Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3794735" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sometimes that is a legitimate answer.  If the DM is running a grittier campaign, then he's going to want to stack those rolls in sequence as a way of saying no without saying no, to discourage high risk manuevers that only really work in the movies. In 1e you either could jump far enough or you couldn't.  So it would be more like figuring out how far you could jump, then making a to hit roll, then resolving the attack possibly with an opposed roll.  What you describe is much more typical of highly detailed skill systems, which encourage a 'make a check for anything' mentality.Really?  Is that what it translates to?  Or does it translate to, "Timing a jump at a trotting horse 15' from you and 10' below you so that you hit the Count without breaking your bones is hard to the point of being superheroic and you don't get to be a superhero at 1st level, because otherwise what are you going to have left to obtain at 8th level?"In other words, you make a to hit roll and then resolve an attack (possibly resisted).  Personally, I don't consider this to be a grapple.  It's a bull rush that happens to be attempted as part of a movement containing a jump.  The number of rolls involved depending on the circumstances could be very high, probably higher than it would have been had I tried to resolve it in 1st.  (Does the count spot the Monk, or does the monk achieve surprise?  If not surprised, what are the results of the Counts AoO?  Does the monk make the jump?  Is the monk's attack on target?  Does the monk's strength check beat the count's ride skill?  Does the monk tumble to the ground gracefully, or take damage?  Does the count take damage from the fall?  Is either participant now prone?  Does the horse panic?)I certainly don't agree that these are necessarily bad questions solely designed to say 'No', in disguise.  That's a pretty negative attitude towards DMing in general.  At the very least, they are designed to reward a player who invested in these skills by allowing him to do things that are hard and would be impossible for characters that didn't have such extraordinary skills.  If these things are made easy for you, then they are also made easy for the NPC's.  That isn't necessarily fair to the player either.I've no problem with some sorts of player empowerment.  Having a 'trip' mechanic tells the player, "This is something you can try to do.  You could have always tried to do it, but I'm making it explicit to you."  That's a great thing, because player's (and some DM's) tend to assume that if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't.  Unfortunately, when the rules have the illusion of covering everything, as the 3rd edition rules do, this perception is even more strongly enforced so that IME the explicit options in the 3rd edition game often limit the player's actions even more than situation in the 1st edition game where the player didn't even know the rules.</blockquote>

Verification