Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5025548" data-attributes="member: 4937">Wouldn't it just be a whole lot simplier to say, &quot;You have a +1 bonus to hit on ranged attacks.&quot;, or &quot;You have a +3 bonus on sleight of hand skill checks&quot;?&nbsp; We already have mechanics that reflect having greater agility than dexterity, and really all that remains is allowing greater flexibility during character creation.&nbsp; More complex options during character creation are far superior to options that change play because character creation happens once, and then its over.&nbsp; A mechanic that effects play on the other hand is going to impact everything.&nbsp; I don't find your suggested fix to be better than the one you are criticizing.As for the problem with going to more than 6 skills, it's not bookkeeping that is the main issue, but first in avoiding creating attributes that are so narrow that they are clear dump stats for all but a very few concepts and secondly in maintaining balance in any sort of point buy system when by necessity you have more points to spend.&nbsp; Unevenly dividing the abilities up greatly favors making some concepts over making others since now you must pay twice for what you only had to pay for once before the split.&nbsp; That concept is now disadvantaged against one that still only has to pay once to achieve virtually the same degree of utility.This wouldn't be a particularly big deal in a completed system, but the house rules presented are decidedly incomplete.&nbsp; There is nothing inherently better about having more attributes, and given the overall design of D&amp;D (which hasn't changed much in these house rules) going to more attributes doesn't gain anything of real value and has too much down side.&nbsp; More importantly, the author thinks that these rules create interesting tactical complexity, and it doesn't really.&nbsp; Oddly, PP does a better job at creating new combat options with alot less trumpeting of its success.&nbsp; The author would be better off if he was going to adopt old 1st edition style mechanics like weapon speed factors (which even Gygax ultimately said was a bad idea) in using something like 'Weapon vs. AC modifiers' which at least does offer some complex tradeoffs, albiet probably not ones that are worth it given the already complex nature of 3rd edition combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5025548, member: 4937"] Wouldn't it just be a whole lot simplier to say, "You have a +1 bonus to hit on ranged attacks.", or "You have a +3 bonus on sleight of hand skill checks"? We already have mechanics that reflect having greater agility than dexterity, and really all that remains is allowing greater flexibility during character creation. More complex options during character creation are far superior to options that change play because character creation happens once, and then its over. A mechanic that effects play on the other hand is going to impact everything. I don't find your suggested fix to be better than the one you are criticizing. As for the problem with going to more than 6 skills, it's not bookkeeping that is the main issue, but first in avoiding creating attributes that are so narrow that they are clear dump stats for all but a very few concepts and secondly in maintaining balance in any sort of point buy system when by necessity you have more points to spend. Unevenly dividing the abilities up greatly favors making some concepts over making others since now you must pay twice for what you only had to pay for once before the split. That concept is now disadvantaged against one that still only has to pay once to achieve virtually the same degree of utility. This wouldn't be a particularly big deal in a completed system, but the house rules presented are decidedly incomplete. There is nothing inherently better about having more attributes, and given the overall design of D&D (which hasn't changed much in these house rules) going to more attributes doesn't gain anything of real value and has too much down side. More importantly, the author thinks that these rules create interesting tactical complexity, and it doesn't really. Oddly, PP does a better job at creating new combat options with alot less trumpeting of its success. The author would be better off if he was going to adopt old 1st edition style mechanics like weapon speed factors (which even Gygax ultimately said was a bad idea) in using something like 'Weapon vs. AC modifiers' which at least does offer some complex tradeoffs, albiet probably not ones that are worth it given the already complex nature of 3rd edition combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification