From the d-n-dblog: (The 3.5 PH at least just says you get a critical hit on a coup de gras, but you have to roll the damage.)
I wonder if there's a "hole" in the rules here. A rogue gets sneak attack damage on a coup de gras, which is an "optional extra damage" option. By the same token, it sorta seems like you should be allowed to use Power Attack for a coup de gras. Of course, since you're guaranteed a hit, it seems like a good munchkin would say "I take -20 from the attack bonus to add +20 to damage" (or more, if you're using two hands). That'd sure make those coups against sleeping dragons a lot more effective.
I've done only rudimentary research, but I can't find a resolution of this issue in the Main D&D FAQ or the 3.5 Main FAQ. I suspect the answer is something somewhat lame like "technically, Power Attack can only be used for melee attacks, and a coup de grace doesn't involve a melee attack". That is, the phrase "deliver a coup de grace with a melee weapon" is not equivalent to "make a melee attack". Those clever D&D rules lawyers.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
Replying to Jacob's kibitzing about mounted combat:
Personally, my first instinct was that the whole "directing the warhorse to fight" thing was dirty pool -- I mean, you don't see the horses going at each other in Ivanhoe or whatever. The horses rear up sometimes and windmill their front hooves, but they never hit anything, as far as I can recall.
I can totally imagine some nasty robber baron knocking over some poor peasant with his horse, and maybe the peasant could get whacked with the horse's hooves. I kinda figure the trample feat would cover that, though.
So having horses (that you're riding on) fight just seems weird. With wolves and other possible mounts, it makes more sense, but even then, the idea of a full attack is kinda weird, and surely various feats like Improved Trip or Improved Grapple shouldn't work as well if the mount isn't free to roll around or use both forelegs at the same time. And lions have Pounce, where they can do damage with their hind claws, which seems like the rider should have to make another Ride check for the Leap or something.
I guess that if you were going to go with the "everybody can attack anybody" concept, you can pursue the notion that a round is a very busy 6 seconds, and that's enough time for critters to rear up and fall back down, so a horse can rear up and clock an opposing rider with its hooves, then fall to earth and its rider can poke a sword in the other mount's ribs. This would work a lot easier if the horses are in a T-shape, rather than head-to-head, but horses aren't 5 feet across either, so we can just assume that's part of the simplification of the combat system.
[Hm. I see now that the example DCs given in the 3rd ed. DMG for some skills don't match up with the DCs in the v.3.5 PH. Sigh. Why didn't they just call it version 4 and put me out of my misery? Interesting thought for later: D&D is like Open Source Development.]
Anyhow, the DC to get a combat-ready mount to fight in addition to your attack is 10, the same DC it takes to tie a firm knot or find out the current gossip -- in other words, something any old peasant can do right at least half the time. You can view this in two ways. The more charitable approach is to suppose that "battle-ready" means the mount is like a guard dog, and will practically fight on its own anyway, so directing them to attack one target while you attack the other is a piece of cake (maybe it bites the leg of the rider or something). The more bitchy approach, which I naturally favor on principle, is that the DC for this is obviously too low, unless you put serious restrictions on what the mount's attack can be.
Such restrictions could include:
- the mount can only make a single primary attack, not a full attack
- the mount can attack with its teeth, but not an attack that requires its feet
- the mount can only attack other creatures on the ground, not mounted creatures
- the mount can attack with its feet, but such attacks can only be upon creatures at least one size category smaller than it
- the mount cannot make any special attacks (Improved Trip, Pounce, etc.)
- a mount provides its rider with cover from other mounts
- the mount can't attack in a way that the DM thinks is unfeasible.
The last one always applies, I suppose. I also wouldn't mind distinguishing horses (which essentially never bite in a combat way) from other mounts (I have no idea what a griffon would usually do.)
We are near two issues, one of which D&D developers have always tried to ignore and the other they've started to devote some energy to. The second issue is size: an itty-bitty rider should make little difference to a mount (would a red dragon really be much restricted because someone was on his back?), but a warpony with a fully armored dwarf on its back (for example) can't really be expected to do more than carry him around. Although D&D has all kinds of size modifiers and stuff, when it comes to this kind of thing, I think they're hoping to ignore it -- the little critter in each case isn't going to make that much difference to the battle, so why make an exception in the rules?
