Ask a quick question, get some quick advice (Non-RAW) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Ask a quick question, get some quick advice (Non-RAW)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 01, 2009 23:32:30 Not all of us follow RAW, or are satisfied with RAW. Some of us even enjoy taking a monkey wrench to RAW.

Naturally, a RAW answer is kinda unsatisfying for us.

So, as a counter-point to 'Ask a quick question, get a quick answer', we now have 'Ask a quick question, get some quick advice' - The place for non-RAW rules-tinkerers.
#2
LFK
Feb 02, 2009 0:13:30 Doesn't lack of a common reference point within a complex system negate the value of a "quick answer"?
#3
Seeker95
Feb 02, 2009 7:06:44 Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule.
Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew.
Find both here.
#4
ddogwood
Feb 02, 2009 12:20:14
Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule.
Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew.
Find both here.

There is a third option, though - the reasonable response. Sometimes trying to determine the RAW leads to excessively-long arguments (see the Commander's Strike Issue thread), and sometimes it leads to unreasonable or unsatisfying results (see Pun-pun). Some people call this reasonable response RAI, because it's an attempt to play the game the way it was intended to be. This isn't the same as house-ruling or home-brewing, whatever the RAW diehards might claim.

I like the idea of a thread to discuss the reasonable interpretations of the rules without being bound to RAW arguments.
#5
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 02, 2009 12:25:20
Doesn't lack of a common reference point within a complex system negate the value of a "quick answer"?

No. :D

RAW will be taken as a baseline - Answers should be given in the context of 'How would you change this from the baseline'.
Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule.
Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew.
Find both here.

...And the other thread really should go in 'Rules Q&A'. But 'General Discussion' is visited more and is thus more accessible - And thus, putting both threads there increases how much they actually help people.
#6
Seeker95
Feb 02, 2009 13:08:46 I prefer that we help those that help themselves. There are forums for specific purposes. Those who visit the appropriate Forum will receive the appropriate assistance.

Non-RAW advice is fine. It happens all the time in the Rules Forum. But it is usually accompanied by RAW and an explicit acknowledgment that it is deviation from RAW.
#7
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 02, 2009 19:44:49
I prefer that we help those that help themselves. There are forums for specific purposes. Those who visit the appropriate Forum will receive the appropriate assistance.

Non-RAW advice is fine. It happens all the time in the Rules Forum. But it is usually accompanied by RAW and an explicit acknowledgment that it is deviation from RAW.

Yes, and?

You seem to have missed said explicit acknowledgement *Right in the tittle of the thread*

Your dislike of the thread is acknowledged. You may now take the route of those with no use for the thread.
#8
wrecan
Feb 02, 2009 19:51:08
...And the other thread really should go in 'Rules Q&A'. But 'General Discussion' is visited more and is thus more accessible - And thus, putting both threads there increases how much they actually help people.

[highlight]I agree with you that the other thread should be in Rules Q&A. I've asked for it and for reasons I cannot discern it hasn't been moved. But that said, one inappropriately thread does not justify more.

One reason why GD gets more traffic is that we work hard to move inappropriately placed threads. This means the threads are focused and limited to topics of general interest and this means people who come to this forum know what they can expect. Allowing people to place threads here because of the intended audience, rather than the topic, would undo all the good work we've accomplished in the last two years.

So I do understand your position, but I am asking this thread be moved to House Rules. If the VCL agrees it should be moved and, once there, if it gathers steam, it might be worthy of being stickied in that forum.

-wrecan, your friendly neighborhood forum lead[/highlight]
#9
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 02, 2009 19:54:05 That makes more sense than objections that sound like 'I don't like this thread!'.
#10
transformer_dup
Feb 02, 2009 20:22:39 Don't we have two entire forums ("What's a Player to Do?" and "What's a DM to Do?") dedicated to quick advice (as opposed to just RAW questions)? If I'm understanding correctly, this thread is for (even quicker) advice that is specifically related to individual non-RAW rules rulings.

I don't think it'll work. There's a reason why countless threads on this forum are dedicated almost entirely to the topic of when (and how) it is appropriate to breach the rules-as-written. That topic lends itself to lengthy discussions and arguments. Giving quick advice and expecting no one to argue at legnth with you over it on such a broad and contentious topic is pretty darn idealistic. Even the RAW quick question thread devolves into paragraph wars from time to time. It seems to me that this topic is better left to the forums at large.
#11
crazysamaritan
Feb 02, 2009 20:43:52
That makes more sense than objections that sound like 'I don't like this thread!'.

He never objected to the thread, he objected to it's placement.
#12
fragsie
Feb 03, 2009 5:01:54 Hello all, I have a question that i need some non-RAW advice on!!

My players don't like the fact that intimidate is an all or nothing skill, they want to be able to use it to give their characters a little boost/bonus in combat, give themselves a slight adavantage in a fight, rather than the bad-guy simply putting his hands up and saying "don't hurt me".

My question is, how do you think i can implement such a houserule, and what sort of DCs should i be looking at for what effects.

