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

[LordBOB]

also dont forget about in game knowledge and outta game knowledge. Just because you thought about it doesnt mean your chgaracter would think about it.

The only problem my group had with this would be combat techniques that are hard to acheive ( think Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon ) for this additional checks would have to be made as well as maybe a Dex. check or an Int/Wis check.

Honestly we never had a problem with this b/c our DM wasnt a rule freak and always gave us a chance to try it....usually we would mess the role up and hurt ourselves BAD

 

[LostSoul]

If the limitations of the D&D combat system bother you, there are other games that give lots more detail and options.

Oh no, I like the combat system a lot. It's just that this bugs me once in a while.

 

[Glyfair]

which, honestly, is my problem with the feat system - it takes things which are just a matter of applying your current ability and skills and introduces the perposterous idea that you need special training to even attempt it

I have no problem with Ranged Disarm being a feat (the given case). After all, the ability to use a ranged weapon to disarm someone isn't something that characters should be able to do without training. You don't see skilled marksman shooting guns out of hands, you only see that sort of thing in trick shooters.

While I agree in principle, in practice I don't see too many feats that take things everyone should be able to do and limit to those with a feat. There are some feats, like the above, where I wouldn't want anyone to be able to do it. There are other feats that make things easier (for instance, the whole class of feats that allow you to perform certain tactics without provoking an Attack of Opportunity).

Of course, I definitely could see an argument of including "Ranged Disarm" in one of the newer Tactical Feats (perhaps, "Trick Shooter" or "Sharp Shooter).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

also dont forget about in game knowledge and outta game knowledge. Just because you thought about it doesnt mean your chgaracter would think about it.

er, I'm not talking about inventing gunpowder here. I think more metagame time is spent stopping characters from trying called shots than unduly imposing the awesome tactical insight of a veterinary technition on a 17th level vetran of the Orc Wars.

 

[joeandsteve]

I think that people need to remember that if they want their PCs to be able to do something, that means the enemy will be able to as well.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Sometimes "you can't do that" means "your character cannot do that but his character could." A fighter cannot cast spells. A wizard cannot reliably cast spells while wearing armor. A strength:10 character cannot lift a full grown clydesdale.

The move-and-attack example; if someone threw a giant holy caniption fit over it I *might* let them do it if they took the penalties for charging, a full run, and non-proficient weapon use. That's -3 to hit, the loss of dex and dodge, and it provokes an AoO. But I'd probably say: "when you pause to get a good swing in you lose all momentum; would you rather attack and stand there or keep going and abort the swing?"

I deal a lot with small characters climbing large ones. My rule is that it requires a climb check DC:10+(target's Ref save bonus). This represents them twisting, turning, and trying to shake the little nuisance off. Climbing a large foe does not constitute a grapple for either climber or climbee but the climber has to deal with all the problems of climbing a moving surface. If you are on the back of a quadruped-type creature you can make a saddle-free ride check at a penalty to stay on. Jumping up/down to the creature is just the move action to get to what you want to climb.
Remember to account for any falling damage and AoO's from moving through the creature's reach.

Throwing smaller characters: first a grapple (which pulls them into your area) and you must pin them so they cannot cling to you. You can then attempt the throw as an opposed grapple check but with the non-proficient penalty. Range is based on the size and strengths of the creatures. The projectile can make a jump check to reduce damage.

 

[billd91]

Some of this debate really comes down to using the rules available and understanding that, just because something isn't in the rules, that doesn't make it impossible. You also have to recognize that the authors of the rules couldn't put in every single possible activity a PC would want to try and that's why the game is refereed.

There are some things I don't see much point in really allowing whether there's a feat that allows it or not. I just don't see a mechanical value in it, like someone without power attack trading BAB for extra damage. I figure that someone without the feat just can't do it to the point that it has a significant mechanical difference. I feel the same way about particularly tricky stunts like stapling or disarming with ranged weapons. That should be a tough thing to do that just anybody with a bow wouldn't have a prayer of doing, but a really exceptional archer (meaning someone who has spent the time to learn how to do it) could.

