Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tiluvias99 01-22-06, 10:47 AM	The title says it all. There are too many factors in combat that DnD just doesn't take into account at all, and too many rules that are just plain stupid. I wanted to change that. Looking for opinions, ideas, suggestions, etc. Please be brutal. clicky clicky (http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=550910)
Lina_Inverse 01-22-06, 12:17 PM	D&D is a wargame, complex combat is a must.
Kursk 01-22-06, 07:41 PM	Well, a couple I'ved gotten rid of are; 1: No AoO against a spell caster walking with his hand out, trying to do a touch spell, to the Barbarian carrying a broad sword . I dare someone to try this at home and not lose your arm before you close enough to touch him. :dancin: 2: Flatfooted: A 10th level fighter who isn't suprised should be able to use dex bonus to AC as he watches an orc move all the way across the room to attack him. Just a stupid rule not based on reality. 3: While in one-on-one combat a 5' step doesn't move you 5' feet away unless the opponent chooses not to match you. Combat is suppossed to be simultaneous. To break close contact will require you to take an AoO. There are more but don't have them all to hand right now.
PerennialRook 01-22-06, 08:00 PM	The things my players come up with don't even fall within the current combat actions, and you want less?
Millennium 01-22-06, 09:54 PM	What problems are you trying to solve? It's not really possible to help without knowing exactly what problems you have, because the things you're talking about aren't all that obvious. What factors do you believe D&D doesn't take into account? Is it really that D&D doesn't take these things into account, or that it simply abstracts them out? If you want more concrete combat systems, there are several good ones out there; I've been intrigued by the Grim-n-Gritty ruleset myself. What rules do you think are stupid? Do you understand the purposes that they serve in the system? If those rules were removed, do you have something planned which would serve those same purposes? 1: No AoO against a spell caster walking with his hand out, trying to do a touch spell, to the Barbarian carrying a broad sword . I dare someone to try this at home and not lose your arm before you close enough to touch him. Do you give the barbarian an AoO when someone with a dagger tries to attack him, since its reach isn't significantly greater than that of a spell-charged hand? Is a wizard's spell-charged touch attack somehow less dangerous than a dagger? How do you account for a barbarian needing to avoid the attack while he tries to hit the sorcerer? Since there's an attack to avoid, there's not a true opening, so why are you allowing the AoO?
Kursk 01-22-06, 10:03 PM	The things my players come up with don't even fall within the current combat actions, and you want less? No, I want better. Why keep inane rules that limit realistic combat?
tiluvias99 01-22-06, 10:03 PM	What problems are you trying to solve?What factors do you believe D&D doesn't take into account?What rules do you think are stupid?Uh.. did you click the link I posted in the first post? That was a link to my proposed changes. I would think that the reasons for those changes would have been obvious. Pretty much every new idea I presented adds a more realistic element to combat.
Kursk 01-22-06, 10:07 PM	What problems are you trying to solve? It's not really possible to help without knowing exactly what problems you have, because the things you're talking about aren't all that obvious. What factors do you believe D&D doesn't take into account? Is it really that D&D doesn't take these things into account, or that it simply abstracts them out? If you want more concrete combat systems, there are several good ones out there; I've been intrigued by the Grim-n-Gritty ruleset myself. What rules do you think are stupid? Do you understand the purposes that they serve in the system? If those rules were removed, do you have something planned which would serve those same purposes? Do you give the barbarian an AoO when someone with a dagger tries to attack him, since its reach isn't significantly greater than that of a spell-charged hand? Is a wizard's spell-charged touch attack somehow less dangerous than a dagger? How do you account for a barbarian needing to avoid the attack while he tries to hit the sorcerer? Since there's an attack to avoid, there's not a true opening, so why are you allowing the AoO? Easy to answer. No weapon in hand = AoO. A spell isn't a weapon. I could bluff about having a touch spell ready. Does that mean you don't get an AoO if I'm unarmed? Very simple if looked at logically.
Kursk 01-22-06, 10:09 PM	Uh.. did you click the link I posted in the first post? That was a link to my proposed changes. I would think that the reasons for those changes would have been obvious. Pretty much every new idea I presented adds a more realistic element to combat. I just got looking at your changes. Pretty cool. I really like the weapon vs. armour type. I've thought of doing that but you came up with a good system. Well Done!
