Should cool be a mechanic?

[DungeonMaester]

All actions require mechanical justification now. It's tempting to be descriptive when it comes to cool fight actions, but all too regularly those same actions are covered by a prerequisite feat , skill, or stunt.

That is the Sad truth about 3.5. Which is why I try to remove the cloud of thinking when I run campaigns for a more flexible idea of "Any one can sneak attack, but Rogues to it best.

This is to say, any one who can sneak up on a enemy undiscovered and make a sneak attack at +1d6. But this includes Rogues. So a monk who sneak up on a enemy can do 1d6+1d6 sneak attack while a 1st level rogue doing the same thing with a short sword does 1d6+2d6 sneak attack. What it boils down to is that most any class can use a martial ability with ease, but the class it was made for can do it the best.

Sneak attack is just the tip of the ice berg. Unarmed strike and stunning fist, sunder, trip, and disarm are only where it begins, all changed to make encounters fun and tactical.

---Rusty

 

[DonTadow]

All actions require mechanical justification now. It's tempting to be descriptive when it comes to cool fight actions, but all too regularly those same actions are covered by a prerequisite feat , skill, or stunt.

But why? SUre mechanically its covered in a feat or stunt or something, but is it against hte rules to describe your attack in a cool way. Kratos only does something cool when he's killing a character. What is stopping a really cool description of a character being killed without any mechanical justification.

 

[Black_Swan]

What is stopping a really cool description of a character being killed without any mechanical justification.

Your imagination...

 

[Umbran]

What is stopping a really cool description of a character being killed without any mechanical justification.

Well, for some things, there is the issue of consistency. If it'd be useful to do those same things when the opponent isn't dead yet, you have to ask yourself why you can't do it then, too.

Lopping off limbs, for example. The world is full of stories of people who have lost limbs, and one might get dramatic and talk about that when you're describing the killing sequence. But the rules don't support it at all. If they guys is dead, whether he's missing a limb is mostly moot. If he's still a going concern, matters are different.

So, there's lots of cool things you can describe for someone, when you already know that the straight hit point damage has killed the target. But one probably wants to restrict it to things that simply do a lot of damage, but would have no other mechanical effect if the target were still alive.

 

[Pbartender]

So, there's lots of cool things you can describe for someone, when you already know that the straight hit point damage has killed the target. But one probably wants to restrict it to things that simply do a lot of damage, but would have no other mechanical effect if the target were still alive.

Well, I think there's a lot more to descrptive exposition than just that... You can go a long way describing something, without violating any basic mechanics.

For examples...

You don't attack... You hack, slash, thrust and chop! And based on your attack roll you do it at various points of the enemies' anatomy.

The enemy's attack doesn't miss your armor class by one point... You just manage to catch his weapon on the edge of your shield, or you strain with all your might against the axe blow as you parry it with your own sword, or you lean back just far enough that the spear thrust stops only a fraction of an inch in front of your nose, or you duck just enough that the arrow parts your hair down the middle without even scratching your scalp.

You don't tumble to avoid an attack of opportunity... You backflip over his head, or you tuck and roll between his feet, or you use all that experience from ballroom dancing to pirhouette around him, or you float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

I think that's the sort of thing that Don's talking about.

 

[Umbran]

I think that's the sort of thing that Don's talking about.

Given the God of War reference, where it seems a lot of the coolness has to do with how effective you are, I was not wiling to assume that. And I have said, there is lots of stuff you can do, but some you can't...

For example - to avoid the AoO you "backflip over his head". If you're talking about a humanoid critter, that implies a 6'+ standing jump, right? And if you haven't taken the ranks in Jump, and the DM says you have a low wall to clear, suddenly what you may have described doing multiple times ('cause you've got style!) that should apply here you can't do when you want to...

The disconnect being that the action described is Jump, but the skill getting you around the AoO is probably Tumble. Any time you describe yourself doing something that is covered by a skill or ability you don't have, you might end up with that issue.

Not saying you can't do cool stuff, but one ought to be a little careful about it, is all. Describing things that you can't normally do is problematic, in terms of consistency. Of course, if you don't care about consistency, this is not an issue.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yes, I think it's entirely possible.

Whether in C&C, 3e, or AD&D, I've always encouraged the PCs to try crazy, swashbuckling stunts. To a limit, of course...the tank in full plate isn't going to be doing backflips or jumping up into the air. And you'll have more chance of success at higher levels than at lower. A 1st level mage would just end up decapitating himself if he wielded those blade of chaos, after all.

But I'd argue that the more rules you have for these things, the less you'll see them.

Can you do cool things without mechanical upgrades? Is it some kind of taboo?

 

[Vargo]

Back in my anime days, I had an idea for a "counter" mechanic. There were three types of actions, comedic, cool, and realistic. Realistic actions countered comedic actions (it's hard to joke about a sucking chest wound), cool countered realism (yeah, I've been shot sixteen times, but I'm too good to die..), and comedy countered cool. It's hard to be cool when you've just been made an ass out of.

Mechanically, somebody opposing an action with the proper type of action got a bonus to their die roll, however they actually had to describe the action, and the GM got to decide which type of action it was resolved as. System used 2d6, the bonus was a +3 bonus for the appropriate counter, or a -3 penalty if the counter was the wrong way around.

I never went anywhere with it. I had some ideas (ripped off from Torg, of course) about mixing card and dice-based play to recreate the animeish "we're getting our butts handed to us, but at the last second we'll pull off devastating attack alpha to win the day" type thing that was so common in those kinds of shows.

 

[hamishspence]

nine swords?

Lots of manuvers with an element of cool in. Especially ballista throw. I like the less supernatural ones (setting sun, tiger claw, iron heart)

Good descriptions by a DM can help. Also, much houseruling. If an idea is not obviously cheesy, a dm should look at it.

Coolness should be rationed: once per monster, once per encounter, deathblows only, whatever floats your boat. Otherwise, big slowdown.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, I think it's entirely possible.

Whether in C&C, 3e, or AD&D, I've always encouraged the PCs to try crazy, swashbuckling stunts. To a limit, of course...the tank in full plate isn't going to be doing backflips or jumping up into the air. And you'll have more chance of success at higher levels than at lower. A 1st level mage would just end up decapitating himself if he wielded those blade of chaos, after all.

But I'd argue that the more rules you have for these things, the less you'll see them.

See this is all in how it's presented...If those ton o' rules seriously hampers your character when you try them, then no I don't think they will try them unless neccessary or in an advantageous situation.

If the "cool" rules are an integral part of your character ...Like Charms in Exalted or Attributes in BESM 3e, or even feats in D&D 3.x I think they are more likely to be used. I think one of D&D's problems is that it gives heavy penalties for trying most out of the ordinary combat maneuvers and gives way to little feats/per level to counteract this.