Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bardolph" data-source="post: 1201791" data-attributes="member: 2304">True, but you don't know who will get a chance to act before that segment, and who will act after that segment.Fair enough.  I believe that's a good thing.  I think that the "first round advantage" is substantial enough as it is, without needing to add further insult to the injury of losing Initiative on the first round.What I meant is not that you are valuing Initiative too much, but that you are expecting too much payoff from winning it.  Initiative gives you the first opportunity to act, and it gives the loser a penalty to his ability to defend.  That's enough.  Other opportunities can be created as the opportunity arises, but no, I don't think that high Initiative should give free actions above and beyond the First Strike.And that's exactly the type of situation where you shouldn't get some kind of handout just because you have a high initiative.  The truth is, regardless of your high score, you were caught unprepared.However, winning Initiative in that situation is still useful, because you can use it to defend yourself more adequately against the archer, who would otherwise be tearing you a new arse.I just believe that, after that first round, your advantages should come from your actions, rather than your initiative.There are alternate systems out there, but most of them rely on giving "high initiative" characters extra attacks, or extra information about the opponents actions (in "reverse polish turn declaration" style).  I think the former is unfair, while the latter is a headache.As far as "metering out" the first-round advantage, I don't quite know what you mean.  Either you attack first, or you don't.  How do you meter that out?Exactly.  That's the whole purpose of a level-based system.  Low-level characters are less skilled than higher level ones.  You might have also noticed that low-level characters have a much harder time hitting reliably, too.I suppose this gets more to the point.  And yes, this is an artifact of the rules, and the game we're playing.Briefly, though, the full attack only gives you 1 to 3 extra attacks, not 2 to 5, and these only come at higher levels -- unless, of course, you are using Feats.  But then, we should be counting defensive Feats, as well.But here is where the abstract Hit Point system can be used to your advantage.  Remember, "hit points" can also represent near misses and minor scrapes from otherwise lethal blows.  So, while you can't completely avoid being hit, your hit points allow you to avoid going down.Of course, the two best methods to not get hit are (a) not get into the fight, and (b) kill the enemy first.However, there are things you can do, beyond the "All Out Defense."  You can disarm, trip, sunder, fight with reach weapons, and of course you can use defensive Feats.  Oh, and one more thing:  you can just take the hits.  That's why you have hit points.Yes.I thought you wanted a "swashbuckler."  Monk is a poor choice for making a swashbuckler.I think you have a certain stereotype in your mind whenever you think of "Fighter."  Not all fighters are slow, dull brutes.  You have to think outside of the ol' box.  Fighters have grown up since AD&D.Not at all.  See my point about "hit points," above.However, if your swashbuckler were built as a Fighter/Rogue, you would have fewer hit points than a Fighter of equal level.I strongly believe that if you just sat down and built a Fighter/Rogue using the core 3.x rules, you will get exactly the character you are envisioning, without needing to create some alternate "core class."If you were to run a feat-free game, you wouldn't be playing D&D 3E.  Feats are intrinsic to the game."Swashbuckler" was never a viable option in AD&D, either.Fair enough.I found that AD&D was lacking enough to be unplayable without a few house rules.  Don't get me wrong, I loved AD&D.  However, the rules were a mess.Okay.So tell me, what mechanic did you use to determine whether or not a blow landed at exactly the right time to interrupt a spell?It sounds like you're arguing for an even larger "window" in your particular "frozen frame."  Why would you suppose that, while you're doing all that running around, the combat situation wouldn't change?  And why do you expect your enemy to be so dumb and slow that he couldn't defend himself while you were doing it?It actually doesn't.  You can accomplish that within the core rules, and without using Feats.  Here's how it works:(1) On your Initiative, you spend a Move-Equivalent action to move up near the enemy.  You can then "taunt" as a free action (DM can require a Bluff roll if he wants)(2) Instead of taking a Standard Action, you instead "Ready" a retreat, using the enemy's charge as your trigger.(3) on the enemy's turn, when he tries to charge you, you interrupt that action with your Readied retreat, getting yourself out of harm's way.(4) the enemy, however, is committed to the charge.  It is up to the DM to decide whether or not he continues running into the other enemy.But you have to admit that that's a pretty complex action, which requires many steps.  It is not unreasonable to assume that such a maneuver would normally take two turns to accomplish.  However, unusually talented warriors can accomplish it in a single maneuver, provided (of course) they "pay up" and get the feat!I suppose.  But it's not as if Feats are out-of-reach for any character, since all characters get a feat every three levels.  I would actually characterize Feats as "specialized training," rather than "extraordinary abilities."  For the most part, Feats don't allow anything superhuman or extraordinary, instead, they allow you to do something ordinary "extraordinarily well."For example, while you can hack at enemies until they all fall, the Cleave feat allows you to do the same thing faster.  You can normally disarm and trip your opponents, but certain Feats allow you to do it better.And while the normal rules allow you to rush in, attack, and then retreat, the Spring Attack feat allows you to do it more efficiently.Okay, I should have seen that one coming.First of all, AD&D does have the concept of "no dex bonus to AC," it just doesn't give it the name "Flat-Footed."  So, you can either calculate it on the fly, or increase your AC count to six, instead of three.Secondly, the lack of a "Touch AC" in AD&D was just a gross oversight, and a severe design flaw.  AD&D actually expected a wizard to punch through plate mail with his bare fist in order to land a touch spell!  Seriously, have you ever seen inflict serious wounds or shocking grasp used successfully in those systems???Actually, take another look at that character sheet.  You will find several blanks next to each modifier, so that you can add ability modifiers, magical modifiers, etc, to each number.  Using "weapon speed" is in fact "one more modifier," and something that never worked appropriately, since Reach weapons were actually penalized on their weapon speed!</blockquote>

Verification