I swing my sword

[Lanefan]

Indeed. And this is the heart of the main philosophical difference between editions of D&D that don't define a system for resolving most issues a character will take (1e/2e) and the ones that do (3+). There was an interview with Skip Williams that touched on this very subject - giving the players what they need to know to make informed choices about the actions they take rather than rely on DM fiat so often. It's a definite evolution in the philosophy behind the rules.

One of the key battlelines in the edition wars, defined right there.

Used wrongly, both ways can lead to absurdity. Used rightly, either will work; but the 3+ version is more work - and when you get right down to it, I'm lazy...

Lan-"evolution does not always equate to improvement"-efan

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to y'all, but ...

Out of curiosity, what system(s) do you consider to have "in-built mechanical support", and to what degree? (I expect 4E is one, but somehow I doubt its the only one)

4E certainly is one, but really D&D 3.0 and onwards has worked towards incorporating these sort of things - and Pathfinder, in particular, has done a good job of taking away the nigh-auto-fail nature of the untrained maneuver attempt that 3.0 and 3.5 had, as well as expanding on the available options.

I don't want to derail this into a rule discussion but really, how would you do that in 3e/4e beyond DM fiat?

I admit that I may have rather stepped in it with my specific example. I can't think of a single ruleset that actually has explicit table-throwing rules. (Although I wouldn't put it past Rolemaster to have a table table, cross-referenced by type of wood and square-footage ...*)

As you point out, in the specific instance, I'm probably trying to do something like knock the badguys down. Or, maybe, I'm trying to push them back. Mayhaps, though, I want to pin them under the table.

While it will take a decent DM to adjudicate this perfectly, I believe that the fact that the ruleset already includes rules for adjudicating tripping, forced movement (like Bull Rush or Reposition), grappling, and / or being caught under large objects means that it is more likely that a new DM will adjudicate it at least competently, fairly, and consistently.

In my opinion, the more rules artifacts a DM has as touchstones when deciding how something new will work, the more likely a fair and consistent ruling is to come out of it. As with Fermi estimates and business planning, it's better to make a series of small guesses than one large one. It's better to treat this as an area-effect trip attempt with a ranged touch attack by the table-tosser to start it off than it is to pick a single pass-or-fail DC.


* Rolemaster: There's a Chart for That! And I kid only because I love - and because the guys I played RM with always had all the charts preprinted in separate, character-specific binders, and it worked fantastically.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

One of the aspects of 4e that I think is under-praised is the effort to incorporate forced movement all over the place, from the humble bull rush to various powers that push, pull and slide enemies across the field. Enemies and PCs alike, forced movement is potentially the number one way to get players to really pay attention to the terrain and start using it to their advantage. It was something I came to love about Champions a long time ago, with Knockback.

Positioning enemies is grand. Hurling them off balconies is fantastic. And when you see one player shove an enemy under a chandelier just before a teammate cuts the rope: magnificent.

This is actually a valid point and is one of the prime reasons why there is such a mechanical emphasis on teamwork in 4e. Many 4e actions give you two results, one being your "swinging of the sword" but the other being a possible side benefit to your fellow PCs. Most pre-4e actions give you only the single result.

For example in AD&D if someone successfully threw the table as in the example upthread, the general response could be to either do damage or perhaps knock them over. The thought of awarding both will likely get that little DM bell in the head ringing that one is being too generous. Perhaps by shifting that innate mental-balance line forward just a little to incorporate two results (primary/secondary), a true green light for doing more than "swinging the sword" may be given. In fact, it would mean that in just "swinging the sword", you are doing your character out of a goodly chunk of effectiveness each round.

Just a thought.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Janx]

Herreman hit the nail on the head.

2 for the price of one seems too good, so it gets nerfed.

If a gm gets over that mental hurdle, more stunts could be encouraged

 

[pemerton]

I can't think of a single ruleset that actually has explicit table-throwing rules.

One of the UA appendices - with the revised weaponless combat rules - suggested that pummeling someone with a table was a large, hard object doing (I think) 1d8 points of damage. I can't remember if it canvassed throwing rather than just striking with the table. It didn't contemplate knockback, but a pummeling attack in that ruleset also had a chance of stunning.

Although I wouldn't put it past Rolemaster to have a table table, cross-referenced by type of wood and square-footage

I'd use the Brawling table from RMC V (I think that's where it is).

 

[kaomera]

For example in AD&D if someone successfully threw the table as in the example upthread, the general response could be to either do damage or perhaps knock them over. The thought of awarding both will likely get that little DM bell in the head ringing that one is being too generous. Perhaps by shifting that innate mental-balance line forward just a little to incorporate two results (primary/secondary), a true green light for doing more than "swinging the sword" may be given. In fact, it would mean that in just "swinging the sword", you are doing your character out of a goodly chunk of effectiveness each round.

