"What do you mean I can't...?"

[Napftor]

Have you ever wanted your character to attempt some kind of combat maneuver only to have the DM respond, "You can't do that"? I could maybe see a DM getting away with this in previous editions but in 3.x there's rules for pretty much everything. So, fill in the blank. What's your PC been unable to do? And what happened after that?

 

[LostSoul]

The one that springs to mind is Spring Attack. Move, attack, move.

"I get out my sword, run up to him and chop at him while I run past him!"

"No, you can't do that, you need Spring Attack."

I always thought that was stupid. You should at least be allowed to attempt the action.

 

[frankthedm]

"I want to attack the straps holding his armor on."

"I want to hook my foe with a grapnel."

"I want to be able to run up to my foe and tackle him."

"I want to attack my foe's {insert body part]

 

[dave_o]

Well, I can't remember the last time I got to play so I can't really contribute on that end of the spectrum. But as a DM I pretty much give everyone a shot at everything (within reason). It's become a running little quirk that people in my games (PbP or tabletop) just go ahead and say "I make a _____ check," or "I try to _____". Why?

Because I'll always say, "Sure, you can try."

When someone wants to attack a foe's armor, or do a called shot, or whatever, I always ad hoc some rules on it. Rarely will anything like that destroy game balance, so there's no harm in giving someone a chance to maybe knock a few points off their foes AC by knocking a piece off, or imposing a small penalty to a foe by stabbing their sword hand.

It's fun!

 

[Dog Moon]

In my group, if we want to do something neat, we try to find a ruling for it. If not, we try to create one on the spot, especially if the maneuver sounds neat.

However, some things are just so out of place or stupid that everyone looks at the character who comes up with and are just like 'Um, no.' For the most part, however, we're not really much into the various combat maneuvers possible, though when I DM, tactics become quite important.

 

[DonTadow]

You can't do everything. Logically if you were on the battlefield, yeah you should be able to do what you think about, but for mechnical purposes limits need to be imposed. The ability to be swift enough in a crowded combat field to dive into an opponanent and jump back before the opponent can get a blow. That's why its a feat. It's an extordinary abilityl.

Now, if my player suggests this and doesnt have the feat, I'll let him do it if he uses an action card to do so.

 

[jdrakeh]

I could maybe see a DM getting away with this in previous editions but in 3.x there's rules for pretty much everything.

Well, that's really not the case (as somebody else pointed out, rules for some things that existed in previous editions were actually removed). Also, a lot of the rules in 3e aren't designed to let characters do stuff, but to prevent them from doing stuff unless they possess a situation-specific feat and/or skill. Most of this limitation makes sense, but some of it makes no sense. Like any other game, it has its shortcomings, and not providing rules for and/or specifically prohibiting certain actions is often one of them in the case of D&D 3x.

To answer your original question, the two that came up a lot in the long-running D&D 3e campaign that I played in were called shots (in various forms, as mentioned by frankthedm) and running (or moving) into attack opponents without provoking a free attack by said opponent. Like dave_o, our DM at the time house-ruled called shots ('cause it makes sense to have them in the game) and usually ignored attacks of opportunity altogether. Other than that, we didn't have a lot of 'No, you cant!' situations come up in combat.

Out of combat, though? Yeah... quite a lot of 'you can't' scenarios sprung up, usually not because there weren't rules for them, but because there were rules specifically forbidding them (I seem to recall a big problem with lip-reading and class restrictions, for example).

 

[Alzrius]

One that came up in my campaign was a player wanting to jump from a ledge above a monster onto that monster. Moreover, this wasn't one the same size as him. He literally wanted to leap onto a dragon. I had no idea how to handle that, so I just flatly ruled he couldn't.

 

[Corsair]

One that came up in my campaign was a player wanting to jump from a ledge above a monster onto that monster. Moreover, this wasn't one the same size as him. He literally wanted to leap onto a dragon. I had no idea how to handle that, so I just flatly ruled he couldn't.

I've actually been thinking about this one once.

Many stupidly huge creatures can continue to act while grappling by taking -20 on their grapple checks. I've considered making this a normal rule.

The jumper has to make a touch attack and some sort of save/skill check to grab on. After that, it's opposed grapple checks. The big critter can continue to act normally vs all other opponents if it takes -20 on its grapple check, OR it can go into normal grapple rules vs the jumper (which will usually result in the dragon eating the jumper) at the expense of not being able to fight other people for a couple rounds.

 

[Umbran]

... in 3.x there's rules for pretty much everything.

No, there isn't. Really, there isn't.

However, in the Book of Iron Might from Malhavoc, there is