The other part, which D&D mostly abhors, is wound location and direction of attack. A wolf could easily bite at a rider's leg, but getting a horse to do damage with its hooves takes some gymnastics. And should a chain shirt's AC count for an attack on a leg? Dropping a rock on someone's head is a lot more likely to knock them out than throwing it at their chest. A knee-high fence between combatants shouldn't really offer much cover -- it's not like you're aiming at their feet. Should it be as useful (+4 to AC) as a chain shirt? Maybe if you crouch behind it -- but surely that would give a penalty to your attack bonus, no? Clearly, this starts a nightmare of complexity that is better left alone. There's no obvious place to draw the line.
From that perspective, 'twould be better to just accept the somewhat funny looking rules, and hope that the weird cases don't come up much -- either from DM/player choices (the current campaign mostly has mounts fighting each other, and riders fighting each other) or from strategic issues (if a mount can do damage to the mount, but the AC of a rider is generally too much for it, the "smart thing" is also the most "realistic").
Personally, my first instinct was that the whole "directing the warhorse to fight" thing was dirty pool -- I mean, you don't see the horses going at each other in Ivanhoe or whatever. The horses rear up sometimes and windmill their front hooves, but they never hit anything, as far as I can recall.
I can totally imagine some nasty robber baron knocking over some poor peasant with his horse, and maybe the peasant could get whacked with the horse's hooves. I kinda figure the trample feat would cover that, though.
So having horses (that you're riding on) fight just seems weird. With wolves and other possible mounts, it makes more sense, but even then, the idea of a full attack is kinda weird, and surely various feats like Improved Trip or Improved Grapple shouldn't work as well if the mount isn't free to roll around or use both forelegs at the same time. And lions have Pounce, where they can do damage with their hind claws, which seems like the rider should have to make another Ride check for the Leap or something.
I guess that if you were going to go with the "everybody can attack anybody" concept, you can pursue the notion that a round is a very busy 6 seconds, and that's enough time for critters to rear up and fall back down, so a horse can rear up and clock an opposing rider with its hooves, then fall to earth and its rider can poke a sword in the other mount's ribs. This would work a lot easier if the horses are in a T-shape, rather than head-to-head, but horses aren't 5 feet across either, so we can just assume that's part of the simplification of the combat system.
[Hm. I see now that the example DCs given in the 3rd ed. DMG for some skills don't match up with the DCs in the v.3.5 PH. Sigh. Why didn't they just call it version 4 and put me out of my misery? Interesting thought for later: D&D is like Open Source Development.]
Anyhow, the DC to get a combat-ready mount to fight in addition to your attack is 10, the same DC it takes to tie a firm knot or find out the current gossip -- in other words, something any old peasant can do right at least half the time. You can view this in two ways. The more charitable approach is to suppose that "battle-ready" means the mount is like a guard dog, and will practically fight on its own anyway, so directing them to attack one target while you attack the other is a piece of cake (maybe it bites the leg of the rider or something). The more bitchy approach, which I naturally favor on principle, is that the DC for this is obviously too low, unless you put serious restrictions on what the mount's attack can be.
Such restrictions could include:
- the mount can only make a single primary attack, not a full attack
- the mount can attack with its teeth, but not an attack that requires its feet
- the mount can only attack other creatures on the ground, not mounted creatures
- the mount can attack with its feet, but such attacks can only be upon creatures at least one size category smaller than it
- the mount cannot make any special attacks (Improved Trip, Pounce, etc.)
- a mount provides its rider with cover from other mounts
- the mount can't attack in a way that the DM thinks is unfeasible.
The last one always applies, I suppose. I also wouldn't mind distinguishing horses (which essentially never bite in a combat way) from other mounts (I have no idea what a griffon would usually do.)
We are near two issues, one of which D&D developers have always tried to ignore and the other they've started to devote some energy to. The second issue is size: an itty-bitty rider should make little difference to a mount (would a red dragon really be much restricted because someone was on his back?), but a warpony with a fully armored dwarf on its back (for example) can't really be expected to do more than carry him around. Although D&D has all kinds of size modifiers and stuff, when it comes to this kind of thing, I think they're hoping to ignore it -- the little critter in each case isn't going to make that much difference to the battle, so why make an exception in the rules?
The other part, which D&D mostly abhors, is wound location and direction of attack. A wolf could easily bite at a rider's leg, but getting a horse to do damage with its hooves takes some gymnastics. And should a chain shirt's AC count for an attack on a leg? Dropping a rock on someone's head is a lot more likely to knock them out than throwing it at their chest. A knee-high fence between combatants shouldn't really offer much cover -- it's not like you're aiming at their feet. Should it be as useful (+4 to AC) as a chain shirt? Maybe if you crouch behind it -- but surely that would give a penalty to your attack bonus, no? Clearly, this starts a nightmare of complexity that is better left alone. There's no obvious place to draw the line.
From that perspective, 'twould be better to just accept the somewhat funny looking rules, and hope that the weird cases don't come up much -- either from DM/player choices (the current campaign mostly has mounts fighting each other, and riders fighting each other) or from strategic issues (if a mount can do damage to the mount, but the AC of a rider is generally too much for it, the "smart thing" is also the most "realistic").
D&D 3rd ed. movement rates, post #1:
-------------------------------------------
First of all, I want to say that I think the folks behind the 3rd (and 3.5) edition did a very good job at including enough detail about moving around for it to be tactically important, without bogging down. The simplicity of the system is brilliant.
My interest in this started when (over on the d-n-d blog) we had some people running behind some people on horses. Actually, my interest started before that, because my character's a dwarf, for whom movement rates are an important consideration. Dwarves have the racial disadvantage of having the base movement of a small character (20'), without the advantages (or other disadvantages) of being small (+1 to hit and AC, +4 to hide, less weight capacity and smaller weapons). [Parenthetically, a dwarf's speed doesn't go down if he carries more or wears heavy armor, so with some weight on him, he essentially reverts to what other normal-sized characters are like with the same encumbrance.]
So, let's talk about human speeds first, and compare horses later. Rules summary: the normal character base move is 30', meaning a move action in combat moves you up to 30'. Small characters (and dwarves) have a base move of 20'. A character can take up to two move actions in a six-second round, or if the character is all-out running, they can go 4 times as fast (for a human, that's 120' in a round.) The time scaling of movement is ridiculously simple: if your base move is 30' in a round, in a minute you're going 300', and for longer periods you're traveling at 3 mph. (That's multiply by 10 for distance in a minute, and divide by ten and change units to mph for longer distances.) For the larger scales, you can hustle, which means you go twice as fast, for an hour before you start suffering ill effects, and you can run (four times as fast) for a minute (or a little more if you have a high Constitution, but more than 3 minutes is nigh impossible.) Note that normal combat is hustling, since you can make two moves in a round. One last wrinkle: if you have the Run feat, your run is 5x your base move, instead of just 4x.
Note that this conversion cheats just a little: it would be exact if there were 6000 feet in a mile. Since there are only 5,280 feet/mile, this means that the long-term rate of speed (even walking) is a little bit slower over an hour than over a few minutes. A convenient simplification, and I can't really argue it's not realistic: I certainly don't walk as fast when I'm going for hours. It does mean that if you're traveling for half an hour, a good munchkin should try to convince the DM to use the ft/min and multiply by 30, rather than the mph divided by 2. :)
So, how fast are D&D speeds relative to the real world? Well, 3 mph is a brisk walk, and the average person can walk that fast all day with no trouble (assuming good conditions). 6 mph (hustling) is a ten-minute mile; from personal experience I can say that an average/healthy person can do this for an hour, and an athletic person can keep up that pace for longer.
Modern marathon winners run 26.21 miles in a little over 2 hours, or about 12.4 mph; in 1900, the record was around 3 hours, or 8.7 mph. Lest you think your D&D character isn't up to snuff, note that all these running rates are with virtually no weight, while a D&D character can run this fast in (light) armor and carrying considerable weapons and equipment. In addition, barbarians have a 10' increase in base speed, so they can hustle at 8 mph; the Longstrider spell has the same effect, and other magic effects (haste, Boots of Striding and Springing) can double the base speed, so characters can run (in armor) nearly as fast as a marathon champion, with a little help. In addition, a D&D character can go for hours at this speed, although this requires taking nonlethal damage. (I think it's fair to argue that marathon runners take nonlethal damage too). For example, any human 1st level fighter can run for 4 hours at 6 mph; this amounts to finishing a marathon in a little over 4 hours, which most of us can only dream of.
