Troll Lord Games

I had a couple of things come up in my last game. I was wondering if these were addressed in the CKG (or the Player's Handbook and I failed my wisdom check) and if so where..

Can a Cleric fill upper level spell slots with lower level spells? I ruled yes for healing spells only...

When getting up from prone, I accessed a -2 penalty to a subsequent attack, is there a better rule for this?

Rogues have backstab, but combat doesn't really have facing, so I ruled that they could roll a move silently and if successful, make a 'back stab'. I seem to recall this somewhere, but I could have mixed it with another rule set.

obatron wrote:I had a couple of things come up in my last game. I was wondering if these were addressed in the CKG (or the Player's Handbook and I failed my wisdom check) and if so where..

Can a Cleric fill upper level spell slots with lower level spells? I ruled yes for healing spells only...

There is no official ruling on this that I'm aware of, though convention does not allow it. So house ruling works as needed.

obatron wrote: When getting up from prone, I accessed a -2 penalty to a subsequent attack, is there a better rule for this?

There is no official penalty for standing and attacking. It is generally (IMO) considered an action in lieu of movement, thus no penalty applies.

obatron wrote:Rogues have backstab, but combat doesn't really have facing, so I ruled that they could roll a move silently and if successful, make a 'back stab'. I seem to recall this somewhere, but I could have mixed it with another rule set.

Refer to the "Back Attack" class ability description on page 14 of the PHB. This is spelled out for you. This should not be confused with "Sneak Attack" noted on page 15.

I like Go0gle's input on the questions. I allow the memorization of lower level spell in higher slots. I allow that for all spellcasters. As far as getting up from prone, I've ruled it as the character's movement for the round - but I would probably now rule that the character could still move half movement (no attack or anything) after standing. And yeah, back attack is pretty much spelled out for you in the rogue section.

obatron wrote:I had a couple of things come up in my last game. I was wondering if these were addressed in the CKG (or the Player's Handbook and I failed my wisdom check) and if so where..

Can a Cleric fill upper level spell slots with lower level spells? I ruled yes for healing spells only...

As pointed out, there is no official ruling on this, but I'm sure a number of CK's allow it. It's "standard" in 3.xE and Pathfinder, for example, and assumed that casters can do this. I don't have the books in front of me, but I would guess that even AD&D 1st/2nd may have even specifically allowed this.

I should point out that when it comes to memorizing spells, characters may always leave slots "open" to quickly prepare at a later time. This may be more effective than preparing lower level spells in higher level slots (or it may not, depending on what the character is anticipating). See "Preparing Spells" in the PHB, starting on pg. 50:

PHB, pg. 51 wrote:When preparing spells for the day, the character can leave some spell slots open. Later during that day, the character can repeat the preparation process as often as the character likes, time and circumstances permitting, to fill these unused spell slots. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least one hour and 15 minutes of game time. The character cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one, or fill a slot that is empty because the character has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation can only be done during the first study period after resting.

obatron wrote:When getting up from prone, I accessed a -2 penalty to a subsequent attack, is there a better rule for this?

I drew on the 3.xE rules and simply require characters to use their "move action" to get up from prone. They can perform another action after getting up, including an attack or even their actual move - but if they do the latter, they do not also get an attack that round. I used the 3.xE system as a guideline for what characters can do in a round: 2 moves, 1 move and 1 attack, 1 move and 1 spell cast, no moves and a "full attack" (for characters with multiple attacks), etc.

obatron wrote:Rogues have backstab, but combat doesn't really have facing, so I ruled that they could roll a move silently and if successful, make a 'back stab'. I seem to recall this somewhere, but I could have mixed it with another rule set.

As the other responses have pointed out, the PHB is pretty cut and dry on this one and it sounds like you were handling it correctly:

PHB pg. 14 wrote:To catch an opponent unaware, a rogue must make a successful move silently check to sneak up behind the foe, or make a successful hide check while behind the opponent. A rogue that succeeds in one or the other of these can make a back attack at a +4 bonus to hit. A successful hit inflicts double the normal damage.

obatron wrote:I had a couple of things come up in my last game. I was wondering if these were addressed in the CKG (or the Player's Handbook and I failed my wisdom check) and if so where..

obatron wrote:Rogues have backstab, but combat doesn't really have facing, so I ruled that they could roll a move silently and if successful, make a 'back stab'. I seem to recall this somewhere, but I could have mixed it with another rule set.

PHB pg. 14 wrote:To catch an opponent unaware, a rogue must make a successful move silently check to sneak up behind the foe, or make a successful hide check while behind the opponent. A rogue that succeeds in one or the other of these can make a back attack at a +4 bonus to hit. A successful hit inflicts double the normal damage.

