This is the smple Stunt System I said I would knock up.... Its got a 2e flavour biut woudl work in any version with some tweaks.
I include a fluff paragraph and a handful of examples so you might argue it's not really a paragraph :)
It really is just common sense and any experienced DM just knows this stuff it's in our DNA.
If I was doing this for real I would provide a table of variables for the DM to use but mostly its just common sense....
Combat stunts
Combat is not all about running through a series of trained moves like an automoton. A successful warrior seizes every opportunity to give him an advantage and makes use of the environment to give him an edge. To replicae this in we use the system of stunts. Stunts can be anything from throwing sand in an opponents eyes, swinging on a chandalier or pushing them back 10 feet and off a cliff. Any class can attempt a combat stunt but since they run against THACO warriors are more adapt than other classes as you would expect. Stunts can do anything but do not do damage per se but rather do damage as dependent on environment/effect, so pushing someone over a cliff does damage... as does setting fire to them.
To perform a stunt first name what you intend to do and the effect you want to achieve. A stunt has an effect that can last for one round only, so throwing sand at an opponent's eyes will distract them for just 1 round. To perform the stunt make a roll against THACO. The DM may apply a bonus or minus depending on the environment and the PC adds any bonus from Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, so throwing sand gets a dex to hit bonus. If successful the ammount that the roll suceeded by becomes an effect number, so if THACO was 13 and the PC rolls 16 the effect number is 3. If the stunt has a target then the target makes a resistance check (in a perfect world this would be a saving throw but in D&D fighters who should have the highest chance to avoid a stunt effect have some of the worst saving throws so we are going to use THACO again) which is another roll against THACO, to make the save the target needs to exceed his THACO by more than the effect number. If the save fails the stunt works as required. If the stunt has movement effect like pushing the target backwards then the effect number is applied here as well but the DM can apply modifers here as well for elements like size or the environment (someone will move backwards further on ice than on sand for example)
Examples
Pushing an opponent backwards.
Krull is battling with a pair of wights on a narrow ledge. He has no magic weapons and can not damage the undead foe with his broadsword. Instead he elects to use his shield to do a stunt and force on of the wights over the edge. Kull's THACO is 14 (he looses his +3 for weapons specialisation but keeps +1 for his strength) he rolls an 18 for an effect number of 4. The Wight has a THACO of 12 so needs to roll a 16 to resist the effect. The DM rolls an 8 a fial the wight is forced back 4 feet (the effect number) just enough to topple them over the edge and down to the ground below. Note Kull's attack does no damage as he is unable to damage the Wight with out silver or magical weapons. (In another circumstance the attack would have done 1/2 regular damage.
Tripping an opponent
Silk has been caught trying to pick open a lock. Two guards stand over him blocking the alley and preventing his escape. Silk wins initiative and ops to try a stunt. He wants to roll into the guards legs knocking them both over. The DM determines that Silk will get a -2 on the stunt check because Silk is trying to trip 2 opponents. Silk's THACO is 16 he rolls a 16 a success but no effect number. The guards have THACos of 17 and get a resistance check. They roll a 14 and a 13 and so the stunt is a success and both guards fall to the floor. If Silk had failed then he woudl have been prone and both guards would have gained +2 to hit and Silk woudl ahve lost his Dexterity bonus on AC.
Stealing an opponent's weapon.
Kull finds himself cornered by a heavy set Barbarian named Quinn. Kull however has no weapon. Quinn hefts a Battleaxe but on his belt hangs a longsword. Kull makes a call he decides to use a stunt to move past Quinn but to grab and draw the barbarian's blade as he does so. The DM determines that Quinn could act to defend against the stunt or take a free attack and opts for the free attack he rolls a hit and Kull takes 6 damage, however as Quinn opted not to defend against the stunt Kull can stil continue the attempt. He rolls a 15 (his THACO is 15 as he looses his strength and weapons specialisation bonuses) a success. So Kull has spun past Quinn and managed to steal his opponents blade although he took a blow from the battle axe to manage it.
