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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 9862275" data-attributes="member: 43283">Errr... which is true? Nimble 2e having its own rules/procedures as opposed to the first version, which has more of a hack to the 5e rules? Or the question as to whether or not "Damage on a miss" is simpler?As for the first, I'm only going based on what I've been able to see. I haven't bought Nimble since these days, I'm finding 5e in general to be repeating the shotgun slop of the 3.x era where everyone and their cousin was spamming 3.x products. It's too tiring for me to even begin to contemplate trying to keep up with and my new health problems mean I can't devote my time to system mastery like I used to.As far as whether or not "Damage on a miss" is simpler... that's what I mean by JDrakeh being more explicit in what he was looking for. I agree that simplicity, much like "balance" is very much in the eye of the beholder and situational. I don't consider limiting levels to inherently be "simpler" and/or stripping down of complexity... but others clearly due, given that they offered it as a solution.As a former interpreter and current writer for the government, I find it useful to try and be as clear as possible in laying out the (perceived) problem, to ensure that proposed solutions match as best as possible. Tends to work well on forums too, although it does tend to result in my appearing a bit pedantic. Oh and while "Damage on a miss" may or may not be simpler... I find that "players roll all the dice" is simpler (overall) to my way of thinking. Might just be a perception issue but I like it on both side of the screen. So, sometimes something might be simpler more because of a way of reframing, rather than a distinct rule "change". I mean, it's kind of a rule change but functionally not really so... YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification