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: 5880736" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, certainly if he tries to attack you, the the logic of D&D says you get a bonus attack because he has no way to safely threaten you.The mechanism of 'coup de grace' is ill-defined.  Perhaps it is running him through; perhaps it is hacking on the target wildly while it is helpless?  In any event, I think you are thinking about this wrong.  D&D is an abstract combat system.  It doesn't attempt to nor claim to provide moment by moment tactical simulation.  It doesn't simulate every swing or parry.   Rather, things like oppurtunity attacks exist to provide a degree of cinematic narration and consistancy as much as they do versimlitude.   For me, the real question is, "Do the mechanics and the dice provide something I can consistantly narrate in an exciting and believable fashion."  Sure, it's nice that oppurtunity attacks increase the tactical depth and give the gamists something to do, but that's not the entirety of their purpose.   Sure, oppurtunity attacks do help provide a more believable simulation, but perfect simulation/realism isn't really the goal.  What the system is going for is simply, "Good enough to pass casual examination during the excitement of play."Each of the situations you describe is narratable and tense.  I would tend to describe trying to get something out of your backpack during melee as a desparate scramble, with the character ducking under blows, spinning around, shoving his foe off him, dodging to and fro and .... will he succeed in this risky manuever cleanly, or get cut, and if so will it be serious?  Stay tuned as the dice clatter!I'm not saying that the system is perfect.  In my homebrew game, that tree chopping in combat event is a perfect time to declare a an offensive stance flail action and just wildly swing.  Is this functionally equivalent to an extra attack?  Not exactly, but in a narrative way it is quite similar.  I've often thought about vastly increasing the number of manuevers available to characters and then simply have feats that enhanced each manuever.  But I wonder whether 20 or 40 manuevers might not simply be too intimidating for most players, and slow play too much as they tried to think of exactly the right thing to do.I think the system works pretty well as it is.  I disagree that the penalty for dropping your gaurd is too harsh.   If anything, it's not harsh enough.   I am concerned about D&D's handling of the concept 'defenseless' which has some narrative holes in it.  It's obvious for 'asleep' or 'paralyzed', but what about 'holding a knife to your throat'.   There is really no mechanic for obtaining and retaining that sort of an advantage against a foe - especially the sort of weaker foe where it would make some sense.</blockquote>

Verification