Small correction:
Quote from: jibbajibba;380780(in a perfect world this would be a saving throw but in D&D fighters who should have the highest chance to avoid a stunt effect have some of the worst saving throws so we are going to use THACO again)
This isn't 3rd edition. Fighters start with some of the worst saving throws, but with a few levels quickly end up in the middle of the pack, or even with the best saves (excluding versus spells). Still, THAC0 does make more sense.
p.s. THAC0, not THACO
Quote from: 837204563;380783Small correction:
This isn't 3rd edition. Fighters start with some of the worst saving throws, but with a few levels quickly end up in the middle of the pack, or even with the best saves (excluding versus spells). Still, THAC0 does make more sense.
p.s. THAC0, not THACO
Fair enough I was putting this together from memory, I still like THACO though, and noice spot on THAC0 :)
Here's my stunt system for D&D that I've used on occasion-
Anytime that you roll a natural 20, you get to describe an additional result of your action- this can include things like knocking down your opponent, pushing him back, moving around them, disarming them, breaking their shield, etc. - be creative.
Mmm. Tacos... :D
(http://up6.podbean.com/image-logos/34496_logo.jpg)
Huh! What? Oh yeah. Yes: Nice houserule. Looks like it works in practice, which is ultimately what matters. If your table's comfortable with it, and it doesn't act in broken ways for you, then it's cool. :)
Looks workable as far as I can see.
I went back and had a look at the guidelines on combat stunts for 2e in The Complete Fighter ("Don't Say No, Determine Difficulty") and their system was completely different - they suggest ability checks with up to a -10 rather than an attack roll. I'd say this system is better though, since it keeps stunt ability consistent with combat ability.
Pulling of a stunt is relatively difficult here - its as hard as hitting an AC 0 opponent since you're trying to get your THAC0 or better even without considering that an opponent also gets to block - but I guess that's reasonable since the right stunt at the right time can have more effect that just damage.
Right. Good line of thinking here, very similar to what I've done in the past. In my incarnation, the stunt was generally a modification to a 'called shot' and thus was still an attack vs. AC (often what we'd now call "touch AC") with negative modifiers. We retained Saving Throws though, but a different ST depending on the intended effect - you'll recall that 2e had quite a lot of discussion on what the saving throws represented above and beyond their names (i.e. Breath Weapon could be used for an effect in which the character needs to get their whole body out of the way or behind cover).
But, right, I never doubted the basic idea you had in the other thread. Something more like this is more "extensible" than individual pockets of rules like Powers.
Forgive me, but this seems a bit more cumbersome than it really needs to be as were the examples you cited on the other thread (which is so off topic that it needs to die, else I would have replied there.)
If we're talking about AD&D/Basic rules, then why not make stunts a variation on called shots, requiring the attemptee (is this a word? I've been at work all night) to announce their intent before making the roll and then roll above their THAC0 to succeed?
Yes, this essentially means that higher level melee types are almost always going to succeed, but they're supposed to be awesome at that level. However, this could be mitigated by granting the target the appropriate savings throw.
I'm a fan of unified systems by the way.
Quote from: Shazbot79;382252Forgive me, but this seems a bit more cumbersome than it really needs to be as were the examples you cited on the other thread (which is so off topic that it needs to die, else I would have replied there.)
If we're talking about AD&D/Basic rules, then why not make stunts a variation on called shots, requiring the attemptee (is this a word? I've been at work all night) to announce their intent before making the roll and then roll above their THAC0 to succeed?
Yes, this essentially means that higher level melee types are almost always going to succeed, but they're supposed to be awesome at that level. However, this could be mitigated by granting the target the appropriate savings throw.
I'm a fan of unified systems by the way.
You are right my only issue was how do you track the extent of effects. So how far back can you push someone etc ? The issue here if how do you get am effect number and the easiest way seems to be by taking it from the 'to hit' roll.
I think its one of those things that seems cumbersome on paper but with a good DM (with the ability to do subtraction in their head) its just a roll to hit and a save so ... hard to make it simpler
Quote from: jibbajibba;382258You are right my only issue was how do you track the extent of effects. So how far back can you push someone etc ? The issue here if how do you get am effect number and the easiest way seems to be by taking it from the 'to hit' roll.
