Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="touc" data-source="post: 9144423" data-attributes="member: 19270">In other words, we all know Monks can stun as a class feature because it's specific to the class. We know some subclasses can "taunt" an enemy into attacking them. It is unknown however, that everyone could attempt to "taunt," normally reserved for a specific subclass, which is where I think the confusion could lie. It wouldn't be a case of your players being "uncreative" or "button pushing." The game is designed with expectations that only certain classes can do certain special things. If you're changing that, just give folks a heads up, and if this would impugn or diminish another class by giving their special feature to another class, let that be known in advance.Also of concern is consistency. If you were to have a player attempt all of [USER=52734]@Stormonu[/USER] 's proposals, for example, would you have consistent application? I want to scare/goad/blind my opponent. A year down the road, will I get the same result as I did on day 1?There's no correct answer, only that you have one. When I ran AD&D and there were no rules for fighters who tried crazy stuff not listed in the rules, it was clear that whatever I made up on that game day at that specific moment applied. It might not be the same next time. For example, AD&D rogues had a backstab attack that only applied if directly behind the target. A player asked if he leapt off a cliff onto a dragon's back with his sword, if that would count as his rogue backstab. Although it wasn't the technical rule, I said sure. The "rule of cool" applied, and it was a more memorable story than if I had said "the rules don't allow it." </blockquote>

Verification