Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5776126" data-attributes="member: 2011">The PC is already getting a +2 shield bonus. Why is the PC getting a second +2 bonus for his shield? If a foe were above the PC or to the left, or right, the PC would still be putting his shield in the foe's face. Why not give the Ant a +2 bonus to hit as it surprise attacks the PC from an unexpected direction as it climbs over the shield because the PC cannot see the Ant because the PC is putting his shield in the way? What does attacking from above or below or any other direction have to do with anything?Do you see how totally arbitrary your adjudication is? The game is abstract, but I could come up with a dozen different arbitrary reasons to put in bonuses or penalties right or left. The idea is to not do this except in the most extreme situations. That gives the game consistency.Another problem with your "on the fly" system is that the player who can convince you as DM "I'm doing xyz, that should give me a bonus" will likely get his bonus if his rationale sounds convincing enough whereas the player who is shy, or not quite as witty, or not quite as smart might come up with a stupid rationale which you won't give a bonus for, or might come up with no rationale at all. The second player's PC might have an Int of 18, but the player is not capable of coming up with the good combat rationales that you are looking for, so the PC doesn't get the bonuses (shy of the DM being generous).Personally, I don't like systems that can penalize a player at the table (or alternatively give an advantage to another player) because of how the DM feels (or what random thoughts go through the DM's head) at a given point in time or how convincing a player can come up with a rationale. The combat system should be equally fair for all players if their PCs have the same capabilities and do the same actions in combat, regardless of the narrative abilities of the players.The narrative abilities of a player should not change the modifiers to an attack at all.The player declares: "I do an overhand chop with my sword" shouldn't result in a bonus. The overhand chop (or underhand chop or thrust or low shot or high shot or whatever) is part of how the PC attacks. Attacking from above or below or around the crate or over the shoulder of my ally (with a reach weapon) shouldn't result in any surprise or other advantage. It's all built into the system already with the bonuses already.There are times where the PC should get combat advantage, but those times are part of the rules. If the DM is going to add additional times or additional rules, then the DM should list those in a house rules list ahead of time so that the players know what to expect. It shouldn't be arbitrary, and on the fly, and vary from encounter to encounter. The rules should stay consistent. IMO.</blockquote>

Verification