What about the shorter distances and time frames? At this point, I think it's safe to say that all the record holders and star running athletes are the equivalent of "having the Run feat." With that in mind, until recently (1954, when Roger Bannister proved it could be done), running a mile in under 4 minutes was thought impossible. A 4 minute mile is 15 mph, or 440 yards/minute. A running D&D human travels at 400 yards/minute, and can only do it for a few minutes; not quite a 4 minute mile. With the run feat, however, a D&D human travels at 500 yards/minute; it would take a lot of Constitution and even more luck, but if they could keep up the pace, such a character could run a mile in just over 3 and a half minutes, which would crush the current world record of 3 min 44.39sec. The chances of that are miniscule; however, a character with a high Constitution could easily run for 2 minutes (1000 yards), walk for a minute (100 yards), then run again and reach a mile in just under 4 minutes 20 seconds. Not too shabby. A barbarian can run even faster, and a barbarian with the run feat is scary to think about: such a character could conceivably run for 2 minutes, walk for one, and then run again and complete a mile in 3 min 26.4 sec, and with a decent Constitution, this could be done with regularity.
The aforementioned "barbarian with the run feat" is outrageously fast: in the other cases D&D characters are seen to be "larger than life" but still in the ballpark of today's athletes, a character who can run 200' per round is a cut above that. This character runs at just over 11 yd/s=22.7 mph, and can keep it up for at least a minute. In comparison, Michael Vick has run 40 yards in 4.25 seconds: that's 9.41 yd/s = 19.25 mph. Ben Johnson holds the world record for 50m at 5.55 seconds, which is 9.91 yd/s = 20.27 mph. As far as running for a whole minute goes, the world record for 500m (indoor) is very close to 1 minute; 500 m in 1 minute would be 9.12 yd/s = 18.65 mph. Conveniently, this would be 164' in a round: compare this with 150' (a human with the Run feat) or 160' (a barbarian without the Run feat). Pretty close, I think.
Considering the simplicity of the move system in D&D, they have done a marvelous job at making characters comparable to Olympians -- the peak of human ability, without overdoing it too much. As far as the 20' movement rate for Small characters and dwarves, I don't think there's anything in reality to compare it to -- it seems sensible that short-legged characters would move slower, and beyond that, comparing speeds with track and field records of people suffering from dwarfism seems just wrong.
Next post, I'll put up a little bit of background on horse speeds, and compare the D&D horse to the real world a little bit.
-------------------------------------------
First of all, I want to say that I think the folks behind the 3rd (and 3.5) edition did a very good job at including enough detail about moving around for it to be tactically important, without bogging down. The simplicity of the system is brilliant.
My interest in this started when (over on the d-n-d blog) we had some people running behind some people on horses. Actually, my interest started before that, because my character's a dwarf, for whom movement rates are an important consideration. Dwarves have the racial disadvantage of having the base movement of a small character (20'), without the advantages (or other disadvantages) of being small (+1 to hit and AC, +4 to hide, less weight capacity and smaller weapons). [Parenthetically, a dwarf's speed doesn't go down if he carries more or wears heavy armor, so with some weight on him, he essentially reverts to what other normal-sized characters are like with the same encumbrance.]
So, let's talk about human speeds first, and compare horses later. Rules summary: the normal character base move is 30', meaning a move action in combat moves you up to 30'. Small characters (and dwarves) have a base move of 20'. A character can take up to two move actions in a six-second round, or if the character is all-out running, they can go 4 times as fast (for a human, that's 120' in a round.) The time scaling of movement is ridiculously simple: if your base move is 30' in a round, in a minute you're going 300', and for longer periods you're traveling at 3 mph. (That's multiply by 10 for distance in a minute, and divide by ten and change units to mph for longer distances.) For the larger scales, you can hustle, which means you go twice as fast, for an hour before you start suffering ill effects, and you can run (four times as fast) for a minute (or a little more if you have a high Constitution, but more than 3 minutes is nigh impossible.) Note that normal combat is hustling, since you can make two moves in a round. One last wrinkle: if you have the Run feat, your run is 5x your base move, instead of just 4x.
