|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 5:33PM
#171
|
|
|
While I agree that the "-20 when surprised' wasn't quite right, going back to the surprise round is also a bad idea, IMO. How about ambushers roll Initiative twice during the first round? In Mearls' example, both the PCs and the Distraction Goblins would get one action, but the Ambush Goblins would roll twice. Sure, there's a risk that the Ambush would fail against some of the high Init PCs, but really twitchy characters should be difficult to ambush, even if they have poor Perception scores. Case in point... www.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl...
This isn't bad, but I would simplify it. Ambushers roll initiative as usual, but get to go twice in the first round. Once at their initiative count, and one at their count +5 (or +10).
Just have the surprising party get a surprise action at init +20. Then run the rest of the combat as normal. Sometimes getting surprise will let you act twice before the enemy, but not always, and the quicker opponents will generally get to act before taking 2 attacks.
In any case I don't think it is bad if things like surprise are very good. Let them be. It allows more weight to be put on springing one. I want to see fewer but more decisive situational advantages. It gives each situation more character and makes the decisions or mistakes the PCs make more important.
Wait, explain how a +20 initiative allows the surpriser to go twice in a row?
I prefer the penalty to the surprised, rather than a bonus to the surpriser. The reason is, the one who is “surprised” is simpler to define.
The “surprised” character is the one who is unaware of the attacker at the start of a round. Basically, the surprised character failed a Perception check. Therefore suffers a punishment versus the attacker.
This definition allows a hidden enemy to “surprise” a victim later during the combat session.
With this definition in mind, perhaps it is better for the surpriser to gain an attack before falling into whatever the initiative order would be. Thus the surpriser who sneaks in later, gets two attacks against a target who is surprised.
Huh? It is easier to use a modifier for the surpriser, not the surprisee. Later in the fight chances are a new enemy will come in and surprise the characters that are already there, so put it in the init order at some bonus, that's all. Next round it goes to normal.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 5:50PM
#172
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
None of those modifiers makes behemothic Karack as intimidating as sweet innoncent Elan.
That's not true. If Elan is being sweet and innocent, then he is not trying to intimidate anyone. In order for Elan to intimidate someone, he would have to turn his demeanor and words, and therefore his charisma, into something scary or menacing for the purpose of intimidating. If he doesn't do that, he isn't using the intimidate skill.
What you're not getting is that Elan's Bonus, just his/her bonus makes them more likely to succeed an Intimidate check, compared to Karack who, if he has a +3 to it, will be roll at a -2 compared to Elan. Who has no skill in Intimidation, but is better than someone who is built like brick, and can bench press small houses, and has more scars than hospital ward full of burn victims. But because he doesn't 'talk much', he's worse than the cute, pristine little angel Elan, who has no training in Intimidation, but is memorable because she's so sweet, friendly and talkative.
Seriously? You're OK with that?
I am not.
Perhaps you missed the multiple posts where I said that I was okay with a negative strength bonus counting positive for intimidation. You must have. 
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 5:57PM
#173
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Perhaps you missed the multiple posts where I said that I was okay with a negative strength bonus counting positive for intimidation. You must have.
Personally, I think Charisma is just a bad idea. Cute little Elan whose sweet and friendly but shy should have the 8, while Karack, while also quiet, but tends to glower and just radiate menace should get the 18. Even if he's just using his body, rather than his personality.
But unfortunately the way D&D runs it's stats system, you can't have that and be balanced. (Which I support.)
It's also why I prefer decoupling skills from stats, and allowing the player to pick the right stat to go with the skill he's using.
Like Intelligence + Stealth for the Rogue who's trying to spot a good Ambush location. "Guys, if I were Hobgoblins, I'd split my forces in two behind this door, and make as much noise as possible over there, so the guys here can sneak attack from behind."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 6:07PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
If anything, this is an argument for allowing multiple attributes to potentially apply to a skill.
Agreed.
We can even keep the "associated attribute" bit--it being the default attribute that is used in most typical uses of the skill. However, the rules should also allow for other attributes to be used with the skill in circumstances where such an attribute is more appropriate. For instance, Cha would normally be used with Perform in order to play a piece of music that emotionally touching to the audience, whereas one would use Dex with Perform to play a piece of music that is exceptionally technically complex.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 9:16PM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
The more i think about it, the more I like the idea of seperating skill modifiers from stat modifiers. It just adds more verisimilitude to the game. So certain classes don't become automaticallt associated with certain skillsets. Like clerics and perception are in 4th edition, or rogues and sneaking in well any edition. You want to have an athletic wizard? Go for it. You want a Warrior Scholar in the classical greek tradition, that would be possible too.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 9:23PM
#176
|
|
|
Perhaps you missed the multiple posts where I said that I was okay with a negative strength bonus counting positive for intimidation. You must have.
Personally, I think Charisma is just a bad idea. Cute little Elan whose sweet and friendly but shy should have the 8, while Karack, while also quiet, but tends to glower and just radiate menace should get the 18. Even if he's just using his body, rather than his personality.
But unfortunately the way D&D runs it's stats system, you can't have that and be balanced. (Which I support.)
It's also why I prefer decoupling skills from stats, and allowing the player to pick the right stat to go with the skill he's using.
Like Intelligence + Stealth for the Rogue who's trying to spot a good Ambush location. "Guys, if I were Hobgoblins, I'd split my forces in two behind this door, and make as much noise as possible over there, so the guys here can sneak attack from behind."
“radiate menace” = Charisma
“glower” = Charisma
Knowing how to convey the power that one has = Charisma
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
LOL, news reporters are probably scarier than thugs.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 10:44PM
#177
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I think the skill list they talk about will not be set in stone with fixed ability scores.
I think it might be a list to give you guidence probebly listing all skils that are also used in backgrounds that are in the PHB.
But if you chose to make your own background you can just chose 3 skills you could even make up the skill when creating the background
if there was no guidence you could end up with strange things.
player 1 might write down high jumping in his skills getting a bonus to that.
while player 2 might write down atletics getting a skill bonus to many things including high jumping.
so you could chose from the list or create a skill yourselve, it would still be compared to the skills on the list to see if the skill would be to broad or narrow.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 11:50PM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
You've never been bullied. Lucky you.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 11:55PM
#179
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
You've never been bullied. Lucky you.
I was actually going to say something to this effect at some point. Unless all bullies are charasmatic I'd say that other stats can be used to intimidate.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:54AM
#180
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
Many big people use cues and body language that they have learned to try and not be intimidating... certainly not all.
|
|
|
