Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="B.T." data-source="post: 5940211" data-attributes="member: 84465">Currently, there are a lot of threads with &quot;fixes&quot; to minor problems in the 5e rules.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the majority of these proposed solutions create more problems, which then have to be likewise fixed, which finally results in an entangling web of rules.&nbsp;As an example, let's talk armor.&nbsp; The AC values in the playtest are wonky.&nbsp; This was quickly pointed out by the players and the developers acknowledged the problem.&nbsp; (How this obvious oversight made it into the playtest is another question, but I will give WotC the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a copy-editing error, or perhaps it was a relic from the initial closed playtest that wasn't updated with changed mechanics.)&nbsp; The very simple, very easy solution is to readjust AC values slightly.&nbsp; This can range from giving heavy armor a bonus to AC, adding half a character's Dexterity modifier to his AC while wearing heavy armor, reducing the AC of other armor types, or any combination thereof.&nbsp;Now, these solutions are ideal because they do not layer additional mechanics on top of the existing system.&nbsp; Instead, you have a single system (attack vs. AC, roll damage on a hit).&nbsp; However, after reading through a number of threads, I've seen a number of solutions that propose additional mechanics on top of the AC mechanics.&nbsp; These include (but are not limited to):&nbsp;• Damage reduction.• Armor provides additional hit points.• Shields provide a percent chance to deflect blows.• Armor has varying AC against weapon type.• Heavy armor penalizes attack rolls.• Penalties to different skills based on armor type.• Armor provides temporary HP.&nbsp;All of these are bad ideas because they put additional mechanics into the game.&nbsp; They're fine for house rules or modules, but simplicity is the name of the game in the core 5e book.&nbsp; (And as I've grown older and have to schedule learning and playing a new system around work rather than college courses, I find that I have little patience for needless complexity.)&nbsp; If you want more complicated mechanics, that's fine, but you need to realize that such is more suited for modules, not the core game.&nbsp;TL;DR: Use KISS (keep it simple, stupid) when suggesting rules changes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="B.T., post: 5940211, member: 84465"] Currently, there are a lot of threads with "fixes" to minor problems in the 5e rules. Unfortunately, the majority of these proposed solutions create more problems, which then have to be likewise fixed, which finally results in an entangling web of rules. As an example, let's talk armor. The AC values in the playtest are wonky. This was quickly pointed out by the players and the developers acknowledged the problem. (How this obvious oversight made it into the playtest is another question, but I will give WotC the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a copy-editing error, or perhaps it was a relic from the initial closed playtest that wasn't updated with changed mechanics.) The very simple, very easy solution is to readjust AC values slightly. This can range from giving heavy armor a bonus to AC, adding half a character's Dexterity modifier to his AC while wearing heavy armor, reducing the AC of other armor types, or any combination thereof. Now, these solutions are ideal because they do not layer additional mechanics on top of the existing system. Instead, you have a single system (attack vs. AC, roll damage on a hit). However, after reading through a number of threads, I've seen a number of solutions that propose additional mechanics on top of the AC mechanics. These include (but are not limited to): • Damage reduction. • Armor provides additional hit points. • Shields provide a percent chance to deflect blows. • Armor has varying AC against weapon type. • Heavy armor penalizes attack rolls. • Penalties to different skills based on armor type. • Armor provides temporary HP. All of these are bad ideas because they put additional mechanics into the game. They're fine for house rules or modules, but simplicity is the name of the game in the core 5e book. (And as I've grown older and have to schedule learning and playing a new system around work rather than college courses, I find that I have little patience for needless complexity.) If you want more complicated mechanics, that's fine, but you need to realize that such is more suited for modules, not the core game. [b]TL;DR: Use KISS (keep it simple, stupid) when suggesting rules changes.[/b] [/QUOTE]

Verification