Note that this conversion cheats just a little: it would be exact if there were 6000 feet in a mile. Since there are only 5,280 feet/mile, this means that the long-term rate of speed (even walking) is a little bit slower over an hour than over a few minutes. A convenient simplification, and I can't really argue it's not realistic: I certainly don't walk as fast when I'm going for hours. It does mean that if you're traveling for half an hour, a good munchkin should try to convince the DM to use the ft/min and multiply by 30, rather than the mph divided by 2. :)
So, how fast are D&D speeds relative to the real world? Well, 3 mph is a brisk walk, and the average person can walk that fast all day with no trouble (assuming good conditions). 6 mph (hustling) is a ten-minute mile; from personal experience I can say that an average/healthy person can do this for an hour, and an athletic person can keep up that pace for longer.
Modern marathon winners run 26.21 miles in a little over 2 hours, or about 12.4 mph; in 1900, the record was around 3 hours, or 8.7 mph. Lest you think your D&D character isn't up to snuff, note that all these running rates are with virtually no weight, while a D&D character can run this fast in (light) armor and carrying considerable weapons and equipment. In addition, barbarians have a 10' increase in base speed, so they can hustle at 8 mph; the Longstrider spell has the same effect, and other magic effects (haste, Boots of Striding and Springing) can double the base speed, so characters can run (in armor) nearly as fast as a marathon champion, with a little help. In addition, a D&D character can go for hours at this speed, although this requires taking nonlethal damage. (I think it's fair to argue that marathon runners take nonlethal damage too). For example, any human 1st level fighter can run for 4 hours at 6 mph; this amounts to finishing a marathon in a little over 4 hours, which most of us can only dream of.
What about the shorter distances and time frames? At this point, I think it's safe to say that all the record holders and star running athletes are the equivalent of "having the Run feat." With that in mind, until recently (1954, when Roger Bannister proved it could be done), running a mile in under 4 minutes was thought impossible. A 4 minute mile is 15 mph, or 440 yards/minute. A running D&D human travels at 400 yards/minute, and can only do it for a few minutes; not quite a 4 minute mile. With the run feat, however, a D&D human travels at 500 yards/minute; it would take a lot of Constitution and even more luck, but if they could keep up the pace, such a character could run a mile in just over 3 and a half minutes, which would crush the current world record of 3 min 44.39sec. The chances of that are miniscule; however, a character with a high Constitution could easily run for 2 minutes (1000 yards), walk for a minute (100 yards), then run again and reach a mile in just under 4 minutes 20 seconds. Not too shabby. A barbarian can run even faster, and a barbarian with the run feat is scary to think about: such a character could conceivably run for 2 minutes, walk for one, and then run again and complete a mile in 3 min 26.4 sec, and with a decent Constitution, this could be done with regularity.
The aforementioned "barbarian with the run feat" is outrageously fast: in the other cases D&D characters are seen to be "larger than life" but still in the ballpark of today's athletes, a character who can run 200' per round is a cut above that. This character runs at just over 11 yd/s=22.7 mph, and can keep it up for at least a minute. In comparison, Michael Vick has run 40 yards in 4.25 seconds: that's 9.41 yd/s = 19.25 mph. Ben Johnson holds the world record for 50m at 5.55 seconds, which is 9.91 yd/s = 20.27 mph. As far as running for a whole minute goes, the world record for 500m (indoor) is very close to 1 minute; 500 m in 1 minute would be 9.12 yd/s = 18.65 mph. Conveniently, this would be 164' in a round: compare this with 150' (a human with the Run feat) or 160' (a barbarian without the Run feat). Pretty close, I think.
Considering the simplicity of the move system in D&D, they have done a marvelous job at making characters comparable to Olympians -- the peak of human ability, without overdoing it too much. As far as the 20' movement rate for Small characters and dwarves, I don't think there's anything in reality to compare it to -- it seems sensible that short-legged characters would move slower, and beyond that, comparing speeds with track and field records of people suffering from dwarfism seems just wrong.
Next post, I'll put up a little bit of background on horse speeds, and compare the D&D horse to the real world a little bit.
More attentive than Linnam, you mean? I'm sure Spade would make the best ranger that badgerdom has to offer. (Hmm...maybe the badger picture needs a little Robin Hood hat...)
As he sleeps, Barik dreams happy dreams of Boots of Striding and Springing, and a Giant Eagle for a mount, or sometimes a hippogriff...and a +5 chain shirt. :)
As he sleeps, Barik dreams happy dreams of Boots of Striding and Springing, and a Giant Eagle for a mount, or sometimes a hippogriff...and a +5 chain shirt. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)