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

[DungeonmasterCal]

I allow most actions that require feats to be attempted without them (ie Spring Attack) at a -4 penalty. It seems to work pretty well for us.

For other things, I've always been a real seat of the pants kinda DM. If there's no rule for it, my players and I discuss it briefly and wing an on the spot houserule for it.

 

[Jdvn1]

The only times I say "You can't" are when the action is already covered by a feat the character doesn't have or a special ability the character doesn't have.

If you try to spin around with your sword and hit everyone around you, you're going to fail at it, unless you have the feat. I think allowing a character to do that without a feat (but maybe with a penalty) takes some coolness out of the feat.

If the character wants to do something that just isn't covered by the rules, I think saying no is just silly. I'll come up with rules on the spot for it. In a game I played in recently, I tried swimming up to a rowboat and pushing it down to try to trip it over. It didn't work for a variety of reasons (stupid dice), but at least my GM gave me a shot at it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The only times I say "You can't" are when the action is already covered by a feat the character doesn't have or a special ability the character doesn't have.

If you try to spin around with your sword and hit everyone around you, you're going to fail at it, unless you have the feat. I think allowing a character to do that without a feat (but maybe with a penalty) takes some coolness out of the feat.

not to pick on you specificly, but in many cases this means introducing new feats into the game (as wizards and 3rd parties love to do) restricts rather than opens up options. Say you've been playing with a moster character that flies, and worked up a rule for a diving charge that gave extra damage (which the PC also took some of depending on a check) for amount of distance traveled before the slam attack. Then Savage species comes out and you incorporate it into your game. Now that action is covered by a feat. Do you ignore it? Say you can still do it your way but the feat makes it easier/better? make the PC swap out a feat if they want to kep using the same tactic?

This actually happens with feats like ranged disarm or ranged pin, and to some extent I think Power Attack and Spring Attack (as well as ride by, et al) suffer from the same problem, but it was there to begin with so we don't see it as an issue most of the time.

 

[Bullgrit]

Ironically, most of the "can't do's" mentioned in this thread can actually be done (as others have said). Like a "move-by attack" just takes two rounds. Run up and tackle someone? Charge grapple. Etc. It seems people would rather immediately spout off something not explicitly stated in the rules than to give the situation about 6 seconds thought and realize that such things can be done easily within the rules.

I had a Player declare that he wanted to throw his bola around an opponent and then charge up and attack. I said he can throw the bola, move up, and then attack next round; or throw the bola, and then charge and attack next round. "Well that sucks," he said.

Most times it's not that a character can't do something, it's that they can't do it all in one round. If DMs let NPCs do things like many Players want their PCs to do things, there'd be a lot of dead PCs and angry Players.

Bullgrit

 

[Jdvn1]

not to pick on you specificly, but in many cases this means introducing new feats into the game (as wizards and 3rd parties love to do) restricts rather than opens up options. Say you've been playing with a moster character that flies, and worked up a rule for a diving charge that gave extra damage (which the PC also took some of depending on a check) for amount of distance traveled before the slam attack. Then Savage species comes out and you incorporate it into your game. Now that action is covered by a feat. Do you ignore it? Say you can still do it your way but the feat makes it easier/better? make the PC swap out a feat if they want to kep using the same tactic?

This actually happens with feats like ranged disarm or ranged pin, and to some extent I think Power Attack and Spring Attack (as well as ride by, et al) suffer from the same problem, but it was there to begin with so we don't see it as an issue most of the time.

I don't ever add new attacks. I don't see a reason to. There are only a few attacks in the game--most D&D styles of combats are in feats. If I were working on a rule for a diving charge, I wouldn't only make it a charge, but in mid-air. Extra damage? No, that'd be a feat, or something else 'extra'. You can't have that for free because there's no precedent for it. The closest you could come is a charge with a +2 Power Attack to balance out the charge bonus. You want to be able to have an extra powerful charge? Make a feat for it and I'll decide if it's balanced. Oh, there's a WotC feat for it? Okay, let's take a look at that, then. If I can come up with a better feat, let's go for it.

Feats are what Fighters are based on. Let it mean something.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't ever add new attacks. I don't see a reason to. There are only a few attacks in the game--most D&D styles of combats are in feats. If I were working on a rule for a diving charge, I wouldn't only make it a charge, but in mid-air. Extra damage? No, that'd be a feat, or something else 'extra'. You can't have that for free because there's no precedent for it. The closest you could come is a charge with a +2 Power Attack to balance out the charge bonus. You want to be able to have an extra powerful charge? Make a feat for it and I'll decide if it's balanced. Oh, there's a WotC feat for it? Okay, let's take a look at that, then. If I can come up with a better feat, let's go for it.

Feats are what Fighters are based on. Let it mean something.

