What Cool Things Should the Rules Let You Do?

[Shade]

Just a few that I always wish for...

• Villain holds hostage and knifepoint, heroes must free hostage without them getting killed
• Bull rushing multiple opponents (the classic "hero dives on pile of villains" maneuver)
• Head butts, suprise kicks or knees, etc. while tangling weapons
• Slide-tackles
• Kicking small objects at adversary while charging
• The behind-the-back parry
• Fighting on skis, sleds, etc.

The swashbuckling issue of Dragon and the Power Fantasy: Action Movie Stunts for D&D have become "must carry" issues for adressing similar cool options.

 

[Roadkill101]

Kill things and take their stuff!

Sorry, couldn't resits that. If a character wants to perform some really cool sounding maneuver or other action not covered by a rule (or even if it is sometimes), I allow a check by using whatever stat I feel is appropriate to the situation.

The way I figure it, if stats are supposed to define a characters capabilites and limitations based on their value, why not just use the stats as a basis for a check. Who says I have to have a skill or feat for every little action a character attempts, it's my game, so long as everybody's having fun then I don't need a rule for every little situation when i can just fall back on a characters stats for those times.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Just a few that I always wish for...


[*]Villain holds hostage and knifepoint, heroes must free hostage without them getting killed
- villain can coup-de-grace helpless folks, can't coup de grace while being engaged by PCs.

[*]Bull rushing multiple opponents (the classic "hero dives on pile of villains" maneuver)
- I'd use the bull rush rules, -4 to your atatck for each extra baddie.

[*]Head butts, suprise kicks or knees, etc. while tangling weapons
- bluff and bash. Of course entagling weapon doesn't happen by the book in D&D. Use disarming rules, folks pin/entagle weaposn instead of disarming foe.

[*]Slide-tackles
- a bull rush and or grapple

[*]Kicking small objects at adversary while charging
- attack roll.

[*]The behind-the-back parry
- happens al the time in 3e, no facing.

[*]Fighting on skis, sleds, etc.
- use the rules for riding?

 

[Glyfair]

BTW, players in my campaigns can accomplish stuff like this now and then without resorting to the rules. Each session, every player gets one "screw the rules" point. They just say what happens, and it happens (within reason). I figure as DM I screw the rules now and then to make the story happen, and the players should have a chance to do the same.

I've been contemplating extending the action point rule in my game in such a fashion. If a player wants to try something not covered by the rules, but not something I want to happen often, he can ask me how many action points it will cost. I'll tell them (probably more often 1 or 2 than anything else) and they can decide whether it's worth the cost.

My inspiration, the aforementioned James Bond rules. If you want a prop the DM didn't but in the scene you can spend a Hero Point (or more) for it to be there. Of course, some things were built in (knock out the "mook" to disguise yourself and the uniform always fits).

 

[MarkB]

I want characters to have reasons to do "suboptimal" things, because both real and fictional fights are chaotic, with unpredictable openings for unusual moves. Think Three Musketeers. How often is kicking the other guy your best option in the game when you're holding a rapier? How often is kicking the other guy a great idea in a swashbuckling movie? Once per scene.

How about pulling a foe's cloak over his head? Or punching him with your off hand? Or clothes-lining a different foe as he lunges at your ally?

Here's a possible framework for such an idea (this is just off the top of my head, I haven't used it in-game, so feel free to pick it apart):

If you want to make a special move, you can do so as part of an attack action. Doing so imposes an attack penalty of -2, -4 or -6 (player's choice), but the same value is used as the stunt's critical threat range (which is separate from your weapon's normal critical range). Score a threat and confirm it with a successful attack roll, and your special move pays off with an effect that hampers your opponent. If you score a threat but fail to confirm, you achieve a lesser result.

For instance: A PC fighter is battling an orc in a tavern, and wants to use his free hand to grab up a pint of ale and throw it in the orc's face. He chooses to take a -4 penalty to his next attack in order to do so. If he rolls 17 or higher on the dice (assuming it's enough to hit his opponent with the -4 penalty), then rolls a confirmation roll that hits the orc, he succeeds in blinding the orc for one round. If his confirmation roll fails, the orc is only mildly affected, taking a -2 penalty to attack rolls for one round.

 

[mmadsen]

I'd like to see weapons break, shields shatter, people fall down or get entangled, etc. without an explicit attempt to sunder, trip, grapple, etc.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'd like to see weapons break, shields shatter, people fall down or get entangled, etc. without an explicit attempt to sunder, trip, grapple, etc.

Special effect tables for crits?

If you don't want explicit attempts, there's really only adding them in semi-randomly, and crits seem like a place to put them.

 

[mmadsen]

Perhaps I've read too many King Arthur tales, but I'd like knights to regularly shatter spears on one another's shields, or knock an opponent down while breaking his horse's back, etc. There should be plenty of opportunities to say "brast asunder"... (I am sore wroth with bland combat.)

 

[Slife]

something about killing the stunned witch-king

There should never be a rule for this.

There is. The Coup De Grace.

 

[mmadsen]

There is. The Coup De Grace.

If you're going to be contrarian, you should try to be right. First, you can only perform a coup de grace against a helpless opponent. Second, Irda Ranger was noting that there should not be a rule for a female fighter to defeat a Witch King who has been prophesied to be killed by "no man"...