[PnP] noob questions part II

[Scott M]

Thanks for the excellent advice Paul.

I hear you when you say I should think less in terms of game
mechanics, but even the books suggest that when the gamemaster makes a
ruling it should be consistent. And really I think we've done the same
thing. I expect your ad-hoc ruling of fleeing with the -5 bonus would
be applied to any other instance of flight where all other things are
equal, right? If so, why not make it a house rule so it's easy to
remember?

I think where systems like AD&D 3.5 fails is that they take your "if
X, then Y" to such a hypothetical extreme that the rules become
bloated and often silly. (See: fixed DCs for pretty much anything).

Like you, I also like Powers and Perils because there isn't any of
that second guessing in the rules. I plan to come up with all sorts of
modifiers for unique situations. However for the basics (the stuff
we'll see pretty much every session) I think it makes sense to have
rules laid out. But clearly, it is all personal preference.

Same deal with the drawing weapons (and your idea is a great idea by
the way, I think I'm going to use that). Sure it was an ad-hoc ruling,
but now that you use it every time, it's pretty much a house rule.

Thanks again.

Scott M.


On 9/18/07, Paul L. Ming <pming at northwestel.net> wrote:
> Hiya.
>
> > 1) Regarding tactical combat, do any of you folks have house rules for
> > combatants who wish to flee?
> >
> > The way I read the rules, it sounds like if two combatants begin the
> > movement portion of the phase adjacent to each other, and either
> > wishes to fight, both must fight (and end the movement part of the
> > phase).
> >
> > The obvious fix is to allow either combatant to flee, allowing the
> > other to take a free attack AND allow that attacker to move as well.
> > So, a slower combatant cannot flee from a faster one, but a faster
> > combatant can flee from a slower one, he just may have to endure one
> > or more free attacks in the process.
> >
> > Does that sound like what any of you folks are doing?
> >
> I think you're reading too much detail into it. Don't think in terms of
> game mechanics; think in terms of "if I was there, could I do..." and
> "...if I did that, what would be my chances".
>
> So, if you are fighting someone, and you want to run, you make a
> stab/poke/slash at your opponent to get him off guard or move him back a
> foot or two, then you turn and run like hell. As a DM, I'd rule that he
> gets a 'free swing' at you with a -5 bonus. After that, you're fleeing
> and he can do whatever he wants...like chase. Now you simply move to
> movement and keep on playing.
>
> Really, don't try and come up with a "if X then Y" blanket rule...it
> will not work. Just go play 3.5e D&D to see what I mean. Pretty much the
> whole rule system is based on absolutes; if you do X, then Y
> happens...always, no matter what.
>
> > 2) Weapon damage. I really like the idea that most weapons do similar
> > damage (I never understood in D&D why a dagger would do 1d4 and a
> > great sword would do 1d12 - seems like either would kill with a well
> > placed hit). However I think there should be SOME varience in damage
> > beyond the WSB. Maybe 1d8 for light weapons vs 1d10 for heavy/two hand
> > weapons. Have any of you used similar house rules?
> >
> I thought of that, but decided against introducing more dice types (even
> though I LOVE lots of dice!). In stead, for heavy/two-handed weapons, I
> increased the WSB potential as well as added a 'knock down' effect for
> good hits (Severe or Deadly). Here:
> http://abroere.xs4all.nl/pnp/M_twohanded.htm
>
> > 3) The Communicate spell. As written, the target of a Communicate
> > spell cannot attack or cast spells while he is still affected by it. I
> > choose to read that as the target cannot attack or cast spells while
> > actively communicating (rather than just affected by it), otherwise
> > the spells seems to be overpowered for a base MP1 spell. Am I reading
> > that right?
> >
>   The way I read it, is that when Communicating, the two creatures
> (caster and target) can not fight or cast spells. If they stop
> Communicating, they can do whatever they want.
>
> > 4) Switching weapons: the rules make it clear that if a melee
> > combatant moves adjacent to an archer, and the archer has already
> > fired, that the melee combatant can attack without fear of
> > counterattack. That's fine, but what about the archer switching
> > weapons even if no melee combatant moves adjacent to him? Does it cost
> > any movement to switch weapons? It sounds like weapon switching is
> > free so long as the character only makes either a missile attack or a
> > melee attack, but not both. I just want to make sure I'm doing that
> > right. Also, if this is the case, can I assume a character can only
> > switch weapons once per phase? Finally, what part of the phase does
> > the switch happen? (I assume during the movement portion).
> >
>   Again, I think you're trying to read too much into it and trying to
> come up with an 'absolute' rule where "if X, then Y" as I mentioned
> above. Simplify it. For me, I'd simply say that drawing a 'light' weapon
> (dagger, knife, etc.) would simply 'cost' 1 PMR. A 'medium' weapon
> (sword, mace, etc.) would cost 2 PMR. A 'heavy' weapon (two-handed
> sword, pole-arm, etc.) would cost 3 PMR. Simple and easy to remember;
> light = 1, med = 2, hvy = 3.
>
>  P&P is an extremely adaptable system. Probably one of the most
> adaptable I've played. Most of the confusion I had when learning the
> system was my reluctance at the time to "make shit up"...I was always
> looking for rules that I could point to and say "See? Right here it
> says...". When I finally 'got it' (it being the heavy reliance upon
> Referee interpretation, as mentioned constantly throughout the P&P
> rules), running a P&P game is dirt simple. :)
>
> Paul L. Ming
>
> _______________________________________________
> pnp mailing list
> pnp at abroere.xs4all.nl
> http://abroere.xs4all.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnp
>