble ceases to be particularly interesting - it becomes a ubiquitous die roll you have to make before acting. That's not so grand.

I don't know about that. The party I currently DM has three out of five skilled tumblers, but Tumble has hardly become "ubiquitous"; the use of terrain and opposed checks makes it *more* cinematic and involving, not mundane. Jump and Tumble checks IMC are as much a part of combat as an attack roll, which puts movement right up next to swinging a sword in combat priorities. For a swashbuckling game, I think that's a good thing.

I think multiclassing with rogue does the job petty nicely.

To a certain extent, I agree. However, if the goal is to have a game in which the default "fighter" looks more like Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, or Captain Blood than Sir Lancelot or the Kurgan, I don't really see anything wrong with encouraging that archetype by creating more skilful fighters.

 

[JohnSnow]

Be wary of this. In a piratey game, most of your PCs are likely to be Rogues and Fighters, right? Well, then you're rapidly approaching the case where everyone's using tumble, and tumble ceases to be particularly interesting - it becomes a ubiquitous die roll you have to make before acting. That's not so grand.

I think multiclassing with rogue does the job pretty nicely.

Well, for a sustainable long-term game, you need more than 2 classes. Making every character some variant of "fighter-rogue" would lead to duplicative characters faster than you can blink. I'd guess that, at the bare minimum, you'd want to use the barbarian, swashbuckler, (Complete Warrior) and possibly the scout (Complete Adventurer as well.

You need a way to differentiate your PCs, otherwise they're all going to be trying to do the same things. Basically, any time you want to emphasize what people can do in a fight, you need to provide more interesting ways for them to accomplish it. There's no way, other than giving them more skills, to make spellcaster types do anything in combat but cast spells, because it's just not as effective.

Free multiclassing MIGHT help this, but it's no guarantee.

To a certain extent, I agree. However, if the goal is to have a game in which the default "fighter" looks more like Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, or Captain Blood than Sir Lancelot or the Kurgan, I don't really see anything wrong with encouraging that archetype by creating more skilful fighters.

I have to agree. As ruleslawyer points out, the Iron Heroes classes are an excellent example of this. The "I'm dedicated to combat" fighter in IH is personified by the Weapon Master class. In addition, there are specialty classes for the archer type, as well as the skirmisher type, the silent killer type, the trickster with panache type, the smart tactical type, the crazy berzerker type, the wade into battle in a tank type, and the versatile type.

It's actually not very hard to make Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, and Jack Sparrow as distinctive characters using the IH rules.