I think its one of those things that seems cumbersome on paper but with a good DM (with the ability to do subtraction in their head) its just a roll to hit and a save so ... hard to make it simpler
This is one of the places in which a strength modifier comes in handy.
Here I'd just say that if Kull beats the target roll (in this instance, his THAC0) and if the Wight fails it's saving throw, then Kull manages to push the target a number of feet equal to his movement rate. (Maybe twice that on a nat 20)
It's basically the opposed attack rolls system that 3rd edition D&D uses for disarming.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382264It's basically the opposed attack rolls system that 3rd edition D&D uses for disarming.
-Frank
Wasn't aware of that as never adopted 3e but yeah opposed attack rolls is the basic mechanic.
As I said this isn't rocket science and I am sure its a non documented mechanic that has been used since forever...
In Swords & Wizardry, I use the core saving throw as the basis for stunts and all Fighting Men get a +2 bonus. Then depending on the stunt, they get to add the appropriate attribute modifier.
AKA, a 1st level dwarf has a SV of 16 and +1 STR bonus. If he wanted to shield smash a demon's knee to knock them prone, he'd roll D20 + 3 vs. 16. That same stunt at 10th level would be D20 + 3 vs. 7.
As for the opponent's saving throw, I am not a fan of a player doing something cool and then it getting easily negated by NPC rolls. If it makes sense the NPC should get a save, then I make the PC's bonus into a negative modifier for the NPC's save. AKA, the demon would have a -3 save against the dwarf's shield smash.
Quote from: Spinachcat;382305In Swords & Wizardry, I use the core saving throw as the basis for stunts and all Fighting Men get a +2 bonus. Then depending on the stunt, they get to add the appropriate attribute modifier.
AKA, a 1st level dwarf has a SV of 16 and +1 STR bonus. If he wanted to shield smash a demon's knee to knock them prone, he'd roll D20 + 3 vs. 16. That same stunt at 10th level would be D20 + 3 vs. 7.
As for the opponent's saving throw, I am not a fan of a player doing something cool and then it getting easily negated by NPC rolls. If it makes sense the NPC should get a save, then I make the PC's bonus into a negative modifier for the NPC's save. AKA, the demon would have a -3 save against the dwarf's shield smash.
If I was designing a system I might well give characters a combat defense value. This value would have 2 uses it would act as an AC (armour itself would would actually make this value worse but absorb damage) and act as the target number for stunts. A stunt would then get a difficulty modifer and you wouldn't have a save as that would be build into the Combat defense. Combat defense would go up with levels and other mods in just the same was as your 'to hit' bonus would go up.
In this system the stunt difficultly modifier would vary from -2 for an easy stunt down to -10 for a very hard stunt. Then you get 1 roll (with an effect number)
The natural benefit of this is that a 10th level fighter in no armour is still realy hard for a 1st level guy to hit even. Which I certainly used to find when attempting to hit my fencing instructor.
*bump* :)
A combat defense system is kind of 4th edition-esque, though I don't think its necessarily a bad thing in this case. My only comment would be that where a defense roll is considered to be an action and rolled for, it both 'feels' more like you're doing something to defend, and makes it easier to set up the system for times when a character should take a penalty to their defense. For instance, if you're using an opposed attack roll system, then the 'defense' roll automatically takes penalties for being blinded/disabled/etc, and easily handles instances where the character can't defend themselves at all. Compare for example how Palladium's system handles Parry and Dodge rolls using an opposed roll (attacker d20+Strike bonus vs. Defender d20 +Parry bonus) - it doesn't need a combat penalty condition for 'flatfootedness' or 'surprise' for example, since you can just assume that someone who can't act, doesn't get to make a Parry roll. Fairly elegant, in that regard.
Also, I was pondering how you could broaden out the Stunt system here to work with Magical stunts as well as martial stunts - skating down the balustrade on your Shield spell or trying to use the damaging cold ray to freeze a target in place. Its easy to adapt the stunt system above in games that have a roll for spell malfunction (like Talislanta, say) but harder in D&D since there's no direct equivalent. For 3.5, a Caster level +spellcasting ability modifier roll might work, I guess.
