D&D 3E/3.5 Good news, everyone, I found a system that replaces the combat maneuver system in 3e/Pathfinder.

[Empirate]

I imagine that in most of those cases, the system doesn't work for them, for a variety of reasons.

My personal reason is most often pacing. The fiddlier the rule, the more it pauses the game, and the less often it comes up, the worse it is when it comes up. It's a lot easier to handle a fiddly rule that you memorize by repeat use and start to do instinctively, rather than something like tripping, where nobody remembers the rule exactly, so you feel forced to crack open a book during the game (gah!).*

* I know that at a lot of tables the books are always open for reference, but whenever someone cracks open a book (well, except for the equipment lists), my group lets out a collective groan.

The rules for tripping are fiddly to you? Are you serious? It's basically a touch attack plus an opposed Str roll. Usual modifiers apply, usual AoO applies. How does your group need to crack open a book for that?
Also, I find that tripping comes up about an average 1/session at my table, and no, there's no trip-focused PC around. It's not hard to 'memorize' how tripping works under these circumstances. The only combat maneuver that's a bit fiddly in 3.5 is grappling, but I actually like that, because it opens up a lot of new options when you do it.


Also:

If you can't handle complicated rules, D&D isn't for you. Personally I'll take complicated but more functional over simple/streamlined rules.

Exactly.

 

[Viking Bastard]

The rules for tripping are fiddly to you? Are you serious? It's basically a touch attack plus an opposed Str roll. Usual modifiers apply, usual AoO applies. How does your group need to crack open a book for that?

I don't remember the rules for tripping. I just used it as an example, knowing it's something that bugs a lot of people and it had been mentioned in the thread.

But if all the combat maneuvers worked that way, I'd be fine with that, I think. Although the extra roll annoys me some, it's not major. And touch attacks make me weep. But if all the attack maneuvers were "Attack, followed by an opposed check" I'd be content with that. I don't remember exactly how we house-ruled such things back in the day, but I think it was something similar (only with a DC 10+mod. instead of an opposed roll). In retrospect, it wasn't a great solution.

But to re-answer your question, that you beckoned the thread to answer: It's all about the pace for me. In 90% of cases where I house-rule to streamline, it's because I find the rule disruptive to my play experience, like a hole in the road on a sunday drive.

I hope that helps.

Exactly.

Not really, though. D&D has not always been a complicated game. Wasn't until 2000.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not really, though. D&D has not always been a complicated game. Wasn't until 2000.

Wait, what? Kits and percentile strength and all those crazy spells weren't complicated? Let alone charts of specific weapons versus armors or the haphazard multiclassing systems or a hundred other things. 3e is actually not that complicated compared to its immediate predecessors. I've yet to see a D&D that I would call "simple".

 

[Viking Bastard]

Wait, what? Kits and percentile strength and all those crazy spells weren't complicated? Let alone charts of specific weapons versus armors or the haphazard multiclassing systems or a hundred other things. 3e is actually not that complicated compared to its immediate predecessors. I've yet to see a D&D that I would call "simple".

Out-of-the box? Even OD&D or Moldvay? Each his own, I guess.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Out-of-the box? Even OD&D or Moldvay? Each his own, I guess.

There's a lot of ground between that stuff and 2000. And no, I haven't seen those, seeing as how I'm under 30.

 

[N'raac]

But if all the combat maneuvers worked that way, I'd be fine with that, I think. Although the extra roll annoys me some, it's not major. And touch attacks make me weep. But if all the attack maneuvers were "Attack, followed by an opposed check" I'd be content with that. I don't remember exactly how we house-ruled such things back in the day, but I think it was something similar (only with a DC 10+mod. instead of an opposed roll). In retrospect, it wasn't a great solution.

The OP lumps 3rd Ed and Pathfinder together, however Pathfinder consolidated the maneuver rules considerably. It implemented a combat maneuver bonus (CMB) and combat maneuver defense (CMD), so a different attack bonus and a different AC but the same basic system for all maneuvers. Details under the heading "Combat Maneuvers" at http://paizo.com/prd/combat.html. It's about 3/4 down the page.

It seems like this would be an easy import into 3.5 for someone wanting to standardize these rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even if older editions of D&D are less complicated than 3Ed and those that followed, within the context of their contemporaries, those games were among the most complex in the market. I can only think of a couple of 1970s era RPGs more complex than the earlier editions of D&D, like Traveller.

 

[Viking Bastard]

There's a lot of ground between that stuff and 2000. And no, I haven't seen those, seeing as how I'm under 30.

I'm 28.

I started with RC, which came out in 1991. It's slightly more complicated than Moldvay, but only in that it has some additional opt-in systems.

I also feel that I should clarify that I don't mind a thick rule book. I don't mind a gazillion options of rules. When I talk of complexity, I only mean during play. The rule book can be complicated (and to be honest, I actually find working myself through a dense rule book kind of fun).

But again, each his own.

Even if older editions of D&D are less complicated than 3Ed and those that followed, within the context of their contemporaries, those games were among the most complex in the market. I can only think of a couple of 1970s era RPGs more complex than the earlier editions of D&D, like Traveller.

That's a fair point. But when I think of all the games that were around in my RPG-diaper days, it was all GURPS, Storyteller, Hero and Rolemaster, all of which I consider of similar complexity as 90s D&D or more complex.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a fair point. But when I think of all the games that were around in my RPG-diaper days, it was all GURPS, Storyteller, Hero and Rolemaster, all of which I consider of similar complexity as 90s D&D or more complex.

Well, by the time all of those hit the market (between 1982 & 1991), AD&D and then 2Ed were the D&D editions on the store shelves- not exactly a simple game.

And, just my opinion, I wouldn't put Storyteller in the same class of complexity as D&D or the other games you listed.

 

[Empirate]

Yeah, Storyteller stuff always struck me as under-regulated, in the "horribly imbalanced, please don't try to resolve stuff using the actual rules" kind of way.



But concerning your point, [MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]: good point. Ehm... pace is important, and for some groups, adding even a single additional roll will break pacing a bit too much for their liking. Also, many D&D players like complex rules, but that may be because the complexity of the system culled all those interested in a smoother, quicker gaming experience at the table.

Me, I've always looked at the simulationist aspects of RPGs as the fun part, and the part that most ties into pure roleplaying. If adding a roll or two is the price for that, I'll pay it gladly. But YMMV, of course.