Loren Pechtel 01-22-06, 10:46 PM	Easy to answer. No weapon in hand = AoO. A spell isn't a weapon. I could bluff about having a touch spell ready. Does that mean you don't get an AoO if I'm unarmed? Very simple if looked at logically. And what if we flip this around--strap a dagger to the wizard's hand in a fashion that it doesn't interfere with spellcasting. What happens?
Kursk 01-22-06, 10:57 PM	And what if we flip this around--strap a dagger to the wizard's hand in a fashion that it doesn't interfere with spellcasting. What happens? If it doesn't interfere then it's not being used as a weapon. You answered your own question. Don't try to justify a TOTALLY illogical rule. It's pointless.
Millennium 01-23-06, 09:17 AM	Easy to answer. No weapon in hand = AoO. A spell isn't a weapon. A spell isn't a weapon? Forgive me if I find that assertion to be patently absurd. For it to be even remotely true, touch spells would have to be no more dangerous than an empty hand, and I think we can both agree that that isn't the case. I could bluff about having a touch spell ready. Does that mean you don't get an AoO if I'm unarmed? Sure, if you can make the opponent believe that you have a spell ready. In most campaigns, though, that's going to be very difficult. Very simple if looked at logically. Indeed, but to be frank, I don't think that's what you're doing.
Millennium 01-23-06, 09:21 AM	Uh.. did you click the link I posted in the first post? Admittedly, I did not see the link. Pretty much every new idea I presented adds a more realistic element to combat. At the cost of a truly staggering amount of complexity. Have you ever playtested these rules? The point of D&D combat is that it's abstract, and that this abstraction makes combat flow more quickly. And frankly, quite of few of your rules seem significantly less realistic than what RAW offers.
Kursk 01-23-06, 11:00 AM	A spell isn't a weapon? Forgive me if I find that assertion to be patently absurd. For it to be even remotely true, touch spells would have to be no more dangerous than an empty hand, and I think we can both agree that that isn't the case. Sure, if you can make the opponent believe that you have a spell ready. In most campaigns, though, that's going to be very difficult. Since not all spells are visible and most people (commoners in D&D) don't know squat about spells that should be easy right? I'm sorry if you can't see the illogic of the rule. Keep playing and eventually it will come to you. :)
20102000 01-23-06, 11:09 AM	The proposed changes do appear simplier, but not substantally so. I use pcgen for my character sheets. All the number crunch is worked out for me. So for me there would be no advantage. And most of the proposed changes revolve around number crunch , rather than combat actions. Simplier doesn't mean better. For combat you could just roll a dice, highest wins. Thats simple , but no fun. For alternatives you can look at rules already written. The Conan d20 rules, have a very good system for armour as damage reduction. UA also has some armour damage reduction rules. The book of iron might has some very good rules for combat actions/manuveurs.
starfire311 01-23-06, 11:55 AM	Easy to answer. No weapon in hand = AoO. A spell isn't a weapon. I could bluff about having a touch spell ready. Does that mean you don't get an AoO if I'm unarmed? Very simple if looked at logically. At the risk of getting off topic, your rule seems rather arbitrary. So PCs get AoOs whenever they get attacked by some creature that isnt using a weapon. Stupid vampire trying to energy drain, I get an AoO on you. Stupid Monk trying to punch me I get an AoO. Just seems to really nerf things that don't use weapons, without much of a benefit, seems that you just really hate the idea of a cleric dropping a harm on a creature. All giving the free AoO will do is make people not memorize offensive touch spells, or play unarmed combatants, while really nefing most of the monster manual.
Kem 01-23-06, 12:08 PM	Um, about touch spells and AoOs. The reason that it counts as an armed attack and doesn't provoke an AoO is that... If you try to take the free attack or use the "opening", you WILL get hit. An AoO is not just an opening, it represents the fact that at some point while fighting, your enemy did something, that something either distracted them from combat enough that you could swing their way and not have it be really much effort, or that they did something that brought them into your attack radius without being protected themself. This is why improved grapple eliminates the AoO. Same with Improved Trip, etc etc. Touch based spells don't provoke, just the same as an unarmed fighter does not. When either of those 2 swing their hand at you, they are still guarded. The unarmed fighter by the fact that he has "feat level training" in unarmed fighting. The Spellcaster by the fact that the mear act of touching that hand, blasts you with the spell. What you forgot is that you are taking an opening, as in your enemy PROVOKES an AoO. You do not make the opening yourself.