So far, my favorite stunt system is the one found in the Dragon Age RPG, in which the player is granted a certain number of "stunt points" upon rolling doubles on 3d6, which must immediately be applied to things like bull rushing, tripping, extra damage, etc.
Basically most of the stuff that melee characters can do in 4E, but more organic than the power structure, and it makes more more exciting crits.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384023So far, my favorite stunt system is the one found in the Dragon Age RPG, in which the player is granted a certain number of "stunt points" upon rolling doubles on 3d6, which must immediately be applied to things like bull rushing, tripping, extra damage, etc.
Basically most of the stuff that melee characters can do in 4E, but more organic than the power structure, and it makes more more exciting crits.
Immediately use so you can't store them? and how does level/experience get rolled into the mix. I ask because that seems like a nice elegant system and I can see maybe in D&D taking a nat 20 and instead of taking a double damage there and then putting it into a stunt pool for later use.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384023So far, my favorite stunt system is the one found in the Dragon Age RPG, in which the player is granted a certain number of "stunt points" upon rolling doubles on 3d6, which must immediately be applied to things like bull rushing, tripping, extra damage, etc.
Basically most of the stuff that melee characters can do in 4E, but more organic than the power structure, and it makes more more exciting crits.
I am truly curious about this elegant sounding system, but I haven't read the books to know how it really works. My one big concern is that of player agency; In other words, is it fun to only get to perform your stunts on lucky rolls? What about being able to
choose when you want to try to perform a stunt? Lady Luck can be a cruel bitch, and I don't think I want her to have full say over when I can or can't try something.
Quote from: jibbajibba;384029Immediately use so you can't store them? and how does level/experience get rolled into the mix. I ask because that seems like a nice elegant system and I can see maybe in D&D taking a nat 20 and instead of taking a double damage there and then putting it into a stunt pool for later use.
Just so. The stunt points have to be used immediately, or they go away by the start of your next turn. Also, enemies get this too. I like it better this way because there is a bit less bookkeeping involved, and because the system adds an element of unpredictability to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward combat system.
The system itself WOULD be elegant except for one minor nitpick of mine.
The base resolution mechanic is roll 3d6+modifier vs. target number, the higher the better. One of these dice is designated as the "dragon die" (usually a different colored die than the others). If the player rolls doubles, say for example a roll of 4, 4 and 2 (two being the dragon die for the sake of argument) then the character is immediately granted a number of stunt points equal to the value showing on the dragon die (2, in this case).
This system is pretty easy, but the dragon die part just adds complication to the mix. I think it would be better to award a number of stunt points equal to the doubled value, so a roll of 4,4 and 2 would net the character 4 skill points. That way, one could come up with something SUPER exciting when a character rolls triples.
As for levelling, the only real effect it has on this system is that certain talents lower the point cost of certain stunts.
As for a D20 based system, you would need some other form of randomizer to get the same effect.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384031I am truly curious about this elegant sounding system, but I haven't read the books to know how it really works. My one big concern is that of player agency; In other words, is it fun to only get to perform your stunts on lucky rolls? What about being able to choose when you want to try to perform a stunt? Lady Luck can be a cruel bitch, and I don't think I want her to have full say over when I can or can't try something.
The final arbiter of that would be the DM, I suppose.
But the way it works out, you'll be pulling this stuff off about 45% of the time anyway.
By the way, there is a similar system for magic with stunt points affecting spells that you cast which is also a really cool idea.
Unfortunately, the list of available spells is kind of limited.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384034Unfortunately, the list of available spells is kind of limited.
Well, I'm sure they plan to remedy that with the level-scaling publication scheme they are going to use.
Sounds cool. I had no idea there was a similar mechanic applied to the spells.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384035Well, I'm sure they plan to remedy that with the level-scaling publication scheme they are going to use.
Sounds cool. I had no idea there was a similar mechanic applied to the spells.
