Misleading/changed rule/ability discriptions?

[Cor Azer]

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?

 

[the Jester]

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.

Sure, this is cool.

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).

This is significantly different imho. You're applying feats and abilities to weapons they are completely unsuited for. I wouldn't do this as a dm because I wouldn't let my players do this. And what about AoO's? How do you tell the players they don't get them?

Eh, either give him a bow or build him as a swordsman.

Changing the looks or abilities of a monster? Any time, sure.

Changing the rules for a monster? Not usually, no.

Edit: Again, just imho. No disparagement intended.

 

[S'mon]

I agree with Jester in this case. It doesn't make any sense that he can make melee attacks as ranged attacks, which appears to be your intent. If you want to create a mobile swordsman, use Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Mobility & Tumble etc.

 

[Cor Azer]

This is significantly different imho. You're applying feats and abilities to weapons they are completely unsuited for. I wouldn't do this as a dm because I wouldn't let my players do this. And what about AoO's? How do you tell the players they don't get them?

Well, a good Tumble skill can negate Attacks of Opportunity for movement, and there are already character abilities (and likely feats) in various books the allow ranged combat to not draw Attacks of Opportunity as well.

Eh, either give him a bow or build him as a swordsman.

Changing the looks or abilities of a monster? Any time, sure.

Changing the rules for a monster? Not usually, no.

Edit: Again, just imho. No disparagement intended.

None taken. This is a message board and I solicited opinions, not sycophants.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

As with the others I'd go against using a ranged attack for a melee fighter. As spoken before, you wouldn't let your players do it. But otherwise I'm all for changing the shape, size, description and rules of a monsters ability: Trolls and sunlight anyone?

 

[Ds Da Man]

Or you could have him trained with a weapon of his own design, such as the sword on "The Brotherhood of the Wolf". You know, the bone sword that can seperate and reform. Just have him with EWP: Seperated Sword, then add all the other feats. be the same as throwing daggers, but if it lands in the hand of the PCs, at least they'll have to take EWP to use it! Hope it helps!

 

[Cor Azer]

I agree with Jester in this case. It doesn't make any sense that he can make melee attacks as ranged attacks, which appears to be your intent. If you want to create a mobile swordsman, use Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Mobility & Tumble etc.

The problem with many mobile swordsman builds is that the character gets one attack per round; sure, they may be all over the battlefield from round to round, but ultimately, unless they drop their mobility advantage, they get one attack a round (barring, of course, any attacks of opportunity they are granted).

I wanted to model a situation where a mobile fighter could take multiple attacks in a round, against widely space foes. Being a fan of using rules that exist as much as possible (albeit, with occasional disguises), I figured that such a thing can somewhat be done with ranged combat - consider that with a full attack action, an archer can attack multiple foes, widely spaced, and still take a 5ft step afterwards. Now consider a melee warrior who dances, rolls, flips, and twists (ie, Tumbling, so as to not provoke any attacks of opportunity in movement) in a path around the battefield (limited in total distance to his movement), making individual attacks against multiple foes (as could an archer, although not so widely spread as per the limited path distance) that ends with him within 5ft of where he originally started? It seems it could be a very similar situation to the archer mentioned previously.

That said, there are some differences. Weapon Finesse can change the ability modifier to Dex as with ranged attacks. Still, the main problem would be the damage output of melee weapons versus ranged weapons. Sure, I can cover it in this situation (no two-handed weapons, no Strength bonus to damage, etc.), but it probably wouldn't work in all situations.

Refering back to the Jester's point of not letting my players do this, I might. I wouldn't give carte blanche, but I'd give it a try to see if it works. And in my experience, generally the best way to "see if it works" is to do it myself as a DM first.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm a big fan of changing things about, but I'd agree with the others - I think this one is going a little too far for my tastes...


Some mechanical ideas:

Depending on level a scout and/or tempest build could be quite unpleasant with that 1 attack per round?

I had a badguy I used: Quite mobile, throw anything, ranged feats, 2 weapon fighting, 4 returning shortswords and a set of holsters that could catch the blades... quite a nasty bodyguard.

 

[Staffan]

I'm all for making cosmetic changes to special abilities, especially spells, psionics, and monster abilities (e.g. a magic missile that looks like a couple of skulls flying from the mage and biting the target, or a soulknife/psychic warrior who explains his call weaponry power as changing the shape of his mindblade). But I wouldn't change the game effects, which seems like what you're doing.

 

[Cor Azer]

I'm all for making cosmetic changes to special abilities, especially spells, psionics, and monster abilities (e.g. a magic missile that looks like a couple of skulls flying from the mage and biting the target, or a soulknife/psychic warrior who explains his call weaponry power as changing the shape of his mindblade). But I wouldn't change the game effects, which seems like what you're doing.

See, I view what I'm thinking of doing as your first situation. I build an archer, but instead of describing his full attack as him whipping his bow around, launching arrows willy-nilly, I describe it as a graceful swordsman, dancing out amongst his foes, rapier flicking in and out of their defenses, and returning to where he began.