Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 4059742" data-attributes="member: 20805">The difference is, IME.. given tinkering with rules since 1e.. the earlier editions could be tinkered with and the overall game wouldn't change because of a lack of cohesion in the major mechanics.I am not saying that 3e is a 'finely-tuned machine', but rather that the cohesiveness of the main components meant that changing things had second and third order of effects. Take, for instance, armor as DR. Simple enough change, right? Its even an option in UA. Use this rule and the build to play is the 2-handed Power Attacker.... its easier to hit the target and PA gives additional damage.... unless the target is one of those armored beast where the rule makes then almost indestructable.3.e HRs had to check and double check to see if unintended consequences sprang up. This is one of the main reason I stick relatively close to a RAW game.I am saying that 4e looks to be the next step in bringing the mechanics into a cohesive and understandable foundation from which to build the game system. Having the assumptions up front make it much cleaner to see the consequences of changing things.....and, having read this thread, I agree with Lord Zardoz' excellent analysis&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 4059742, member: 20805"] The difference is, IME.. given tinkering with rules since 1e.. the earlier editions could be tinkered with and the overall game wouldn't change because of a lack of cohesion in the major mechanics. I am not saying that 3e is a 'finely-tuned machine', but rather that the cohesiveness of the main components meant that changing things had second and third order of effects. Take, for instance, armor as DR. Simple enough change, right? Its even an option in UA. Use this rule and the build to play is the 2-handed Power Attacker.... its easier to hit the target and PA gives additional damage.... unless the target is one of those armored beast where the rule makes then almost indestructable. 3.e HRs had to check and double check to see if unintended consequences sprang up. This is one of the main reason I stick relatively close to a RAW game. I am saying that 4e looks to be the next step in bringing the mechanics into a cohesive and understandable foundation from which to build the game system. Having the assumptions up front make it much cleaner to see the consequences of changing things. ....and, having read this thread, I agree with Lord Zardoz' excellent analysis :) [/QUOTE]

Verification