Yeah...way cooler than metamagic feats in my opinion.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384032Just so. The stunt points have to be used immediately, or they go away by the start of your next turn. Also, enemies get this too. I like it better this way because there is a bit less bookkeeping involved, and because the system adds an element of unpredictability to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward combat system.
The system itself WOULD be elegant except for one minor nitpick of mine.
The base resolution mechanic is roll 3d6+modifier vs. target number, the higher the better. One of these dice is designated as the "dragon die" (usually a different colored die than the others). If the player rolls doubles, say for example a roll of 4, 4 and 2 (two being the dragon die for the sake of argument) then the character is immediately granted a number of stunt points equal to the value showing on the dragon die (2, in this case).
This system is pretty easy, but the dragon die part just adds complication to the mix. I think it would be better to award a number of stunt points equal to the doubled value, so a roll of 4,4 and 2 would net the character 4 skill points. That way, one could come up with something SUPER exciting when a character rolls triples.
As for levelling, the only real effect it has on this system is that certain talents lower the point cost of certain stunts.
As for a D20 based system, you would need some other form of randomizer to get the same effect.
I can see your issue on that.
In a D20 system just pooling the 20s that weren't used for double damage might be okay as most of the time the simple double would be the obvious option and bookkeeping is pretty tiny. But you do have class, level and oposition to throw into the mis I guess... although needing a stunt point + 1 point for the level difference but do it...
Quote from: jibbajibba;384054I can see your issue on that.
In a D20 system just pooling the 20s that weren't used for double damage might be okay as most of the time the simple double would be the obvious option and bookkeeping is pretty tiny. But you do have class, level and oposition to throw into the mis I guess... although needing a stunt point + 1 point for the level difference but do it...
Hrm. Have you considered awarding a stunt-point based on "overkill." In other words, track degree of success beyond DC. You could award a bonus point for attacks that would have been a critical hit. Something like:
Beat AC by 0-5: Zero stunt points for the round.
Beat AC by 6-10: One stunt point
Beat AC by 11-15: Two point
...
And a potential bonus of one stunt point for critical hits.
So gathering a single stunt point is easy for warrior types, which shouldn't be ultimately unbalancing if your 1-point stunts aren't that flashy. But for those occasional
awesome rolls, and
awesome rolls that also get a bonus point for a
crit, your 3 and 4 point stunts are spectacular.
This way you do not have to track a resource (pool of dice) that persist between rounds too.
I almost like this fledgling idea (or something similar) more than the Dragon Age mechanic. In terms of rationalizing these stunts, the overkill method acknowledges an interaction between the attacker (BaB) and their defender (AC), rather than simply letting lucky rolls=stunt.
On further thought, it would be more thrilling/satisfying to let attacks that fall in crit threat range to "explode" and potentially achieve greater degrees of success with more potential results.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384023So far, my favorite stunt system is the one found in the Dragon Age RPG, in which the player is granted a certain number of "stunt points" upon rolling doubles on 3d6, which must immediately be applied to things like bull rushing, tripping, extra damage, etc.
Basically most of the stuff that melee characters can do in 4E, but more organic than the power structure, and it makes more more exciting crits.
That sounds wicked cool. Makes me want to try Dragon Age.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384060On further thought, it would be more thrilling/satisfying to let attacks that fall in crit threat range to "explode" and potentially achieve greater degrees of success with more potential results.
What you want to play is Role Master. Come on. You know it. Don't resist. :D
Quote from: winkingbishop;384057Hrm. Have you considered awarding a stunt-point based on "overkill." In other words, track degree of success beyond DC. You could award a bonus point for attacks that would have been a critical hit. Something like:
Beat AC by 0-5: Zero stunt points for the round.
Beat AC by 6-10: One stunt point
Beat AC by 11-15: Two point
...
And a potential bonus of one stunt point for critical hits.
So gathering a single stunt point is easy for warrior types, which shouldn't be ultimately unbalancing if your 1-point stunts aren't that flashy. But for those occasional awesome rolls, and awesome rolls that also get a bonus point for a crit, your 3 and 4 point stunts are spectacular.