Some suggestions that my players made:

* Intimidated foe is dazed for one round (i think this is a tad too powerful)
* Intimidated foe takes a penalty to defences for one round
* The Intimidating character gains a bonus to attacks against the intimidated foe for one round
*On the intimidated foes next turn he/she/it must try to flee the intimidating character, either engage a different character (even if marked), or try to reach cover and use ranged attacks.

Some or all of these could perhaps be used depending on DC and check result, if anyone has suggestions for other effects too that would be cool.
#13
crazysamaritan
Feb 03, 2009 10:11:03
My players don't like the fact that intimidate is an all or nothing skill, they want to be able to use it to give their characters a little boost/bonus in combat, give themselves a slight adavantage in a fight, rather than the bad-guy simply putting his hands up and saying "don't hurt me".

Use a DC five points less than normal, and you can mark an enemy. Standard action, of course.
#14
fragsie
Feb 03, 2009 11:08:36
Use a DC five points less than normal, and you can mark an enemy. Standard action, of course.

I like your thinking, but wouldn't that devalue the ability to mark as a class feature for those that have it?
#15
crazysamaritan
Feb 03, 2009 11:29:49
I like your thinking, but wouldn't that devalue the ability to mark as a class feature for those that have it?

You trade the ability to deal damage for the ability to mark the target.
#16
johnthedm7000
Feb 05, 2009 0:15:19 Personally, I like the idea of a markesque effect. You could also choose to allow intimidate to be used like bluff in combat (to gain combat advantage).
#17
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 05, 2009 0:25:00 Alternately, a 1-square push instead of damage - Which would make it an attack vs Will.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be guidelines for non-damage actions.
#18
crazysamaritan
Feb 05, 2009 22:28:02
Alternately, a 1-square push instead of damage - Which would make it an attack vs Will.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be guidelines for non-damage actions.

Page 42, and I would use Fort, not will-power, unless you meant intimidate again?
#19
aluman
Feb 05, 2009 23:44:06 I just break out the old 2E morale modfiers, and up the DC by 5 (to account for skill training).
#20
Narf_the_Mouse
Feb 06, 2009 0:53:58
Page 42, and I would use Fort, not will-power, unless you meant intimidate again?

Intimidate versus Will.

I wouldn't call what's on Page 42 'guidelines'. More of a very rough outline.
#21
fragsie
Feb 06, 2009 8:16:50 OK, thanks for all of your advice guys, i've decided what i'm going to implement:

Intimidate vs. Will (standard action Melee)

Result: Push target 1 square, gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.

If Will defence in beaten by double (i.e. character rolls 26, targets Will is 13)

Result: Target attempts to flee you, find cover and use ranged attacks. You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.

