Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the-golem" data-source="post: 5476188" data-attributes="member: 87242">In this instance, that orc could have been a &quot;skill-based&quot; orc, and an&nbsp; acrobatics roll would probably have worked for that particular monster. I&nbsp; like this idea, but I'm considering just letting a successfull skill&nbsp; check augment a traditional attack role. I play with some really&nbsp; creative people, but most of them are pretty new to 4E, and I'd rather&nbsp; not throw them a curveball.&nbsp;This scenario actually happened in the last game. We were in a flooding room, and the current outcrop we were on had a set of stairs that led up to a &quot;bridge&quot; (it had since been rotted out, but the bridge sections turned into floating platforms). The marauding ranger of the group had set up a triggered action on his previous turn, but the daring Paladin moved into his path, up to the edge of the platform, blocking his triggered action. On his turn, the ranger &quot;ran full tilt towards the enemy, used the paladin's back as a springboard, and in during his spiraling twist-flip, deftly swiped at the orc, and landed soundly on the floating platform behind him. Mechanically, the ranger moved through the paladins square, &quot;over&quot; the orc, and onto the other side, flanking him. (Technically, it probably shouldn't be allowed, but we're a cinematic-oriented group.)Having thought about it, especially because the ranger was so descriptive of his actions, I would allow a +2 circumstance bonus to normal attack roll. Our group doesn't have any skill &quot;specialists&quot; per se, as each main skills each range between 7-10, which is inline with attack rolls also. One character does have like, 12 perception at level 2 or something, which thematically fits her character anyway....I think I rambled and my main point got lost in there somewhere. If this is confusing to anyone, say so and I'll clarify <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="the-golem, post: 5476188, member: 87242"] In this instance, that orc could have been a "skill-based" orc, and an acrobatics roll would probably have worked for that particular monster. I like this idea, but I'm considering just letting a successfull skill check augment a traditional attack role. I play with some really creative people, but most of them are pretty new to 4E, and I'd rather not throw them a curveball. This scenario actually happened in the last game. We were in a flooding room, and the current outcrop we were on had a set of stairs that led up to a "bridge" (it had since been rotted out, but the bridge sections turned into floating platforms). The marauding ranger of the group had set up a triggered action on his previous turn, but the daring Paladin moved into his path, up to the edge of the platform, blocking his triggered action. On his turn, the ranger "ran full tilt towards the enemy, used the paladin's back as a springboard, and in during his spiraling twist-flip, deftly swiped at the orc, and landed soundly on the floating platform behind him. Mechanically, the ranger moved through the paladins square, "over" the orc, and onto the other side, flanking him. (Technically, it probably shouldn't be allowed, but we're a cinematic-oriented group.) Having thought about it, especially because the ranger was so descriptive of his actions, I would allow a +2 circumstance bonus to normal attack roll. Our group doesn't have any skill "specialists" per se, as each main skills each range between 7-10, which is inline with attack rolls also. One character does have like, 12 perception at level 2 or something, which thematically fits her character anyway. ...I think I rambled and my main point got lost in there somewhere. If this is confusing to anyone, say so and I'll clarify :-) [/QUOTE]

Verification