Kursk 01-24-06, 12:56 AM	The Spellcaster by the fact that the mear act of touching that hand, blasts you with the spell. What you forgot is that you are taking an opening, as in your enemy PROVOKES an AoO. You do not make the opening yourself. Sorry an unarmed non-feat trained person coming into range is provoking. As I said just because someone made a rule without thinking logically doesn't make it logical.
Xeviat-DM 01-24-06, 02:48 AM	Sorry an unarmed non-feat trained person coming into range is provoking. As I said just because someone made a rule without thinking logically doesn't make it logical. And a wizards hand, crackling with electricity, will be percieved as much more dangerous than a knife, or even a sword, by most people. If you try to attack their hand as it's coming in, that's exactly the same as trying to attack someone's sword as it's coming in; which is a parry, and parries are assumed to be part of your not-flatfooted AC. Just face it, a touch spell is a weapon. If you're using that logic, all natural weapons and unarmed strikes should provoke, since you can just hit a wolf's mouth as it tries to bite you.
sarlinspellweaver 02-01-06, 07:45 PM	D&D is a wargame, complex combat is a must. There was a time when I might have disagreed - but alas, 3.5e has changed that. Personally if I want to play wargames, I go and play wargames rather than roleplay games that 'pretend'. I'd rather have less and more shambolic rules in combat (which, let's face it, can always be adapted for storytelling and exciting combat by a comptetent DM) and more roleplaying. Having said that, I really like many of the features in UA, especially the sections that limit the efficiency of individuals - it has always galled me that a character can take hundreds of blows and not get taken down (I'll cite an example of a famous 'hero' being taken down by a few arrows: Boromir - did he have to wait until all 120hps had been lost? Nope.) I also really like the armour as damage reduction idea. Only problem is that after a while, with all the implemented rules, I find I'm not playing D&D any more...
Salamandyr 02-04-06, 02:32 PM	There was a time when I might have disagreed - but alas, 3.5e has changed that. Personally if I want to play wargames, I go and play wargames rather than roleplay games that 'pretend'. I'd rather have less and more shambolic rules in combat (which, let's face it, can always be adapted for storytelling and exciting combat by a comptetent DM) and more roleplaying. Having said that, I really like many of the features in UA, especially the sections that limit the efficiency of individuals - it has always galled me that a character can take hundreds of blows and not get taken down (I'll cite an example of a famous 'hero' being taken down by a few arrows: Boromir - did he have to wait until all 120hps had been lost? Nope.) I also really like the armour as damage reduction idea. Only problem is that after a while, with all the implemented rules, I find I'm not playing D&D any more... Actually, if you use the logic of Hit Points in D&D, Boromir was taking hp's of damage for several rounds, through a variety of near misses, slips, concussion, bruising, until he was hit by Lurtz, probably with a ranged sneak attack. And even then, it took several direct hits to put him on the ground. Character's hit points do not reflect actual vitality. A mighty hero does not have the ability to shrug off shearing blades with a sword (unlesss he's the Black Knight of course), it's that he has collossal skill, luck, and divine providence which allows him to avoid being hit by that sword. Consider any James Bond, Star Wars, or action movie. The hero's are involved in a hail of gunfire, none of which manage to connect, even when fired by crack snipers. In film we call it the "Not Allowed to Die" field. In D&D it's called hit points.
Kursk 02-04-06, 02:45 PM	Actually, if you use the logic of Hit Points in D&D, Boromir was taking hp's of damage for several rounds, through a variety of near misses, slips, concussion, bruising, until he was hit by Lurtz, probably with a ranged sneak attack. And even then, it took several direct hits to put him on the ground. Character's hit points do not reflect actual vitality. A mighty hero does not have the ability to shrug off shearing blades with a sword (unlesss he's the Black Knight of course), it's that he has collossal skill, luck, and divine providence which allows him to avoid being hit by that sword. Yes, correct. This is basically the description of Hit Points as stated in 1st Ed AD&D.
Vaelan 02-08-06, 04:12 AM	Kem has made a perfectly valid argument as to why touch spells should not provoke AoOs, and your juvenile attempt to refute it by circumspectly attacking his motivation while giving nothing besides personal attacks to refute it is rather transparent. As for you, tiluvias99, I find that most people who have these problems ignore the genre of the system they're working with. D&D is basically heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy tends to play fast-and-loose with realism. You would probably have more luck adapting a system that was already made with realism in mind, as it would be far less work.