This way you do not have to track a resource (pool of dice) that persist between rounds too.
I almost like this fledgling idea (or something similar) more than the Dragon Age mechanic. In terms of rationalizing these stunts, the overkill method acknowledges an interaction between the attacker (BaB) and their defender (AC), rather than simply letting lucky rolls=stunt.
I did think about it but if you don't track between turns ie build up a pool then a PC can't pull off a stunt at will it becomes a critical hit variant instead. And if you tracked effect number (ie the ammoutn you exceed the hit by) in a pool it gets pretty fiddly pretty quick.
Okay...so to clarify, in Dragon Age, a player can only gain stunt points on a successful attack roll in which doubles come up...which of course, makes perfect sense.
However, I find myself weighing the benefits of granting stunt points even on a missed roll.
Case in point:
During a pitched battle on a rickety suspension bridge, Kull charges an orc as it prepares to strike down the party's Cleric, rolling 3d6 plus his strength modifier (+2), resulting in a 2, a 2 and a 3 for a total of 9, but not enough to overcome the orc's defense value (12). However, Kull does gain 2 stunt points from the roll, which he uses to make a bullrush attempt against the creature. Capitalizing on the momentum of his charge, Kull barrels into the orc who fails it's saving throw and is sent hurtling off the bridge into the chasm below.
I think that this would add a dynamic element to combat, capitalizing on both character skill and player skill.
By the way, has anyone noticed that this Kull fellow is kind of a bad ass? ; p
Quote from: Benoist;384062What you want to play is Role Master. Come on. You know it. Don't resist. :D
Bite your tongue, you're likely to curse someone with statements like that. MERP is as close as I got and that was too close. :D
Quote from: Shazbot79;384114During a pitched battle on a rickety suspension bridge, Kull charges an orc as it prepares to strike down the party's Cleric, rolling 3d6 plus his strength modifier (+2), resulting in a 2, a 2 and a 3 for a total of 9, but not enough to overcome the orc's defense value (12). However, Kull does gain 2 stunt points from the roll, which he uses to make a bullrush attempt against the creature. Capitalizing on the momentum of his charge, Kull barrels into the orc who fails it's saving throw and is sent hurtling off the bridge into the chasm below.
This scenario illustrates a mental problem I'm having with all of these proposed stunt systems. You don't have your results until the dice are rolled as part of an attack. How do they interact with movement?
Forgive me if I can't get out of a D&D frame of mind, but I'm thinking that a turn will consist of a movement phase and an attack. You need to approach the guy before making your attack. But in Dragon Age you can perform stunts that have a movement component? Like this bullrush?
Maybe I'm thinking too grainy. Does Dragon Age use narrative combat or minis? If you choose to perform a bullrush stunt after you have already moved do you just pretend the movement hasn't happened yet?
Just can't get my noodle completely around these stunts being declared after the attack roll is made. I'm much more comfortable in my little box where the player chooses their action first and it subsequently affects die rolls.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384117Bite your tongue, you're likely to curse someone with statements like that. MERP is as close as I got and that was too close. :D
Role Master is not hard, and there are actually several versions of the game now, including Role Master Express (http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=igames/IntroRMX), which is like the rules-light approach to the system. Come on... I know you want to! :D
Hmm...rolemaster...
...
In Dragon Age, do the doubles have to be on the 2 non-dragon-dice, or do any 2 dice work? If the latter, I'm guessing you could throw away the dragon die and just have a rule like 'if you roll doubles, you get stunt points equal to the 3rd die (the one that wasn't a double).
I'll join the gang on ambivalence about declaring your stunt after you've rolled your dice. Tunnels and Trolls has a mechanic that could patchfix this: in T&T rolling doubles lets a character go 'berserk' (and roll up), and on later rounds they get 'artificial' doubles by having to lower the higher roll to match the lower one.
Stealing this approach, you might let a character declare a stunt in advance, then have to adjust one of their other rolls down, or their highest roll down, to make it a double e.g. if you roll a 3,4, and 5 you adjust the '5' into a second '3' and claim you rolled doubles, taking an effective -2 penalty.
