Misleading/changed rule/ability discriptions?

[RangerWickett]

I'll go out on a limb here and say what you're doing is not just fine, it's an excellent idea. It's cool. I mean, it's obviously not unbalanced rules wise, because we let archers pull this crap all the time. Heck, mounted archers can do this while making a full move.

Of course, you'd tweak the rules a bit to keep the concept doable without being silly. You probably don't want him teleporting 800 ft., attacking, and then blinking back to where he came from (though again, it's balanced in my opinion). Maybe limit the range to 30 ft., but let him power attack and cleave and trip and so on. He doesn't incur AoOs while moving to fight this way, but he suffers a penalty to his attack roll if his target is engaged in melee(like the -4 penalty for firing into melee), because he's moving so fast, it's hard to get an accurate attack in.

. . .

How about a slightly less extreme example. We take these stats:

Fighter 8
Str 20
Dex 10
Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Wep Foc, Wep. Spec. +1 Greatsword, +1 Full Plate.
Attack bonus +16/+11. Dmg 2d6+10. AC 19.

And we describe it this way:

"He's a thin, wiry man, armed with nothing but a jagged dagger, dressed in animal hides. He moves with a fierce, animal speed, and his eyes are wide and wild, like no living man could ever touch him."

He can power attack for 8 with his dagger, dealing 2d6+26 damage. His AC is 19 even though he's not wearing armor, because he's so tough and fast. And when he dies, instead of looting him, he . . . um, explodes into money.

Would that still be too drastic?

 

[Mercule]

One of my major pet peeves is NPCs with special rules. I don't care if you estimate, or even guess, at what an NPC could do -- as long as the guesswork relates to trying to get the rules right. Ignoring or modifying the rules is a completely different matter.

If I were a player in your game and found out how you'd statted the NPC, I'd probably ask if I could build a similar character using similarly "redescribed" rules. If not, there's a serious chance I'd leave the game.

If you would allow it to PCs, I suspect I wouldn't have much fun in the game, anyway, but that's an unrelated topic.

 

[Bront]

Perhaps you can simply give him a reach weapon much like a spiked chain, IE one that gives him reach and still lets him attack in Meele. If you stat it like a rapier and only give it the optional reach (can attack adjasent and 10' away), it's close to the spiked chain (Especialy if you don't make it 2 handed, treat it as light so no PA, and don't give any disarm or trip bonuses with it).

heck, maybe it's even a magic sword that allows him to seamingly strike from afar. Limit it in some way if you like (otherwise you'll hate yourself later when the PCs try to use it), like only x times per day for y rounds per use, user can attack up to 15' away as if he was adjasent.

If you're making it "Like ranged, but with Meele", you're opening a whole new can of worms, especialy because the players will like to know wow it was done and some may want to emulate it.

The big problem is that a character can't tumble, make a full move, and a full attack at the same time, no matter what feets he takes. And if you say that the effect is just the same, you're trivializing the differences between ranged and meele combat.

 

[Cor Azer]

Thanks for the input all, but I won't be going this route now. The Dervish from Complete Warrior is all but exactly what I was looking for; I knew someone, somewhere, had to have done the rules for such a thing, and lo and behold - someone had.

But thanks for the discussion.

 

[Ravellion]

Howdy,

This might be seen as a rules issue, but I moreso wanted to look at it from a role-playing/player experience point-of-view.

As a DM, how often to you use a rule/ability as worded, but discribe it in a totally different manner. For example, using a standard monster's profile but with a different name and look? I do this all the time because a couple of my players have memorized the Monster Manual.

I'm curious because I'm planning on doing such a thing with a minor BBEG in my game soon, and I want an idea of the potential complaints I might have. My basic idea is I want to show case a highly mobile and dangerous swordsman - my plan is to basically build him as an archer, but describe his attacks as being in melee (thus by taking a full attack action, he'd still be able to attack many opponents widely space out).

Anyone ever done something similar?

Do you know the character Ivy from the PS2 game Soulcalibur 2? She has a sword which can extend to have whip like properties. One of her moves she inserts the sword into the ground and it then comes out of the ground beneath the opponent. I think that could work.

I wouldn't actually have him walk around.

Rav