Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2332711" data-attributes="member: 23012">Yes, these would all be good changes  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  (and are things that True20 appears to accomplish).The thing is -- in most cases these maneuvers are not viable or sensible actions!  Only in unusual situations would it make sense to grapple someone in melee combat (or try to trip them, etc).  The need to make completely imprudent actions viable is something I don't understand -- and one of the reasons why 3e sometimes resembles a superhero game (at least at mid-to-high levels) more than a medieval fantasy game (IME and IMO, of course).Again, I think you are hopelessly exagerrating the difference between 3e and C&C here.  Both games rely on the GM's judgement to design the situations in question, and apply the relevant rules.  (Of course, after a certain point I never bothered to rely on all the 3e 'rules' concerning DCs, anyway, and just trusted my own judgement -- in short, I ran 3e in much the same way as I run C&C.  Somehow I doubt that a DM who did consult the rules constantly for all the relevant DCs and modifiers would have run my campaign in a more interesting or successful manner.  Such a DM certainly would have run slower sessions.)  Your point here appears to boil down to this: you like more guidance (or 'hand holding') when it comes to assigning DCs for tasks than I do.  The fact of the matter is that, even in 3e, there is absolutely no requirement that the DM assign any particular DC to any lock, task, or whatever.  It is ultimately always his/her decision!And I would be curious to know whether you felt subject to 'DM whim' or 'fiat' during our 3e campaign, during which I assigned DCs to locks (and traps, and tasks) as seemed appropriate for the situation, rather than consulting the 'rules' everytime.  As far as I can tell, none of the players seemed to feel like victims of my 'whims'.   Treating all tasks as having a base TN of 18, and treating Primes as giving PCs a bonus of +6, is mechanically equivalent to the offiical version, and more intuitive IMO.Sorry John, but your point here is bogus since C&C, unlike OAD&D, does give players a mechanic to resolve anything that comes up during the game!  It just advises against relying on rolls too much (advice that would be good for 3e as well, IMO).</blockquote>

Verification