There ARE facing rules in C&C, though the authors were very subtle in how they approach such things. It is also worth pointing out that if you do adhere to the RAW, you will probably have to extroplate the facing rules a bit more.

Check out pages 132-133 of the PHB 4th printing. In the Combat Manuevers section, under the headings Flank Attack and Rear Attack, there are clearly facing rules implied. Particulatly in the Flank Attack section which seems to indicate that combats take place on a classic grid format, or hexagon field of battle.

~O

I have always just figured Flanking meant: If your attacking someone who is already engaged in combat you get +1 for flanking.
From what i have seen unless you are caught unaware, the defender will turn to meet an attacker from the side.
So i have always ruled you can only flank someone who is otherwise engaged.
If you have surprise i count it as an "unsuspected attack" +2 to hit= same as attacking from the rear.

My 2copper any way

Thanks for the feedback...

Regarding Spells:
I knew it was a rule in Pathfinder, but didn't see anything in the PHB, thought there might be something in the CKG that I haven't had a chance to read yet. I like the rule that they can, so I'll leave that call as is, slightly expanded per the responses.

Regarding prone question:
Hrm...I think I'll keep the -2 to hit (unstable platform) for getting up but allow the 1/2 movement if so desired. Might consider negating the penalty if they make a dex check. That way it will award those dexterous players that can jump up from prone easily versus the more clumsy turtles.

Regarding back stab:
For some reason I thought it was elsewhere in the book and convinced of that, never checked the Rogue description directly. I just presumed wasn't seeing it, which turned out I wasn't, just for real reasons versus failed "grep" check.


Facing:

I saw flanking as more the opposite sides rule a la D&D and Pathfinder but the rule on pg 132 does indeed indicate someone is to the rear which implies facing...I'll have to give this some thought as that with the rear attack description on ph133, it does add more tactics to combat than I previously thought. My concern that without attacks of opportunity or expanded disengagement from combat rules, players will constantly run around to the back of the opponent to get a rear attack bonus. Then again, perhaps that isn't such a bad thing...but it does sort of make potential for an odd combat as everyone constantly runs around trying to rear attack their opponent negated only by obstacles.

obatron wrote:Facing:

I saw flanking as more the opposite sides rule a la D&D and Pathfinder but the rule on pg 132 does indeed indicate someone is to the rear which implies facing...I'll have to give this some thought as that with the rear attack description on ph133, it does add more tactics to combat than I previously thought. My concern that without attacks of opportunity or expanded disengagement from combat rules, players will constantly run around to the back of the opponent to get a rear attack bonus. Then again, perhaps that isn't such a bad thing...but it does sort of make potential for an odd combat as everyone constantly runs around trying to rear attack their opponent negated only by obstacles.

As we play with a grid for combat, this is how I have been handling it: When a new attacker moves into position (usually within 5 feet) against an "defender" the defender can always adjust facing to face the new opponent. However, if another attacker never comes into within 5, the defender can only change facing on his turn during his movement.

What this does is make the attackers have to strategically surround the defender if they wish to get the flanking bonus during multiple rounds. Also, sneaking up or hiding can make the attacker get into position for a flank or rear without the defender seeing the attacker, therefore negating the defender from changing facing when a new attacker moves into position.

This may seem complicated, and compared to how most run C&C it is. However, if you use a grid to run your combats, and you want to be accurate with your flanks and rear attacks, this is a great solution. Lots of attackers and defenders can really complicate this method, but after using it for a certain length of time you just get the feel for it.

~O

We use a grid, too. It gives the 3.5ers their safety blanket, and it alleviates issues like this. Having it in C&C has been a boon, in my opinion - not needed (and not used outside of combat), but definitely helps for visualization purposes when it's called for.

So two questions,

if you're flanking and in the rear, do you get +3 (+1 for flanking, +2 for rear attack?)

Do you have an issue with people constantly running around to the back of the person to get a rear attack bonus when it's just one on one combat and the terrain allows for it? Do you consider that a disengagement from combat? I feel like I might be missing a rule about movement here.

obatron wrote:So two questions,

if you're flanking and in the rear, do you get +3 (+1 for flanking, +2 for rear attack?)

Do you have an issue with people constantly running around to the back of the person to get a rear attack bonus when it's just one on one combat and the terrain allows for it? Do you consider that a disengagement from combat? I feel like I might be missing a rule about movement here.

No. You get either the flanking bonus or the rear attack bonus. If using a standard grid, the square directly behind the target would be a rear attack while the squares to either side of the rear square would be flanking positions. Of course if the target turns in response, things can change.

Go0gleplex wrote:No. You get either the flanking bonus or the rear attack bonus. If using a standard grid, the square directly behind the target would be a rear attack while the squares to either side of the rear square would be flanking positions. Of course if the target turns in response, things can change.

