Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mishihari Lord" data-source="post: 3475584" data-attributes="member: 128">House rules, buddy.  SOP back in the day.  There weren't any rules for nets, and I wanted nets, so I made some up.  Let's see if I can even remember ... Nets ignored armor.  On a hit, roll 1d6.  1=head (doesn't do much), 2=weapon arm (no attack or somatic spell until removed), 3= shield arm (no shield or somatic spell until removed), 4,5 = legs (reduced movement, 2 hits to the legs stopped movement), 6= 2 areas.  Takes 1d4 rounds to remove.  You can roll a strength check to take it off immediately, but if you fail that round doesn't count towards getting it off.Okay, this one wasn't RAW, but there weren't any rules for this in the RAW.  I would hardly count this as "cheating," since it applied the same to everyone.  Actually, yesYes again.No, but so what?  This is fantasy, and since when is creativity discouraged?Yes.  They captured several but had trouble because they weren't proficient.  Eventually one PC got a proficiency in them and used them to good effect.Yes, frequently.  That was part of the fun.Of course.  They were pretty brave though.  I think I rationalized by saying that their LE alignment made them fanatically devoted to the defense of their tribe and territory.All I did was add rules for nets, and they were pretty reasonable.  Tactics had a lot more to do with the kobolds' success than anything else.Honestly, I don't see what your problem is.  You suggested a bunch of tactics only slightly different than the ones used by Tucker's kobolds that look like they should give a similar chance of success.I don't really have a problem with some enemies having abilities that PCs don't.  You can do it in 3E too.  Call it a race-specific feat and you're done.</blockquote>

Verification