This gets the disclaimer that I don't really know how Dragon Age works specifically and could be wildly unbalancing; its just a thought.
Quote from: Benoist;384139Role Master is not hard, and there are actually several versions of the game now, including Role Master Express (http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=igames/IntroRMX), which is like the rules-light approach to the system. Come on... I know you want to! :D
ACK, no! Getitoffme! This system touches me in bad places. I buried most of it in my subconscious but sometimes at night I remember a Movement Maneuvers table or some other kind of bullshit that makes me roll just to walk around.
Look at how cute Express Edition is at 88 pages. One click in, did you see what these smarmy bastards did here (http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=igames/RMC/exad)? For the reasonable price of 2 US$ per click you can continue to expand on this already soul-fucking system.
Quick, what's my chance to run away at full run over mostly flat ground but with a little bit of rock in the way?
:D
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;384161Stealing this approach, you might let a character declare a stunt in advance, then have to adjust one of their other rolls down, or their highest roll down, to make it a double e.g. if you roll a 3,4, and 5 you adjust the '5' into a second '3' and claim you rolled doubles, taking an effective -2 penalty.
This gets the disclaimer that I don't really know how Dragon Age works specifically and could be wildly unbalancing; its just a thought.
It might be the heavy migraine I'm rocking plus zero knowledge of T&T, but this is kind of a mind-hump to me. What you're describing is basically handicapping your NEXT roll if you choose to use a stunt. Am I catching that correctly?
Unrelated to BSJ and back to what others have proposed earlier in this post: I'm not sure why and won't claim it's rational, but I get a dirty feeling when I think of a stunt mechanic that allows you to "store" dice or stunt points or whatever the resource might be. I catch a whiff of computerized RPGs. I imagine PCs attacking orc women and children they would otherwise bypass in order to "bank" stunt points. I taste PCs hoarding stunt points until the later encounters in the session/adventure. Crazy?
Quote from: winkingbishop;384179Quick, what's my chance to run away at full run over mostly flat ground but with a little bit of rock in the way?
:D
LOL :D
Shut the fuck up and roll the dice! Maybe there's a pebble flying up into your eye!
Quote from: winkingbishop;384123This scenario illustrates a mental problem I'm having with all of these proposed stunt systems. You don't have your results until the dice are rolled as part of an attack. How do they interact with movement?
Forgive me if I can't get out of a D&D frame of mind, but I'm thinking that a turn will consist of a movement phase and an attack. You need to approach the guy before making your attack. But in Dragon Age you can perform stunts that have a movement component? Like this bullrush?
Maybe I'm thinking too grainy. Does Dragon Age use narrative combat or minis? If you choose to perform a bullrush stunt after you have already moved do you just pretend the movement hasn't happened yet?
Just can't get my noodle completely around these stunts being declared after the attack roll is made. I'm much more comfortable in my little box where the player chooses their action first and it subsequently affects die rolls.
Well, to be fair what I just proposed does deviate from the Dragon Age rules, as you would typically not be granted stunt points for a failed attack.
But basically the way the action economy is set up in DA, per round characters have one minor action (moving one's speed, drawing a weapon, quaffing a potion, etc.) and one major action (making an attack, a skill test or casting a spell)
In the case of a charge action, the run and the strike itself are considered part of the same major action, as in D&D 3.0 and up.
Stunts are free actions that take place during a character's turn.
So the sequence of events goes like this:
1: Kull uses a minor action to move closer to the orc
2: Kull declares that he will use a major action to make a charge attack against the orc.
3: Kull rolls to hit the orc, but does not roll high enough. The roll does however, grant him two stunt points.
4: Kull declares that he will spend the 2 stunt points to make a bullrush agaisnt the orc.
5: Orc rolls a saving throw to resist being pushed and fails.
6: Orc is pushed back half of Kull's movement rate and is sent tumbling to the depths below.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384229Well, to be fair what I just proposed does deviate from the Dragon Age rules, as you would typically not be granted stunt points for a failed attack.