Remember AD&D 2e's Combat Options' rules on facing when using a hex grid? Ugh.

redwullf wrote:

Go0gleplex wrote:No. You get either the flanking bonus or the rear attack bonus. If using a standard grid, the square directly behind the target would be a rear attack while the squares to either side of the rear square would be flanking positions. Of course if the target turns in response, things can change.

Remember AD&D 2e's Combat Options' rules on facing when using a hex grid? Ugh.

Never used the Combat options. Didn't see a need to.

redwullf wrote:Remember AD&D 2e's Combat Options' rules on facing when using a hex grid? Ugh.

That's what GURPS uses...it's not that bad. There are plenty, plenty more reasons to hate the Options series, trust me.

Ah, I was confusing it all with D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, taking flanking to be when opposite side from an ally and doesn't really have facing rules.

I realized that my question about movement may be moot because you can only move 1/2 your movement and attack from the rear each turn and only the fastest creatures (movement of at least 40) could do that.

The facing rules certainly add tactics to C&C combat that I didn't think about.

I just flat out dont allow people to break away and run behind.
Now if you have an ally keeping them busy, then by all means get behind them.

Use common sense turns are asymetrical which causes issues like this. Just think could it happen in real life?
Ever see a fencer sprint around his oppent and strike? no ? cause people dont stand and wait their turn.

Dead Horse wrote:I just flat out dont allow people to break away and run behind.
Now if you have an ally keeping them busy, then by all means get behind them.

Use common sense turns are asymetrical which causes issues like this. Just think could it happen in real life?
Ever see a fencer sprint around his oppent and strike? no ? cause people dont stand and wait their turn.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there. I just like to ensure that rulings overriding the book or covering areas not discussed in the books are consistant and made available to the players ahead of time for discussion. When making a ruling in game, I like to come back to it an discuss with the players to ensure the rule makes sense and doesn't break the rule of fun. Discussing it here helps me formulate adjustments prior to the discussion and ensures I'm not just missing something from the book (especially the CKG since I haven't had a chance to really read it yet.)

That all said, I think I'll implement a five foot step or you're disengaging from combat rule that will address this issue. I was thinking it wouldn't be much at 1/2 move, but even then, people with 40' moves would do it, and then combat starts to look a little silly.

Outside of m rules oversites, I did learn something valuable here, and that there are facing rules in C&C, just subtle ones. That makes the combat a lot more tactical than I've been playing it, which may be a good thing for those of my players that prefer the crunch of Pathfinder, and adds some verisimilitude to the rules without over complicating combat (a la a lot of D&D 3.5/Pathfinder.)

So thank you everyone for your patience with my questions and the great info and advice!

Forgot to mention.

If you withdraw from an oppent i give the oppent a free swing.
That tends to discourage the players from trying to end run.

Also if they somehow do manage to run around an unengaged foe...the foe turns to meet them as they advance for free.
If it aint from surprise you just dont get behind people like that.

BTW the CHK has rules options not really any kind of rules you dont have.
Its a great book, i use it alot...but it isnt full of rules your somehow missing.

Dead Horse wrote:BTW the [CKG] has rules options not really any kind of rules you dont have.

Its a great book, i use it alot...but it isnt full of rules your somehow missing.

Great point. Generally speaking the CKG doesn't rehash many rules found in the PHB. Most of the rules in the CKG are new, and of course, optional. That alone is one of the best aspects to the CKG.

~O

obatron wrote: When getting up from prone, I accessed a -2 penalty to a subsequent attack, is there a better rule for this?

There are examples of falling prone in the Monsters and Treasure guide, where one loses the subsequent initiative and acts last in the following round. See the Trip attack of various creatures.

Aergraith wrote:

obatron wrote: When getting up from prone, I accessed a -2 penalty to a subsequent attack, is there a better rule for this?

There are examples of falling prone in the Monsters and Treasure guide, where one loses the subsequent initiative and acts last in the following round. See the Trip attack of various creatures.

I didn't think of that, I'll check it out...

BTW, your avatar pic is awesome...

Dead Horse wrote:Forgot to mention.

If you withdraw from an oppent i give the oppent a free swing.
That tends to discourage the players from trying to end run.

Also if they somehow do manage to run around an unengaged foe...the foe turns to meet them as they advance for free.
If it aint from surprise you just dont get behind people like that.

BTW the CHK has rules options not really any kind of rules you dont have.
Its a great book, i use it alot...but it isnt full of rules your somehow missing.

That's kind of what I ended up with. I think I was just being over pedantic in my interpretation of the withdrawing from combat rules which led to my concern when I realized there was an implied facing rule in the game.

Good to know about the CKG.

The best rules advice i can give. Make up a fair rule. use it for players and monsters (or have a good reason). If a rule differs for npcs explain it to the players and why.