Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 5704417" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.&nbsp;&nbsp; I generally agree with Monte on this. The one thing I think needs mentioning is that these &quot;group bonuses&quot;, IMHO, should *not* be &quot;class based&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the game is going to have a much more prounounced &quot;group&quot; dynamic over what 1e AD&amp;D had, I'd *much* rather see it be reflected in generalized rules, and not class-ruled into minutia. In other words, if PC1 wants to try and help defend PC2, it should be a matter of the player describing &quot;I try and step close enough to PC2 that I can flash, wave or otherwise try and keep the goblin guessing so that he's destracted&quot;...and then the DM asking for a Dex check (lets say); success gives PC2 a 3 point bonus to defense, and failure gives only a 1 point bonus. This way, *any* character, regardless of class can help another based on their capabilities. To put it another way, if it was a fighter who had a better Str than dex, the player may say &quot;I try and use my size to intimidate the goblin by flexing, posing, yelling and hitting his weapon really hard, so that he gets worried about who to attack&quot;; DM then gives a Str check with the same success/fail bonus of 3 or 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I don't want to see is &quot;Thieves can do fancy moves and stuff to distract someone fighting another person so that other person gets a bonus to defense&quot;. This would set up the feeling that, for some strange reason, only a thief...er &quot;rogue&quot;... can distract someone by doing this. IMHO, best to just make it a generic rules thing and let anyone try, perhaps with certain classes/races being more likely based simply on their generally favored stats.&nbsp;&nbsp; Generic rules for bonuses = GOOD....&nbsp; Class-based rules for bonuses = BAD.&nbsp;^_^&nbsp;Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 5704417, member: 45197"] Hiya. I generally agree with Monte on this. The one thing I think needs mentioning is that these "group bonuses", IMHO, should *not* be "class based". If the game is going to have a much more prounounced "group" dynamic over what 1e AD&D had, I'd *much* rather see it be reflected in generalized rules, and not class-ruled into minutia. In other words, if PC1 wants to try and help defend PC2, it should be a matter of the player describing "I try and step close enough to PC2 that I can flash, wave or otherwise try and keep the goblin guessing so that he's destracted"...and then the DM asking for a Dex check (lets say); success gives PC2 a 3 point bonus to defense, and failure gives only a 1 point bonus. This way, *any* character, regardless of class can help another based on their capabilities. To put it another way, if it was a fighter who had a better Str than dex, the player may say "I try and use my size to intimidate the goblin by flexing, posing, yelling and hitting his weapon really hard, so that he gets worried about who to attack"; DM then gives a Str check with the same success/fail bonus of 3 or 1. What I don't want to see is "Thieves can do fancy moves and stuff to distract someone fighting another person so that other person gets a bonus to defense". This would set up the feeling that, for some strange reason, only a thief...er "rogue"... can distract someone by doing this. IMHO, best to just make it a generic rules thing and let anyone try, perhaps with certain classes/races being more likely based simply on their generally favored stats. Generic rules for bonuses = GOOD.... Class-based rules for bonuses = BAD. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification