Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7349111" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Absolutely but there are a million things one *can* say and now we have one more example of a niche catch from making a change which was premised on &quot;well its not that big a deal&quot; kind of reasoning.I mean, lets consider...Why are the rules for BA so infl;exible? That was a thing right?Well, why are the rule for movement so inflexible that if its 35' to get to me enemy attack range then i have to lose an entire action to get there in one? Why *not* let me move 35' instead of 30'? Will that break the game?Why are the rules on two handed weapons so inflexible that i cannot have a two-handed great sword that has finesse so that my dex fighter can use it as good as their bow? Will it break the game if we change that too?Why are the rules on bows so inflexible that them being at 120' means i take disadvantage? Would it break the game if the bow was 120' short range?My viewpoint is rather straightforward, if i *need8 to change rules, i do so without reservation but with forethought as to the why and wherefores. I do not change rules based on &quot;why not? Will it break the game? whenever a rule becomes inconvenient because i feel it is very much those kinds of limitations that spawn tactics and planning and make choices matter. if everytime or most times my players hit a &quot;well it does not work that way&quot; i said &quot;but hey lets ignore that&quot; i would be running&nbsp; a game where the key to gameplay is just &quot;whatever you talk the Gm into&quot; as opposed to &quot;work up plans and tactics.&quot;Now, that would be fine for things like beer and pretzels one offs - no problem - make it up as you go along no need for long term consistency loads of fun. But that would not be a method i would use for an ongoing set of players in a campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7349111, member: 6919838"] Absolutely but there are a million things one *can* say and now we have one more example of a niche catch from making a change which was premised on "well its not that big a deal" kind of reasoning. I mean, lets consider... Why are the rules for BA so infl;exible? That was a thing right? Well, why are the rule for movement so inflexible that if its 35' to get to me enemy attack range then i have to lose an entire action to get there in one? Why *not* let me move 35' instead of 30'? Will that break the game? Why are the rules on two handed weapons so inflexible that i cannot have a two-handed great sword that has finesse so that my dex fighter can use it as good as their bow? Will it break the game if we change that too? Why are the rules on bows so inflexible that them being at 120' means i take disadvantage? Would it break the game if the bow was 120' short range? My viewpoint is rather straightforward, if i *need8 to change rules, i do so without reservation but with forethought as to the why and wherefores. I do not change rules based on "why not? Will it break the game? whenever a rule becomes inconvenient because i feel it is very much those kinds of limitations that spawn tactics and planning and make choices matter. if everytime or most times my players hit a "well it does not work that way" i said "but hey lets ignore that" i would be running a game where the key to gameplay is just "whatever you talk the Gm into" as opposed to "work up plans and tactics." Now, that would be fine for things like beer and pretzels one offs - no problem - make it up as you go along no need for long term consistency loads of fun. But that would not be a method i would use for an ongoing set of players in a campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification