Handling loss of DEX/STR/feat bonus, feinting, etc.

[slaughterj]

This is a big discussion in the rulesmaster section:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=18109#18109

To avoid cluttering a discussion of the official rules, and I'm no rulesmaster for D&D or Conan, but here's how I'm looking at running it:

1. Any situation that causes a loss of DEX/STR/feat bonus to DV allows for sneak attack. This includes feinting.
2. Loss of DEX/STR/feat bonus to DV does not automatically result in loss of BDB/BPB. E.g., feinting does not cause BDB/BPB bonus loss.
3. BDB/BPB bonuses (and DEX/STR/feat bonuses) are lost when one is (1) truly flatfooted, (2) pinned, (3) stunned, and (4) helpless (includes paralyzed). Should I include any other condition here?
4. Pinned and helpless characters also incur a -4 DV penalty to melee opponents (but for the person pinning you). Helpless characters are also at DEX 0 (thus incur another -5 to DV).
5. Other situations:
5.a. Grappling - I see this as a wrestling around struggle, and should not necessarily incur loss of ability/feat/BDB/BPB bonuses, but probably a penalty - thoughts on handling this?
5.b. Flatfooted - I do not think you should lose all your bonuses unless you are truly flatfooted, as opposed to "at the start of combat flatfooted" - the "at the start of combat flatfooted" rule seems to abuse the situation where two groups are 30' apart, weapons drawn, shouting curses at one another, and finally someone runs 30' over and attacks - I don't think the person attacked should be flatfooted, and doubt they really should be penalized at all - thoughts on handling this?

I'm looking to have a few simple rules so that all situations are readily covered and I don't have to have a bunch of rules to look up, or encounter illogical situations, but I do want consistency. Any constructive thoughts would be appreciated - also any notes as to where the above differs from D&D and/or from Conan would be appreciated, so I can be sure I want to do it as listed above.

 

[Elfman]

5.b. Flatfooted - I do not think you should lose all your bonuses unless you are truly flatfooted, as opposed to "at the start of combat flatfooted" - the "at the start of combat flatfooted" rule seems to abuse the situation where two groups are 30' apart, weapons drawn, shouting curses at one another, and finally someone runs 30' over and attacks - I don't think the person attacked should be flatfooted, and doubt they really should be penalized at all - thoughts on handling this?

We are handling it this way:

If a group/individual spends more than the length of a combat round (about 6 seconds) aware of another hostile group/individual and has taken no action at all, they are considered to be in combat and have spent a ready action. Therefore, if both parties spend more than a round doing nothing, neither one is flat footed anymore.

Some implications of the above interpretation:
- if one party isn't aware of the hostile intent of the other, then they would be caught flat-footed when the attack actually comes.
- if one party isn't aware of the other at all when an attack finally comes, it's a surprise round (which may still lead to being flat-footed for the regular attack during the "first" combat round that follows the surprise round!)
- if one party has been aware of the other for less than a round, it is treated as a "first combat round", but only for those who were unaware for less than a round. Basically it's as if the "unaware" group suddenly joined an existing combat with the "aware" group.

This is an interpretation of the rules as written and not strictly a "house rule". We are simply defining combat to start "when one individual/group is aware of another individual/group and considers them to be hostile" as opposed to "when one person rolls an attack die". This may be a more "d20-style" interpretation than a "conan-style" interpretation, but it is valid nonetheless. 8)

 

[Yuan-Ti]

I set a precedent in the first combat of my CONAN campaign. When those 10 Picts charged at the beginning of Round 1, I asked everyone who was attacked, "Are you dodging or parrying? What is your DV?" In other words, they were not flatfooted because both sides were aware of each other. (Btw, they were 50 feet apart, but with a charge that does not preclude combat in Round 1.)

Now, if the Picts had been in the bushes, the PCs had failed Spot checks, then that would have been a surprise round because the PCs were "startled" by the Picts charging them from "out of nowhere."

To me, yes you need to make it clear to your players, but it should be a GM decision. This relies on your ability to be fair-minded, of course. If the PCs legitimately catch your prize evil NPC off-guard, then you have to let them have their moment of glory. 8)

 

[Hyena]

1. That's how I see it too. Keep in mind that according to Mongoose Bob, feints do not allow Sneak Attacks. Since he seem to really find them unbalanced, I'm going to rule them out. They're pretty useless whitout the Sneak Attack possibility.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed. I include being surprised too.

4. I think the loss of BDB/BPB is enough of a penalty, I would not add -4 to DV.

5.a As stated in the grappling rules, grappled characters lose dexterity bonus to DV against opponents not grappling them. This should actually mean loss of DEX/STR/Feat bonus (condition 1.) and open to sneak attacks against opponent not grappling them. This penalty is severe enough IMO.

5b. Agreed. I handle it like this : DV 10 (Condition 1 + loss of BDB/BPB) during the surprise round, if any, then Condition 1. during the first round until the character has acted.

I've said the same thing in more details in the rulesmasters discussion, so I apologize if I'm repeating something you already know.

 

[argo]

There are two wrinkles that Conan throws into the standard mix. One is the presence of two different modes of defence (dodge and parry) with two different assoicated abilities (Dex and Str). The other is the exictance of class defence bonuses (as opposed to defence bonuses from armor). This hyperaccentuates the difference between active defenses (dodge/parry) and passive defenses (armor which provides DR in conan). Any answer which hopes to be consistent, simple, and logical needs to take these factors into account.

So this is what my house rules are going to look like. The book gives us one answer, the rulesmasters give us another, and I am still trying to understand the ramfications of both but this is the way that I will be playing it. I think.

First, since Conan introduces defence bonuses from new sources not accounted for in standard OGL rules it will be helpful if we can define for ourselves some new terms to describe different character conditions. (thanks to Hyena for the idea)

Impaired: you loose your Dex/Str/feat/ony other bonus named "dodge" or "parry" aside from your bdb/bpb and are exposed to Sneak Attacks. In other words you keep only your bdb/bpb derived from class. This condition represents you not being able to defend yourself at peak capacity; your "impaired" ability to ward off blows. You are Impared when you are feinted, climbing, balancing, your opponent is invisible, and just about any other time where the book says "lose your Dex bonus".

Now, despite my dislike for reusing existing defined terms, I am going to go ahead and re-define flat-footed to play a new role in Conan.

Flat-footed: you loose bdb/bpb in addition to your Dex/Str and any other bonus named "dodge" or "parry" and you are exposed to Sneak Attacks. In other words your DV becomes 10 + size mod + expertise + any misc bonuses. This condition represents your complete loss of all active defenses. You are Flat-footed only: Before your first turn in regular inititavie (aka "true flat-footed"), Stunned, or Helpless.

I would not add any other conditions to the list of "Flat-footed" conditions as loosing all your active defenses is a big deal. Fruther I dont' think that being pinned needs to be on the list; you are already Impaired and taking an additional -4 to DV, that is good enough. Note: Uncanny Dodge only protects you against being "truly flat-footed" not the other conditions (see this is why I hate re-definning terms ) Note: a helpless character, in addition to being flat-footed, is exposed to a coup de gras and may have an effective dex of 0.

Grappling: you "lose your Dex" bonus and are therefore Impaired. I see no need to change this.

As for being flat-footed when you have seen your enemy. That is highly situation dependent and as such should be left to the comon sense of the DM. However, just as I don't think that you should always declare a person flat-footed in the first round, no matter what happened before, I think that you should also be very wary of denying a very important advantage to those with high initative. Don't do this too often.

At any rate that is how I'm going to try running things. It winds up being prety close to default OGL without any wackiness about not being able to sneak arrack a blind man :roll: There are really only three conditions to fall under: Flat-footed (DV 10), Impaired (DV 10 + bdb/bpb) and normal. You can sneak attack whenever you would expect that you could. It is as simple and fast as it has ever been and that is a good thing I think because the learning curve for Conan is steep enough as is.

I'm interested to see what other people decide upon. Good thread.

 

[Hyena]

Argo, I'm happy to see your house rules are very similar to mine since I've been impressed by your posts on this matter. I have two things I'm curious about :

You still allow sneak attacks against feinted characters ? So you don't think it unbalance the game ? I thought this at first, but seeing Mongoose Bob deny them has made me doubt.

Why did you rule against systematic impairement of characters in the first round like I do ? I'm not trying to push my solution on you, but I'm really interested by your reasons, since I made my house rules more on a 'feel-right' basis than anything else.

Ah, and what do you make of shields ?

 

[argo]

Thanks for the complement Hyena, I think that your posts have been helpful too. I'll try to share with you whatever I can.

You still allow sneak attacks against feinted characters ? So you don't think it unbalance the game ? I thought this at first, but seeing Mongoose Bob deny them has made me doubt.

Thats right. I like feinting and I don't think that it is unbalanced. In fact I am considering trying out a house rule that has the Improved Feint feat give a +4 bonus to bluff rolls to feint in addition to its other properties (don't hold me to that though, it's still in development). I hope to run some Conan games soon and there will be feinting going on (if not by the players then by one of my BBEG's :twisted: ) and I will make a final decision after that. I might change my mind but I dont' expect to.

Why did you rule against systematic impairement of characters in the first round like I do ? I'm not trying to push my solution on you, but I'm really interested by your reasons, since I made my house rules more on a 'feel-right' basis than anything else.

You are referring to my comments about the DM declaring some players to be not flat-footed in the first round yes? A while back there was a thread about a player who challenged a NPC pirate to a duel, they got themselves set up and went at it one-on-one. The NPC won initative and used his sneak attack to kill the player in the first round (as pirates are wont to do). There was then some debate over weither two characters who have agreed to fight a duel should really be flat-footed on the first round! I simply say that Rule 0 is there to allow the DM to inject some common sense into the game (as well as some drama!). However, I fully agree that when in doubt you should declare for being flat-footed on the first round. Anything else should be the exception and rather rare.

Ah, and what do you make of shields ?

Heh, that bothers you too eh? I am very undecided right now. I have considered letting players keep a shield bonus no matter what as a way to balance sword 'n board against THF and TWF. But then again maybe a dedicated sword 'n boarder should just have to take Reflexive Parry. :? I need to put some more thought into the matter.

I will be back later. Have fun!

 

[Plane Sailing]

In 3 years of playing D&D I've never seen a feint actually used (although flanking to get sneak attacks still happens all the time... probably the main method of obtaining them).

It makes me wonder why Mongoose Bob found the feint sneak attack unbalancing while continues to allow the (much easier to obtain) flank sneak attacks!

I think in my game I probably might as well house rule the feint out of existence since I've never had it used in a game and I'm probably not likely to see it used!

Hyena... I like your term "impaired" better than my term "restricted DV" which I was typing at the same time as you were typing your post in the feint/rulemasters thread. You were slightly quicker of the mark than me with basically the same idea (and you know what they say about great minds thinking alike (he said immodestly)).

I will be going for basically the same definitions as Argo in terms of Flatfooted and Impaired, although I may allow uncanny dodge to remain useful in all situations except for stunned and helpless.

Cheers

 

[Taharqa]

I like the solutions posted here by Hyena and argos. There are a few minor issues:

Flatfooted: If we are trying to be more systematic, why is normal flatfooted result in DV10 instead of just being impaired? As I understand Hyena's rules, only the suprise round would result in a DV10. Normal flatfootedness would just be impairment. This is more consistent with d20 (although some people might suggest this is not a goal, I don't see why you throw out the baby with the bathwater). Also, if you are going to allow feint, making flatfootedness only impairment helps balance out the thief's advantage in feinting.

Grappling: According to these rules, anybody grappling is going to be open to a sneak attack, which might have a chilling effect on people wanting to grapple. I kind of like it when things descend into a grapple, and would hate to see such a chilling effect.

Pinning: Getting pinned should really screw you over. I say DV6 (DV10 with a 0 dexterity). Its one of the few good tactics for a group fo unarmored combatants to take out a heavily armed one (there was a thread on this awhile ago).

