Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7395534" data-attributes="member: 6919838">it depends on the nature and intent of improvised actions...Case 1&nbsp; - seen often by &quot;those players&quot;&nbsp; - you describe something not explicitly covered in the rule and want it ruled to be massively more than any normal acton would be. &quot;sand in eyes&quot; = auto-blind. &quot;drop rock from above - crush skull. practically any nuance - called shot to the auto-win.Those dont get much out of me. Especially since most of the time they do not actually call in any character traits - the goal is to get outside of them or around them.i interpret them using the same basic principles of resolution we normally have. if armor matters its a to-hit. if brief touch matters its save. if long touch matters its skill checks. etc etc.Sand in eyes = HELP action (action, not just one of your extra attacks.)Case-2 You describe extra flourish and utilization of scenery and tactical elements that were added to the scene by me, the npcs or by the PCs - go for it. These are the types of things that can gain advantage for you. I myself **love** to insert scenery that you can try and use - and so can &quot;them&quot;. Fight near the big chair... can i spend half my move and do acrobatics to use the chair as a launching point to flip around and strike him from...&quot; &quot;absolutely! make a check... also of course with the right roll they could possibly turn the cover and acrobatics into an effective &quot;cannot OA me.&quot; But the big difference between these two types is one is using an intentional step beyond the rules to try and drive a mack truck over a scene while the other is trying to use the stuff inn the scene and character abilities for an added thing that fits with the flow of the scene.But the key is, apply the same resolution process for both and it all works out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7395534, member: 6919838"] it depends on the nature and intent of improvised actions... Case 1 - seen often by "those players" - you describe something not explicitly covered in the rule and want it ruled to be massively more than any normal acton would be. "sand in eyes" = auto-blind. "drop rock from above - crush skull. practically any nuance - called shot to the auto-win. Those dont get much out of me. Especially since most of the time they do not actually call in any character traits - the goal is to get outside of them or around them. i interpret them using the same basic principles of resolution we normally have. if armor matters its a to-hit. if brief touch matters its save. if long touch matters its skill checks. etc etc. Sand in eyes = HELP action (action, not just one of your extra attacks.) Case-2 You describe extra flourish and utilization of scenery and tactical elements that were added to the scene by me, the npcs or by the PCs - go for it. These are the types of things that can gain advantage for you. I myself **love** to insert scenery that you can try and use - and so can "them". Fight near the big chair... can i spend half my move and do acrobatics to use the chair as a launching point to flip around and strike him from..." "absolutely! make a check... also of course with the right roll they could possibly turn the cover and acrobatics into an effective "cannot OA me." But the big difference between these two types is one is using an intentional step beyond the rules to try and drive a mack truck over a scene while the other is trying to use the stuff inn the scene and character abilities for an added thing that fits with the flow of the scene. But the key is, apply the same resolution process for both and it all works out. [/QUOTE]

Verification