Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arnwyn" data-source="post: 516131" data-attributes="member: 7701">Yes, I miss it (well, I don't really *miss* it, as our group still uses it). But not because it's &quot;more realistic&quot; or &quot;makes sense&quot; (we're trying to simulate combat by rolling funky-shaped dice... realism is NOT our first concern) - it's to help prevent PCs from always taking the most uber-strong-damaging weapon in a particular size category. [And yes, we roll initiative every round - our group is one of the few that doesn't like cyclical initiative. We like the randomness of battle.]Of course, with the new cyclical initiative system, weapon speed factors would be totally inappropriate. It's good that they didn't include them with this new system.P.S. I, personally, avoid SKR's &quot;essays&quot;. While I understand what he's getting at, they are generally so poorly written that they often do not help his position - unless you already agreed on his position in the first place, or simply don't care. (His infravision essay was particularly laughable... he made his point, but his arguments were *awful*.) IMO, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arnwyn, post: 516131, member: 7701"] Yes, I miss it (well, I don't really *miss* it, as our group still uses it). But not because it's "more realistic" or "makes sense" (we're trying to simulate combat by rolling funky-shaped dice... realism is NOT our first concern) - it's to help prevent PCs from always taking the most uber-strong-damaging weapon in a particular size category. [And yes, we roll initiative every round - our group is one of the few that doesn't like cyclical initiative. We like the randomness of battle.] Of course, with the new cyclical initiative system, weapon speed factors would be totally inappropriate. It's good that they didn't include them with this new system. P.S. I, personally, avoid SKR's "essays". While I understand what he's getting at, they are generally so poorly written that they often do not help his position - unless you already agreed on his position in the first place, or simply don't care. (His infravision essay was particularly laughable... he made his point, but his arguments were *awful*.) IMO, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification