Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4002941" data-attributes="member: 710">Well, there is one thing to note. 3E seems also a lot more "rules-heavy" as a whole. Which means the assumptions affect a lot of rules, which makes changing the assumptions even harder.So, basically, in 2E, the assumption were hidden and you didn't really know what would be affected. But there were less things affected (and if there was no real game balance to begin with, could you really make things worse?)In 3E, the assumptions were written down. Challenge Ratings & Rewards by CR/EL, Wealth by Level Guidelines, Magic Item Creation Rules. But there were a lot of rule subystems, and all aspects where heavily playtested to get a good (but still not perfect) game balance.Change the assumptions, and the changes affect a lot of things. Less magical items? Fighters have basically 2 boosters for their primary offensive ability: Magical Weapon and Strength Enhancement. Wizards have only 1 - intellect enhancement.So, the "best" way might be a very rules-lite system that describes all assumptions. But then, you're only having a few rules! You might have to "guesstimate" a lot, and will this help at goals like game balance or "predictability" of actions within the game? (If there is no Ride skill, do I fall of the Horse if i have Dex 10 but written "grown up among nomads" in the background flavor of my character? What if I have Dex 16 and grew up in a secluded cloister?) There is no perfect solution. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and you must decide what your focus is. Though in either case - rules-heavy or rules-lite, stating the design assumptions always is a good idea.</blockquote>

Verification