But basically the way the action economy is set up in DA, per round characters have one minor action (moving one's speed, drawing a weapon, quaffing a potion, etc.) and one major action (making an attack, a skill test or casting a spell)
In the case of a charge action, the run and the strike itself are considered part of the same major action, as in D&D 3.0 and up.
Stunts are free actions that take place during a character's turn.
So the sequence of events goes like this:
1: Kull uses a minor action to move closer to the orc
2: Kull declares that he will use a major action to make a charge attack against the orc.
3: Kull rolls to hit the orc, but does not roll high enough. The roll does however, grant him two stunt points.
4: Kull declares that he will spend the 2 stunt points to make a bullrush agaisnt the orc.
5: Orc rolls a saving throw to resist being pushed and fails.
6: Orc is pushed back half of Kull's movement rate and is sent tumbling to the depths below.
I believe I understand. Thank you.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384233I believe I understand. Thank you.
Oh also, to answer your other question, combat is meant to be mostly narrative, I believe.
Quote from: winkingbishop;384182It might be the heavy migraine I'm rocking plus zero knowledge of T&T, but this is kind of a mind-hump to me. What you're describing is basically handicapping your NEXT roll if you choose to use a stunt. Am I catching that correctly?
Yup. Sorry, I ramble.
What I was suggesting was that you could demand your next roll be a stunt.
-If you roll and it would have been a stunt anyway (doubles), all well and good. -If not, you get your stunt but take a penalty to the roll. So, your stunt is more likely to fail.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;384239Yup. Sorry, I ramble.
What I was suggesting was that you could demand your next roll be a stunt.
-If you roll and it would have been a stunt anyway (doubles), all well and good. -If not, you get your stunt but take a penalty to the roll. So, your stunt is more likely to fail.
If it were me, a player wishes to bullrush an opponent from the outset, I'd simply have him make an opposed strength test vs. the intended target, modified by whatever mitigating factors were present, e.g. the targets size, reach, etc.
Quote from: Shazbot79;384242If it were me, a player wishes to bullrush an opponent from the outset, I'd simply have him make an opposed strength test vs. the intended target, modified by whatever mitigating factors were present, e.g. the targets size, reach, etc.
The only problem with that is mechanically you are bypassing AC (in a D&D type game).
Now you might argue that is becuase AC is inherently flawed (a guy in plate is easier to 'hit' in reality but harder to hurt) but its pretty much hardcoded into the system.
Quote from: jibbajibba;384279The only problem with that is mechanically you are bypassing AC (in a D&D type game).
Now you might argue that is becuase AC is inherently flawed (a guy in plate is easier to 'hit' in reality but harder to hurt) but its pretty much hardcoded into the system.
True...but Dragon Age uses armor as damage reduction rather than hit evasion.
Quote from: jibbajibba;384279The only problem with that is mechanically you are bypassing AC (in a D&D type game).
Now you might argue that is becuase AC is inherently flawed (a guy in plate is easier to 'hit' in reality but harder to hurt) but its pretty much hardcoded into the system.
In a D&D type game...
Scarily enough 3.0/3.5 bull rush (as written) ignores AC too - it just a matter of opposed STR checks.
2E, at least in the fighter's handbook, you usually did have to hit their AC, followed by defender Dexterity roll to avoid (Shield Rush) or Riding check (Dex+1) (Jousting attack for 8 or more damage).
Quote from: Shazbot79;384299True...but Dragon Age uses armor as damage reduction rather than hit evasion.
Which is fine.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;384301In a D&D type game...
Scarily enough 3.0/3.5 bull rush (as written) ignores AC too - it just a matter of opposed STR checks.
...
I am sure that the 10th level guy with uber dex and magical AC bonuses coming out of the wazzoo thought that it was entirely fair that the 1st level Orc could push him over a cliff to certain death :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;384306I am sure that the 10th level guy with uber dex and magical AC bonuses coming out of the wazzoo thought that it was entirely fair that the 1st level Orc could push him over a cliff to certain death :)
Well, for a 10th level fighter, maybe a significant bruising :)