Misleading/changed rule/ability discriptions?

[Frostmarrow]

Perhaps it's easier to go two weapon fighting with one melee weapon than go rapid shot with a melee weapon?

 

[S'mon]

Maybe a Feat that comes after Whirlwind Attacks that lets him make full attacks while moving? I don't know though, the whole thing gives me a queasy feeling. The separated sword idea is the best so far. Whatever you give him, it's effectively a magical ability, one of literally godlike power - or so it will seem to your poor players. It reminds me of Ares in the Xena TV show.

 

[houser2112]

I wanted to model a situation where a mobile fighter could take multiple attacks in a round, against widely space foes. [...] 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.

This sounds a lot like the Dervish Dance ability from the Dervish PrC (Complete Warrior).

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I use descriptions all the time, without using the shorthand of referring to MM abilities. It really messes players up and makes them think instead of putting them back in their comfort zone. I also tweak monsters all the time. But I usually change teh description or use the Monte Cook rule of "give them a name and a reason for being different."

 

[TheEvil]

This sounds a lot like the Dervish Dance ability from the Dervish PrC (Complete Warrior).

I was kind of wondering how long it would be before someone mentioned the Whirling Dervish. Really, it does seem to be EXACTLY what you are looking for.

 

[monboesen]

Let me ask the counterquestion. What would you do if a player came to you and said

"Hey I have got this really cool idea. Why don't I build an archer type character but he is really more like a deadly swordsman that can launch full attacks while moving more than 5 ft. a round. Oh and his sword will do damage like a bow and he will be able to rapid shot err.. attack along with the other bow feats with it"

I would laugh out loud and say NO.

I'm sorry, don't like your idea one bit. You need to stick to the rules or the players will start to distrust you and begin feeling like personas in a story they have no impact in.

 

[Cor Azer]

Let me ask the counterquestion. What would you do if a player came to you and said

"Hey I have got this really cool idea. Why don't I build an archer type character but he is really more like a deadly swordsman that can launch full attacks while moving more than 5 ft. a round. Oh and his sword will do damage like a bow and he will be able to rapid shot err.. attack along with the other bow feats with it"

I would laugh out loud and say NO.

I'm sorry, don't like your idea one bit. You need to stick to the rules or the players will start to distrust you and begin feeling like personas in a story they have no impact in.

I almost never laugh out loud; I'd call anyone who does so rather rude. I might eventually say no, but I never laugh out loud at a player's idea.

I'm curious as to why you think it's not following the rules though. As I said, mechanically it would follow the rules... it would just have different flavour text.

Archer - attack roll: d20 + Dex modifier + other modifiers; 1d8 for damage, can attack multiple targets that don't need to be adjacent (full attack action), take a 5ft step. Description: The archer quickly pulls his arrows and launches them in at the two guards on either side of the bridge.

Proposal - attack roll: d20 + Dex modifier (after Weapon Finesse) + other modifiers; 1d8 for damage, can attack multiple targets that don't need to be adjacent (full attack action), end no more than 5ft from where began (effectively a 5ft step?). Description: The swordsman dives and twists down the bridge, his sword slicing snickety-snack into the two guards on either side of the bridge, before rolling back to where he began.

For the most part, it is mechanically the same. I imagine I'd have to put some serious thought as to how to generalize it to allow for varied builds (ie, how would it be affected by a scout from CAdv?), but in this basic case, it seems fine.

In any event, the point is moot. As per the other suggestions, I shall have to check out the Dervish. If what was said is true, it is exactly what I'm looking for.

(Edit: more explanation)

 

[Rel]

Couldn't 3.0 Haste model this fairly effectively? If you're running 3.5 then just have the guy be a polymorphed Choker!

 

[ken-ichi]

The problem with doing something like this is you have to answer how you are going to handle things such as cleave, AoO esp. against things with reach, Power Attack, basically any ability that modifies either a melee attack or a ranged attack. Then you have to address spells such as protection from arrows, entropic shield, fire shield.
How far can the character do this "ranged attack" thing. Is it within his full move, within a range like a bow's including the penalties for range increments?
It becomes somewhat confusing.
If you really want to describe the character as such I would suggest following every rule for using ranged weapons and effectively equip him with a comp. longbow (in the shape of a sword). The only change would be the visual effect of his attack style and weapon graphics.
The best solution IMO would be to make the weapon a unique magical weapon that allows the user to attack at range exactly as if it was a bow, with the flavor of enableing the wielder to leap and launch himself around to strike enemies without provoking and all that sort of thing.
I remember from some book a sword that could turn into a bow, well this would be pretty much the same thing, but you embelish the attacks as wuxia acrobatic stunts.

 

[azmodean]

The problem with this is that it is likely to go against some resonable expectations the players have. For instance, what if they ready an attack against the character if he moves in range? It is a perfectly resonable expectation to be able to do this, but if you go through with this as stated it would not work, since firing an arrow at someone does not expose you to an attack like that. You would then have to explain that the target is "too fast" to be hit even by a readied attack or some such. Similarly, what if he is concentrating on hitting the mage in the middle of the group and you describe him as moving in, attacking several times, and then getting away, all before the PCs can respond?

I think the primary problem is the counterintuitiveness of the situation. If a character were really fast enough to do something like this in melee, they would be unstopable.

I think altering monster abilities and/or describing them in a novel way is a great idea, but you have to do it in a way that lets the players figure out how to deal with the situation. In this case I think all of the resonable counters for what you are describing would not work, and you would end up with some frustrate players who aren't having fun.