What does an acrobatic stunt do?

[Surgoshan]

Grab the flag-standard: I'd rule that's an attack of str vs ref (one attack roll per minion), and that the minions get a save to fall prone rather than into the pit. Any minion you miss on the attack doesn't get pushed and, if possible, gets an opportunity attack against you.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It to me sounds much like a shout-out to the wonderful, skill tricks. Just now with more flexibility.

 

[Ahglock]

I really like what I'm hearing about the stunt mechanic in this thread. I like the idea of more damage for non-repeatable or hard to repeat stunts. I can't wait to get the DMG.

I think this may be the first time I want the DMG first and the PH second.

 

[ranger9]

Well, the framework is simple and will work in most situations, but little to no guidance is given for the 10-20% of stunts which aren't just damage-dealing. A DM can figure out ways to handle these, but I don't understand why they didn't include an extra page or two to nail down the most common of the less-common stunt types.

As for wanting the DMG more than the PHB... well, there are basically four short sections of rules in the DMG -- Skil challenges, stunts, traps, and a fairly disappointing section on monster creation. (Disappointing because it's so slight and doesn't give you a clue as to how to evaluate "cookies" (non damage effects) of attacks in terms of power so as to appropriately parcel them out to monsters, and basically just says "look what other monsters of this type and level can do," which is actually fairly reasonable but... still, given the big selling point of "monsters are so easy to design now!," I'd have liked a really good monster creation section, with say an example monster or two.)

I mean, really... monster creation was such a hassle in 3e. I'd've liked a re-introduction to the joys of just makin' up new monsters, like I used to do in 1st Ed.

The rest of it is advice, advice, and more advice, much of it in the realm of the theoretical, ranging from the useful to the pretty obvious, and then a whole last chapter on Fallcrest and environs (this latter part is not bad... even gives you a starting dungeon).

And a lot of the advice fails to inspire -- I've read realy good dungeon-design and world-building advice, and the DMG is not really good. It's bare-bones at best.

It's a really crunch-light DMG. The least crunch of any DMG, ever.

Don't expect this rich cornucopia of rules or crunch. It really is basically an advice book for beginning DMs.

 

[Ahglock]

Hey, don't crush my dreams man. Amazon will be doing that on the 11th.

 

[ranger9]

Oh right -- it also has a section on Artifacts. This is the best artifact design, ever, and includes the idea of "Concordance" (how much the artifact digs you or despises you, basically, and the consequences that flow from that) and a "Moving On" section, each artifact deciding at some point (after a level or so I think) that it's time to be Ramblin' On to a new user.

The thing is, as interesting as the *framework* established for artifcats here is, they only give like four examples, which is... lame.

In the first edition DMG I found the artifacts so inspiring, imagination wise, wondering just who the Wind Dukes of Aqaa might be. A nice section on artifacts would have helped define the common game world for most users, and also helped mitigate its lack of crunch.

I gotta say... WotC seems to really be planning ahead in terms of "We'll put all this other good stuff in the PHB2 and MM2 and DMG2."

Really, stuff we're just used to seeing as part of the core books is now missing entirely.

To have the "complete game" as we used to imagine it, I'm guessing we'll at least need two or three rounds of core rulebooks, plus the manual of the planes (very skimpy rundown in the DMG, which especially sucks coming off 3.5's fairly good one in the 3.5 DMG), plus the Adventurer's Vault to round out the very thin magic item list in the PHB.

 

[Jack Colby]

I can imagine a PC doing acrobatic feats that would impact a battle and have mechanical effect (cause damage, etc.) But I can't imagine rules that would cover such things. It's a wide-open area, imagination-wise. This is why the game has a DM.

 

[Jack Colby]

I gotta say... WotC seems to really be planning ahead in terms of "We'll put all this other good stuff in the PHB2 and MM2 and DMG2."

Really, stuff we're just used to seeing as part of the core books is now missing entirely.

I agree with your desire for more examples, but for the first time ever, IMO, we have a completely rock-solid and gameplay-oriented ruleset to build on in the future. Those other things will come sooner rather than later (from WotC, third parties, and players themselves), and they will all work within the great system these guys designed.

 

[hong]

PS, while it works for many stunts pretty easily, it doesn't really tell you how to resolve others, like "I grab the tall flag-standard, hold it crosswise across my body, and charge the four minions with it, using the standard to push them all back over the edge of the pit."

I don't know if it has a framework for that sort of thing. Following the basic rule of "try to say yes" I guess you'd just call it a multiple-target bull rush with a penalty of (say) -2 per additional target, Str vs. highest Fortitude. If you pull it off, I guess they all go flying into the pit of lava. Or maybe you just roll against each of them individually, taking a -4 penalty (as you're pushing four figures). I dunno.

The framework, as written, and as far as I read (skimmed), really only handles the simplest sort of "inflict damage upon one target" sort of stunt.

It seems to me that the framework has already succeeded in letting you handle a complicated situation like the one above....

 

[Starfox]

The penalty of a failed stunt is to fall prone. And even easy DC is 15, which gives a reasonable character with +3 stat bonus and skill training at 70% chance to succeed. That's a 30% chance to fall prone... Pretty dire.