I don't buy it. There is falling damage, there is the charge attack, there are bull rushes... I require feats to do something special, not use the rules as they exist to good result. "hey, I hit 6th level and suddenly gravity works!"

Why does combat expertise have a lesser non feat equivelent (fight defensively) but power attack doesn't? How come using a double handed weapon to do 1 1/2 str damage is normal (on top of the higher damage die) but you need a feat to split up the damage die and str between two different weapons? I don't think feats should effectively limit combat tactics and weapon styles - only improve them.

Roleplaying and tactics are what the game is based on. Let that mean something.

 

[sjmiller]

About the only time I have said no to a player's action request is when a certain player tries to do too much in a given round. He's a relatively new player and keeps forgetting, I think, that the round is just 6 seconds long. There's only so much you can do in that time. He also tends to think of his actions in a manner which does not translate well into game mechanics. It's a bit hard to explain.

Then there are the times he tries to jump up a lot higher than he can. He's under the mistaken impression that the Boots of Striding and Springing I have him work like cartoon springs when he tries to jump up. I've tried to explain the mechanics to him but I swear he has adult ADHD.

Don't get me started on explaining that his monk's Flurry of Blows is a full round action and he cannot move and flurry on the same turn...

 

[billd91]

I don't buy it. There is falling damage, there is the charge attack, there are bull rushes... I require feats to do something special, not use the rules as they exist to good result. "hey, I hit 6th level and suddenly gravity works!"

Why does combat expertise have a lesser non feat equivelent (fight defensively) but power attack doesn't? How come using a double handed weapon to do 1 1/2 str damage is normal (on top of the higher damage die) but you need a feat to split up the damage die and str between two different weapons? I don't think feats should effectively limit combat tactics and weapon styles - only improve them.

Roleplaying and tactics are what the game is based on. Let that mean something.

Because if everyone could do it without investing in a feat, what's the point of being a fighter? The fighter's main class power comes from having the ability to build up those tactical skills and styles.
If another character wants to try to do more damage with their weapon, why should they be allowed to do so? The game system already assumes they're doing the best they can with the weapon given the skills they already have (aside from putting an extra hand on the weapon to get 1.5x strength bonus - an interpretation of the rules that some dispute but I allow). Going beyond that assumption is worth an extra investment.
When it comes to trying to do things that, in D&D, require a feat when you don't have it, youi simply fail at the attempt. I would expect the same thing out of someone in real life who attempted to do something that required extra training but they tried to do it anyway (of course, this sort of thing can lead to trips to the emergency room, so don't try it at home).

 

[Jdvn1]

I don't buy it. There is falling damage, there is the charge attack, there are bull rushes... I require feats to do something special, not use the rules as they exist to good result. "hey, I hit 6th level and suddenly gravity works!"

You want to fall on your enemy? I'll allow that. You want to move and attack your enemy? I'll allow that. You want to combine gravity into a more powerful attack? That's special.

Why does combat expertise have a lesser non feat equivelent (fight defensively) but power attack doesn't?

I also think this is rules-inconsistent, but I don't mind it so much. Fighting Defensively is a combination of Full Defense and Attack, in theory. Anyone who learns how to fight learns how to parry--that's what this is. Putting more oomph into your attacks? On the other hand, you don't learn to fight wildly from someone teaching you how to fight. Power Attack is sloppy style. I think there should probably be a lesser version of it available for free, though, but I don't think it's a good idea at lower levels anyway (after which, a character who wants to use the option would probably have Power Attack regardless).

How come using a double handed weapon to do 1 1/2 str damage is normal (on top of the higher damage die) but you need a feat to split up the damage die and str between two different weapons? I don't think feats should effectively limit combat tactics and weapon styles - only improve them.

You might want to stick with another example. TWF doesn't give you an extra attack. It does improve an already-available combat tactic.

Roleplaying and tactics are what the game is based on. Let that mean something.

But the d20 system is what D&D is based on. Letting people do things for free unbalances the system. If you want a system that lets you use only roleplaying to play, there are systems that accomodate that. Some D&D rules, in my opinion, are there because they make sense and some are there because of game balance. A good system tries to balance "logic" and "balance" without ignoring either. I'm not happy with all the rules, but I do think most of them are at least balanced.

 

[The Shaman]

Ironically, most of the "can't do's" mentioned in this thread can actually be done (as others have said). Like a "move-by attack" just takes two rounds. Run up and tackle someone? Charge grapple. Etc. It seems people would rather immediately spout off something not explicitly stated in the rules than to give the situation about 6 seconds thought and realize that such things can be done easily within the rules....Most times it's not that a character can't do something, it's that they can't do it all in one round. If DMs let NPCs do things like many Players want their PCs to do things, there'd be a lot of dead PCs and angry Players.

Quoted for emphasis.