In the case of called shots, again, I don't see much of a point since the hit point system is fairly abstract.

Now in the case of some of the examples here, like the demon with the maguffin and the important NPC, there actually are rules to handle the situation. Disarming should work against the NPC held in the prehensile tail and covers exactly what you wanted... getting the creature to drop the NPC. Grapple would also be reasonable, I would say. And right along with the disarm rules are rules for grabbing items. Not too hard at all to deal with.

 

[Arnwyn]

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

I'm not following your premise.

In some cases, the rule might be "take the feat"... in which the DM is perfectly justified in telling the player that he/she "can't". Or, as another example, the maneuver is so ridiculous that the player could legitimately be accused of being stupid. Finally, even if the player doesn't see it at the time, it is often the case that the last thing they'll want to do is set a dangerous precedent that'll serious hurt (and more likely kill) them when something better does it to them. Often.

But, if you really don't want the DM to say "can't", then the DM could just go and say "you fail" - like attempts to duplicate feats the player didn't take. Or, just treat the maneuver as normal combat - like attempts at bypassing hit points (called shots) or running by and swinging (sure, you can continue to run by after swinging - at the beginning of your next turn). But, saying "you can't" has fewer syllables and takes less time.

Why people think an attempt at anything should always have a chance for success is beyond me.

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.

Bingo. Quoted (again!) for emphasis.

 

[Ferret]

A player playing a barbarian once wanted to jump over the other characters to get to the bad guys. I allowed it.....Wait, not the right thread....

 

[Steverooo]

Playing a Ranger, I expect my PC to be an expert at wilderness survival. I expect him to be able to do anything that I see in any of my survival manuals (to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon ranks in the skill).

When expecting an attack, I wanted my PC to be able to set some snares, and other simple traps, using his survival skill. The GM said no, you can't do that, that's Craft (Trapmaking). I said that finding food is DC:10 Survival, and that snares, deadfalls, net and limb traps are part of that. He said no, so I asked what the DC for traps was, with Craft, since any craft can be performed unskilled.

He looked at the Trapmaking section in the DMG, and said no, you can't do that. Making a trap takes 1,000 GP and one WEEK of time for every CR of the trap. I said sure, if you want to pound a sword into a bear trap, in the wilderness, but I just want to rig some snares, deadfalls, covered pit traps, and such-like. That doesn't require money, just some time and an axe or knife!

Again, he said no. I pointed him to the Detect Snares and Pits spell, which specifically sets out deadfalls, pits, and snares as being different from other traps. Since this is one of those GMs who doesn't want to be "argued with during the game", the Final No was given, and my Ranger couldn't set any traps, except with magic (like the Snare spell).

Irritated by the idiocy of being told that my "Hero" can't do something that I, my non-heroic self, easily can, I sent him off to stand watch, while the spellslingers handled the plans for the coming attack, since he couldn't (effectively) do anything else... My enjoyment of this session was zero or less, and my PC (who is usually very involved in the group) did little... and his absence was noted.

After the game, the GM admitted that I had pretty good arguements, but he just didn't know how to handle it, off the cuff. How long does it take to prepare a deadfall? How long to set a mechanically simple/complex snare? What's the chance of finding a pit, and how long does it take to cover it? Etc. So I showed him a simple snare, and offered to go outside and set him a complex one. He declined. I offered to work up some rules, but nothing was ever done with them (I even allowed either Craft (Trapmaking) or Survival to work, so Barbarians, Druids, Rogues (who don't have Survival), or even Fighters with Craft (Trapmaking) would be able to do the same).

Bleh! A GOOD GM WILL NOT SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF! PCs run into traps set by others ALL THE TIME! They have the skill to build them... I WISH my "Hero" did!

As for the Feats arguement, I agree that many simply limit the PCs. These are ADVENTURERS and Hero(in)es! Any of them should be able to increase their horse's ACs with a (succesful) Ride check (this was JUST and aspect of the Ride proficiency, in 2e), or attack someone who is wielding a weapon, unarmed, without provoking an attack of opportunity (like in 1e)! They are Heroes who ADVENTURE! This is literally what they do for a living!