DMs: Do you let your players do over the top things?

[Buttercup]

I let players do that, but (and you guys may disagree) I make them roll for it. Normal actions are fine but cool moves like you describe need rolls.

Sometimes I feel that its too much (I have one player who loves the tumble skill far too much), but if its fun for the players and it doesn't mess around with the game in any way, then I think its a good thing.

I let them do it, but they have to roll tumble checks.

DragonLancer, how could one use the Tumble skill too much? If it's part of the character concept, then the player is right to look for opportunities to use it. Tumble is cool.

 

[Asmo]

I´m with Crothian on this one: they can try any crazy stuff they want but they still has to roll to make it.

Asmo

 

[Zappo]

Yes, they can attempt to do whatever they want, but they have to roll for it. Luckily, in 3E there are rules for almost everything, so this crazy stuff can be put in mechanical form pretty easily.

 

[Psion]

Sure, why not.

As with RangerWickett, sometimes I interperet things with flashy descriptions as fairly basic actions if it doesn't net them any additional benefits.

Other than that, I may require rolls, action points, or both.

 

[nopantsyet]

Sure, why not.

As with RangerWickett, sometimes I interperet things with flashy descriptions as fairly basic actions if it doesn't net them any additional benefits.

Other than that, I may require rolls, action points, or both.

Sometimes I go that direction. But sometimes the players are describing a more intricate action than, say, a charge, because they want to to actually work differently.

Taking a single example, when somebody launches themselves out a second floor window with the intent of crushing someone below, I consider that very different from a charge. You're talking about as much as a few hundred lbs falling 20 feet on someone--that's not just a +2 to attack.

I call that 2d6 falling damage. To both parties. It's a risky maneuver that could pay off. Hopefully the jumper has a means to reduce his own falling damage, but he can't use anything like feather fall or the monk's ability to slow his fall because it eliminates falling damage--in this case to both parties. If the jumper wants to attack as well, I'll call that a charge, but that's just going to offset the penalty I'm going to apply for attacking while falling, probably -2/10 ft.

This approach definitely gets more complicated than RangerWickett's method, but I feel that providing a more detailed mechanic for the action can add to the excitement of combat, if applied well and with the right players.

 

[nameless]

I agree with RangerWickett. If the players want to have a flashy description for an action that they could accomplish in a mundane way, just let them do it the flashy way. The rogue jumping and tumbling might look cool, but it doesn't really grant him any benefit, so why penalize him for trying to give combat some style?

The guys doing jumping crushes and swings should probably have to make other rolls, but only because they should get to do some falling damage on the enemies in addition to their attacks. But no more than one extra roll.

In combat, you have to look at the risk/reward factor of making something take a roll versus doing it for free. An attack takes a roll, or a concentration check takes a roll. These determine the meat and potatoes of combat, and then penalty for failing the roll is usually just that whatever you were doing fails. Enforcing a jump check to go out the window instead of the door not only makes the jump at least as important as the attack at the end, but it will add randomness to a thing that doesn't usually have randomness (movement).

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I've been trying to encourage it lately (level 3 being super awesome in this game). This is a result of watching Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

Of course, I just picked up Exalted too...

 

[Tonguez]

Just a question how would you run Legolas running up the Oliphant and putting a arrow into its skull? (how many rounds and what rolls)

Off the top of my head

Rnd 1: Runs up dodging the Oliphants charge - Tumble to swing up on to the Oliphants back
Rnd 2: Ride check (Mounted combat) to stay on and fight BAb vs Leather strap
Rnd 3: BAb arrow to Oliphants head (point blank shot feat) then Tumble to safely 'dismount' from collapsing Oliphant

Any other opinions?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

3 Rounds seems fine, although without actual measurements, I'd consider the possibility of 4 without the Run Feat. Tolkien Elves also have that "walk on anything that isn't water or air" deal going for them, so I might not have even allowed it for a D&D Elf without spider climb or some other suitable means.

Also, I'd make the Round 2 Ride check a Balance check instead.

Aside: I was watching Big Trouble in Little China earlier, and it got me pondering a Prestige Class that would gain free/bonus Action Points after doing something foolish and ambarressing (e.g., shoot a warning shot into the air and get hit in the head with the stone/plaster that falls as a result, stunned for the remainder of the round, get 1 or 2 AP usable in the next X number of rounds). Kind of a martyr for luck (good and bad).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I love the Martyr for Luck idea! I will definitely institute it for my Feng Shui games.

And if the above hasn't already clued you in, I love over the top schtick! I live for it.

Now that don't mean that I don't also love spectacular failure and grim n gritty death from cold, it's just that I got a lot of love to go around.

Generally, the way I run it in DnD is that stunts aren't any harder than normal actions, they just carry greater risk.

If the success would be correspondingly fabulous so too will the failure.