I've got the feeling we may have done things a bit differently than most groups back when I was playing AD&D, but I would expect damage to be the only effect of hitting someone with a table (and it would be "normal damage", ie the same as if you had swung your sword). Knocking someone over is simply a story consideration, although because the fiction mattered more (specifically because we didn't use a battlemat with any precision) it could still make a difference. But I don't remember ever actually applying any specific penalties because someone was knocked down... Well, not penalties to die rolls / stats, at least; "who gets there first" (initiative and movement) tended to be very important, and having to get up off the floor would make a difference...

The big difference with old-school D&D, for me (and why I would run a game like that again, although I like the modern stuff too) is that you don't need to apply mechanical effects to every little thing to make it significant. Ideally, you'd throw the table because it was a cool thing to do...

(XP comment to the above post)

Barastrondo:
Yeah, good point. Reduced damage + a rider is far more attractive than no damage + a rider, and easier to eyeball as a f...

I think that what I've found in my play of modern D&D is that reduced damage + a rider often isn't enough (for most players - I tend to really like riders, myself, and there are others who do as well). Look at how much the 4e PHB1 Warlocks get panned, when they tend (ime) to do more damage than any non-striker (other than perhaps a striker-secondary like a fighter who's optimized out of her main role for more damage) and still get some very attractive riders... The issue is that there are a lot of powers out there that do as much or more damage and still have good riders (they may or may not be as good, but the usefulness of riders tends to be situational), often on classes that can deal really good damage otherwise.

This becomes an issue with "stunts" and such because to really be attractive they not only have to be better than a character's normal powers / whatever, but they also have to overcome the investment / attachment that players have made to those powers when they picked them out. I find that many characters have a few dozen mechanically different ways to swing their swords (or shoot lightning bolts out of them, or whatever), but that really out-of-the-box stuff isn't really much more common in my games of 3.X / 4e than it was in 1e AD&D. I know that there are some people who are getting really good results out of stuff like page 42, but for the groups I've DMed, but I think that you really need the players to be specifically and deliberately on-board with the idea that doing off-the-wall stuff really improves the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Probably irrelevant, but the stunts/manoeuvres rules were one of the hardest parts to get "right" in terms of writing my own hack. They are too good in the Beta; they are just right around the table now.

As it turns out, I used a system where all of the following are true:

(1) Doing a stunt reduces your overall effectiveness.
(2) It does so even more if you explictly try to avoid doing damage.
(3) It does so even more if you attempt to perform a stunt that has an increased effect.
(4) Fighters can spend resources to become more proficient at stunts, reducing their penalty, and, eventually, making the stunt easier than simply hitting.

What this has done is to create a series of fighters who actually develop personal fighting styles, based on what they are designed to be good at. It also encourages attempting things that you are not necessarily good at, but which make sense and offer an obvious benefit.

For instance, I am currently using Savage Tide as a playtest adventure, and in part 1, one of the PCs used a stabbing weapon to nail a monster (those of you who know the adventure know which) to the deck of a ship. Later on, when they encountered another of the same type of monster, the player asked what the floor was made of, and concluded that the trick couldn't be repeated because it was stone.

From where I sit, both incidents were all kinds of cool, and demonstrate what a good stunt system should do:

(1) Encourage stunts,
(2) Make stunts dependent upon the fictional space (i.e., the players must engage in the fictional space to determine what stunts to try), and
(3) Make stunts tactical (i.e., there is some trade-off between just swinging and trying something more complex.

YMMV.

RC

 

[rogueattorney]

Going back to the OP's post with regard to BECM and his question as to whether combats were "stagnant slugfests," my experience with BD&D has been the opposite. Rather, combats tend to be short, ferocious, and bloody. Combats often last less than five rounds and are over in less than 10 minutes of real time. In that context, "I swing my sword," is often all that is really necessary.

I have not seen many combats in which the players get bored from rolling the d20 over and over for 20 minutes or more.

 

[wolfpunk]

I think Iron Heroes had a pretty good stunt system. I liked that as a DM I could put in things that the players could interact with in various ways.

I think the whole I swing my sword concept is kind of weird. How many action movies have I watched where the hero and villain swung their swords at each other over and over again and I thought it was great. Stunts generally aren't sprinkled throughout fights, they end fights.

I am currently play a warlock and I use eldritch blast over and over and over again, but I understand, I am a striker that is my role, blast away, so although it is repetitive, when I look back at my body of work (damage done) I feel successful.

 

[Lanefan]

... when I look back at my body of work (damage done) I feel successful.

I'd say your "body of work" is better defined as being your opponent's smoking corpse lying on the floor...

Lanefan