I've chosen not to use Marking, because i think that giving everyone the option to mark would devalue the class abilities of defenders.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 01, 2009 23:32:30	Not all of us follow RAW, or are satisfied with RAW. Some of us even enjoy taking a monkey wrench to RAW. Naturally, a RAW answer is kinda unsatisfying for us. So, as a counter-point to 'Ask a quick question, get a quick answer', we now have 'Ask a quick question, get some quick advice' - The place for non-RAW rules-tinkerers.
#2 LFK Feb 02, 2009 0:13:30	Doesn't lack of a common reference point within a complex system negate the value of a "quick answer"?
#3 Seeker95 Feb 02, 2009 7:06:44	Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule. Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew. Find both here.
#4 ddogwood Feb 02, 2009 12:20:14	Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule. Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew. Find both here. There is a third option, though - the reasonable response. Sometimes trying to determine the RAW leads to excessively-long arguments (see the Commander's Strike Issue thread), and sometimes it leads to unreasonable or unsatisfying results (see Pun-pun). Some people call this reasonable response RAI, because it's an attempt to play the game the way it was intended to be. This isn't the same as house-ruling or home-brewing, whatever the RAW diehards might claim. I like the idea of a thread to discuss the reasonable interpretations of the rules without being bound to RAW arguments.
#5 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 02, 2009 12:25:20	Doesn't lack of a common reference point within a complex system negate the value of a "quick answer"? No. :D RAW will be taken as a baseline - Answers should be given in the context of 'How would you change this from the baseline'. Non-RAW rules tinkering is called a house rule. Creating a set of these might be considered a homebrew. Find both here. ...And the other thread really should go in 'Rules Q&A'. But 'General Discussion' is visited more and is thus more accessible - And thus, putting both threads there increases how much they actually help people.
#6 Seeker95 Feb 02, 2009 13:08:46	I prefer that we help those that help themselves. There are forums for specific purposes. Those who visit the appropriate Forum will receive the appropriate assistance. Non-RAW advice is fine. It happens all the time in the Rules Forum. But it is usually accompanied by RAW and an explicit acknowledgment that it is deviation from RAW.
#7 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 02, 2009 19:44:49	I prefer that we help those that help themselves. There are forums for specific purposes. Those who visit the appropriate Forum will receive the appropriate assistance. Non-RAW advice is fine. It happens all the time in the Rules Forum. But it is usually accompanied by RAW and an explicit acknowledgment that it is deviation from RAW. Yes, and? You seem to have missed said explicit acknowledgement Right in the tittle of the thread Your dislike of the thread is acknowledged. You may now take the route of those with no use for the thread.
#8 wrecan Feb 02, 2009 19:51:08	...And the other thread really should go in 'Rules Q&A'. But 'General Discussion' is visited more and is thus more accessible - And thus, putting both threads there increases how much they actually help people. [highlight]I agree with you that the other thread should be in Rules Q&A. I've asked for it and for reasons I cannot discern it hasn't been moved. But that said, one inappropriately thread does not justify more. One reason why GD gets more traffic is that we work hard to move inappropriately placed threads. This means the threads are focused and limited to topics of general interest and this means people who come to this forum know what they can expect. Allowing people to place threads here because of the intended audience, rather than the topic, would undo all the good work we've accomplished in the last two years. So I do understand your position, but I am asking this thread be moved to House Rules. If the VCL agrees it should be moved and, once there, if it gathers steam, it might be worthy of being stickied in that forum. -wrecan, your friendly neighborhood forum lead[/highlight]
#9 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 02, 2009 19:54:05	That makes more sense than objections that sound like 'I don't like this thread!'.
#10 transformer_dup Feb 02, 2009 20:22:39	Don't we have two entire forums ("What's a Player to Do?" and "What's a DM to Do?") dedicated to quick advice (as opposed to just RAW questions)? If I'm understanding correctly, this thread is for (even quicker) advice that is specifically related to individual non-RAW rules rulings. I don't think it'll work. There's a reason why countless threads on this forum are dedicated almost entirely to the topic of when (and how) it is appropriate to breach the rules-as-written. That topic lends itself to lengthy discussions and arguments. Giving quick advice and expecting no one to argue at legnth with you over it on such a broad and contentious topic is pretty darn idealistic. Even the RAW quick question thread devolves into paragraph wars from time to time. It seems to me that this topic is better left to the forums at large.
#11 crazysamaritan Feb 02, 2009 20:43:52	That makes more sense than objections that sound like 'I don't like this thread!'. He never objected to the thread, he objected to it's placement.
#12 fragsie Feb 03, 2009 5:01:54	Hello all, I have a question that i need some non-RAW advice on!! My players don't like the fact that intimidate is an all or nothing skill, they want to be able to use it to give their characters a little boost/bonus in combat, give themselves a slight adavantage in a fight, rather than the bad-guy simply putting his hands up and saying "don't hurt me". My question is, how do you think i can implement such a houserule, and what sort of DCs should i be looking at for what effects. Some suggestions that my players made: * Intimidated foe is dazed for one round (i think this is a tad too powerful) * Intimidated foe takes a penalty to defences for one round * The Intimidating character gains a bonus to attacks against the intimidated foe for one round *On the intimidated foes next turn he/she/it must try to flee the intimidating character, either engage a different character (even if marked), or try to reach cover and use ranged attacks. Some or all of these could perhaps be used depending on DC and check result, if anyone has suggestions for other effects too that would be cool.
#13 crazysamaritan Feb 03, 2009 10:11:03	My players don't like the fact that intimidate is an all or nothing skill, they want to be able to use it to give their characters a little boost/bonus in combat, give themselves a slight adavantage in a fight, rather than the bad-guy simply putting his hands up and saying "don't hurt me". Use a DC five points less than normal, and you can mark an enemy. Standard action, of course.
#14 fragsie Feb 03, 2009 11:08:36	Use a DC five points less than normal, and you can mark an enemy. Standard action, of course. I like your thinking, but wouldn't that devalue the ability to mark as a class feature for those that have it?
#15 crazysamaritan Feb 03, 2009 11:29:49	I like your thinking, but wouldn't that devalue the ability to mark as a class feature for those that have it? You trade the ability to deal damage for the ability to mark the target.
#16 johnthedm7000 Feb 05, 2009 0:15:19	Personally, I like the idea of a markesque effect. You could also choose to allow intimidate to be used like bluff in combat (to gain combat advantage).
#17 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 05, 2009 0:25:00	Alternately, a 1-square push instead of damage - Which would make it an attack vs Will. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be guidelines for non-damage actions.
#18 crazysamaritan Feb 05, 2009 22:28:02	Alternately, a 1-square push instead of damage - Which would make it an attack vs Will. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be guidelines for non-damage actions. Page 42, and I would use Fort, not will-power, unless you meant intimidate again?
#19 aluman Feb 05, 2009 23:44:06	I just break out the old 2E morale modfiers, and up the DC by 5 (to account for skill training).
#20 Narf_the_Mouse Feb 06, 2009 0:53:58	Page 42, and I would use Fort, not will-power, unless you meant intimidate again? Intimidate versus Will. I wouldn't call what's on Page 42 'guidelines'. More of a very rough outline.
#21 fragsie Feb 06, 2009 8:16:50	OK, thanks for all of your advice guys, i've decided what i'm going to implement: Intimidate vs. Will (standard action Melee) Result: Push target 1 square, gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn. If Will defence in beaten by double (i.e. character rolls 26, targets Will is 13) Result: Target attempts to flee you, find cover and use ranged attacks. You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn. I've chosen not to use Marking, because i think that giving everyone the option to mark would devalue the class abilities of defenders.