Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aydee 08-23-07, 04:05 AM	So.. Welcome me to the DMing world. I have all the grand ideals at the moment. No doubt, the players will work out a way to shatter that shortly. I hosted my first game and started it easy by making sure everyone was first level. (No nasty surprises with certain spells). But, I'm wondering how DMs handle certain situations regarding 'house rules'. A good example is when I managed to set one as a player. (I feel the DM handled this one well). We were discussing tripping. I wanted to use a staff to trip. The rules say no. I say yes. I got my staff out and promptly tripped the DM over without striking. This proved the point that the staff is a tripping weapon too. (I quickly inserted it between his legs near his knees, used one knee as the fulcrum and the staff as a lever to shift the other leg out from under him. He tried to escape, failed (Rolled a 1 on his balance check maybe?) and fell over). We discussed this. In the end we decided, IF I take "Expertise:staff" then I can use it as a tripping weapon as I would have learnt the technique and could use it BUT I had to have the feat "Expertise:staff" as a standard 'peasant on the field' wouldn't know this trick. Now.. This brings the question up.. What techniques do some DMs use to solve an issue? Does it have to be proven through logic? What about logic is all well and good, but this will advance the game? Just worried about some house rules. They often have a habit of coming back and biting you. (We won't discuss the 'paladin who no longer follows a god' situation we once went through will we? I've already scratched that rule before we even finished sitting down). Cheers. AD
MarkB 08-23-07, 06:31 AM	Well, your tripping example wouldn't have flown with me. Most DMs are regular civilians, and could thus be tripped fairly easily using almost any implement. The rules for weapon types are designed to provide a certain degree of utility to each weapon according to how easy it is to obtain proficiency with it. A certain amount of logic is sacrificed to that goal, and that's something any D&D player needs to accept unless they want to completely rewrite the system. Basically, realism has its place, but D&D is not a simulationist system. Put game balance first, and don't mess with things unless you have a compelling reason to do so.
claypigeons 08-23-07, 08:32 AM	Does it have to be proven through logic? Logic and DnD do not mix (if you don't agree, tell me how a dragon flies, without resorting to "it's magic"). But, to answer the question... Staves can't trip people. It's a free weapon (assuming you mean a Quarterstaff), so giving it a bonus would be insane. If you want to trip with a weapon, grab a weapon that grants the ability. Alternatively, buy a halberd and trip people. Pretend it's a staff. Problem solved.
Frugal 08-23-07, 10:56 AM	Um, what the heck would the Expertise: Staff feat be?
perdera 08-23-07, 12:03 PM	As mentioned, 'reality' should have no basis in any sort of adjudication. D&D physics are different, and real life magic doesn't exist. I doubt your D&D group is comprised of adventurers either, so don't reference them to prove a point. Historical references have no place either. Any sort of real life Chemistry or Engineering examples should be avoided (the PhD's like going there). Don't let any adjudication slow the game down overly much. If you have to, make a quick call and tell your players you'll think about it and may change your ruling later. Try to infer the spirit of the rule and maintain it through your own ruling. The rules have been balanced, tested and played a lot before you came along, don't be so quick to discard all that experience and knowledge. Read any relevant passage slowly and carefully. Make sure you understand any references to other rules (like Web causes the 'entangled' condition, look that up when adjudicating Web). Look for previous or similar rules to base your new ruling on (well, Aid works like this, so I'll say Mass Aid works like this). Don't let players argue points without being able to point to the relevant rules in a book. Frequently they'll reread it and see that they were wrong, that they read what they wanted to read and failed to absorb an important part. Look through relevant errata and the FAQ for any applicable fixes or advice. Be firm and understanding with your players--"Look, this is taking too much time. This is my ruling for now and we can discuss it more before next session."
Frugal 08-23-07, 12:18 PM	The general rule of thumb is: fantasy trumps reality magic trumps physics rules trump common sense balance trumps everything What I mean by this is don't fall into the trap of thinking, "I can do this is real life but the rules say I can't, therefore the rules are wrong." The game rules define what can be done, not real life. Yes, you can use real life to fill in areas that aren't covered by the rules but that's different. If real life and the rules contradict each other then the rules win. And above all else, consider game balance. It might be perfectly reasonable for a quarterstaff to be usable as a trip weapon, it also coincides well with real life and physics. But, it might not be balanced. If it's not balanced then it doesn't matter how much sense it makes, it shouldn't be allowed in the game. The reason for this is because it can make things very broken in play, which makes the game less fun. Sometimes you have to be willing to sacrifice realism for what makes the game fun to play.
heffroncm 08-23-07, 08:04 PM	The point of the "weapons you can Trip with" is they have some special feature that makes it EASY to trip with them. Either they can wrap around an opponent's limb, or they have a nice hook on the back of them. The Quarterstaff has nothing special about it that makes it particularly easy to trip. If, against a trained opponent, you were to try the same takedown, there is nothing about letting go of the Quarterstaff that would make you less vulnerable to a counterthrow. You still have to get in real close. With a Whipe, Flail, or Halberd, you can be a few feet away, not anywhere close enough to a counterthrow, and if you botch it all you need to do is let go of the weapon to stop the opponent from having and control over your center of balance. Yes, it's realistic, if you remember that the only benefit of a Trip weapon is that it lets you drop the weapon to avoid the countertrip when you screw up.