 

[argo]

Flatfooted: If we are trying to be more systematic, why is normal flatfooted result in DV10 instead of just being impaired? As I understand Hyena's rules, only the suprise round would result in a DV10. Normal flatfootedness would just be impairment. This is more consistent with d20 (although some people might suggest this is not a goal, I don't see why you throw out the baby with the bathwater).

Firstly, the "true flat-footed" condition encompasses both the suprise round and that portion of the first round before your initative comes up. Secondly, why DV 10 instead of just Impairment? Well because some protions of the book suggest that that should be so, and Mongoose Bob also ruled that that is the way it is supposed to work (total loss of all dodge/parry). Even though we are crafting house rules here we still want to be as close to the official rules as possible. That is desierable I think.

Grappling: According to these rules, anybody grappling is going to be open to a sneak attack, which might have a chilling effect on people wanting to grapple. I kind of like it when things descend into a grapple, and would hate to see such a chilling effect.

Very astute observation and I believe it is meant to do just that. Grappling is very powerful. A properly built grapple fighter can basically pick any single opponent and remove him from combat at will. The downside is that 1) the grappler is out of combat as well and 2) if the grapplee has any buddies around the grappler could be in a world of hurt. I see people all the time who want to nerf grappling because it is "too powerful" and this is usually the argument I use against them. With engaging in a grapple costing everybody their Dex bonus then grapples wind up being used how I think they should be used: occasionally when the tatictal situation warents it. So I wouldn't change that. That said however, if what you really want is to encourage grapples then having grappling not Impare you will probably give you the result you desire.

Pinning: Getting pinned should really screw you over. I say DV6 (DV10 with a 0 dexterity). Its one of the few good tactics for a group fo unarmored combatants to take out a heavily armed one (there was a thread on this awhile ago).

Which will basically make anybody lunchmeat as with a DV 6 it will be childs play to power attack/finesse attack you into oblivion. Under my house rules you are Impared (thus losing your Str/Dex and any other misc bonuses) which drops your DV and exposes you to sneak attacks and you then take and additional -4 for being pinned. If the guy pinning you trips you and takes you to the ground as well (good tactic for grapplers) then you get another +4 to hit for a total effective +8 in addition to him being Impared. IMO that should be sufficent for even a bunch of Picts v. Full Plate. However I don't think pinned == Flat-footed is so far out of line that it would break the game. And if you want a grapple heavy game then it would definetly serve to make grapples the perfered tactic against heavily armored foes.

Good Luck

 

[GhostWolf69]

Yeah! I know, let's make a dosen more threads about how we can all help Mongoose to screw up the Feint rules even more! Yeah that'll be fun!

Yeah, I want to start up my own thread about this too I think... and another, and another, and another, untill my eyes bleed for me.



Face it folks. The rule is broken, we will all fix it in our own way, and nothing can make us all agree, so stop posting about this WAY over used subject!

/wolf

 

[S'mon]

Yeah! I know, let's make a dosen more threads about how we can all help Mongoose to screw up the Feint rules even more! Yeah that'll be fun!

Yeah, I want to start up my own thread about this too I think... and another, and another, and another, untill my eyes bleed for me.



Face it folks. The rule is broken, we will all fix it in our own way, and nothing can make us all agree, so stop posting about this WAY over used subject!

/wolf

Sorry, I had to post to say 'I agree'. :twisted:

Personally I think Mongoose Bob doesn't understand how difficult it actually is to get a feint sneak attack in - even in the best-case, with Improved Feint, maxed ranks in Bluff, and an opponent not using fight-on-the-run (deadly vs Sneakers), you're looking at a full round action (move-eq to feint, standard to attack) to get a roughly 65% chance vs a similar-level opponent of getting 1 sneak attack in. It's only be worth it if the Feint loses the opponent their Dodge/Parry DV.

Flanking by contrast lets you sneak attack with _every_ attack.

 

[Hyena]

Face it folks. The rule is broken, we will all fix it in our own way, and nothing can make us all agree, so stop posting about this WAY over used subject!
/wolf

Hmm... No. Read this thread more carefully and you'll see everybody who's been posting in it more or less agree with the otherss. Only small details are still debated like suprise or shields. There is a middle ground and we have found it.
Besides it's about more than feint. It's now clear to me that to whole 'flat-footed/lose Dex Bonus to AC/sneak attacks' package is broken.

BTW, I'm back in the 'feint allows sneak attack' camp, guys.

 

[GhostWolf69]

Hmm... No. Read this thread more carefully...

Yeah great! So now we can argue about wether we all agree or not instead? I'm in!

*slaps Hyena on the snout*

:wink:

/wolf

 

[Hyena]

Hmm... No. Read this thread more carefully...

Yeah great! So now we can argue about wether we all agree or not instead? I'm in!

*slaps Hyena on the snout*

:wink:

/wolf

Well, why should I discuss with people who may not agree with me while there are all those nice guys I already agree with ?

*bites GhostWolf's hairy ass*

 

[Hyena]

Heh, that bothers you too eh? I am very undecided right now. I have considered letting players keep a shield bonus no matter what as a way to balance sword 'n board against THF and TWF. But then again maybe a dedicated sword 'n boarder should just have to take Reflexive Parry. :? I need to put some more thought into the matter.

I've always thought shields were underrated in D&D, so I'm gonna leave Impaired character their shield bonus. After all, if a character isn't totally suprised he will more or less be hiding behind his board. It has to be taken in account, except in obvious cases like backstabbing of course.

Another question : how do you adjudicate Reflexive Parry and Uncanny Dodge (Improved or standard) ? In particular, I've been wondering if Reflexive Parry should protect from ranged Sneak Attacks. I know ranged attacks can only be dodged, but Uncanny Dodge and Reflexive Parry are more about alertness and '6th sense' than dodging/parrying. Allowing Reflexive Parrry to trump ranged sneak attacks would sound strange but would make it the equivalent of Uncanny Dodge and I kinda like this symetry.

 

[sanseveria]

I for one think these Feint/Sneak attack threads are very informative. I tend to just lurk in these threads but this time I have a question. There's no doubt that the Feint/sneak attack combo is very powerful, unbalancing? I don't think so, just a powerful combo. My party has 6 players so the thief usually just has to jockey around into flanking position so Sneak attack are quite frequent. But my question is this: With these new house rules, has anyone thought of allowing Uncanny Dodge as a feat? I think I will allow this in my game.

As far as flat-footed on the first round of combat goes, my house rule is this: if the combatants are aware of their enemies, they are not flat-footed, period.

SS

 

[Yokiboy]

If a group/individual spends more than the length of a combat round (about 6 seconds) aware of another hostile group/individual and has taken no action at all, they are considered to be in combat and have spent a ready action. Therefore, if both parties spend more than a round doing nothing, neither one is flat footed anymore.

We play it the same way and it works fine for us. I really like the logic behind this too, as if you break down the roleplaying of the event into the rules, it actually would play out the same way as if you had already rolled for Initiative. Very nicely explained Elfman.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Hyena]

I for one think these Feint/Sneak attack threads are very informative. I tend to just lurk in these threads but this time I have a question. There's no doubt that the Feint/sneak attack combo is very powerful, unbalancing? I don't think so, just a powerful combo. My party has 6 players so the thief usually just has to jockey around into flanking position so Sneak attack are quite frequent. But my question is this: With these new house rules, has anyone thought of allowing Uncanny Dodge as a feat? I think I will allow this in my game.

As far as flat-footed on the first round of combat goes, my house rule is this: if the combatants are aware of their enemies, they are not flat-footed, period.

SS

Well, sneak attacks ARE more powerful in Conan than in D&D, so this was a legitimate question. Now, I've still not heard anybody report unbalancing of his game due to feint...


Concerning Uncanny Dodge, is there any class who doesn't get it for free and who wouldn't benefit more from Reflexive Parry ? I can't remember. I'm not opposed to have it as feat, but I'd rather have the Barbarian keeping the exclusivity of Improved Uncanny Dodge. Unless it's already a feat or a capacity of other classes, I don't remember and haven't the rulebook at hand.

 

[Yokiboy]

*bites GhostWolf's hairy ass*

I didn't think "hairy ass biting" was allowed on these boards. :lol:

TTFN,

Yokiboy