Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6330112" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, and by that logic, they should remove all dice and randomization from the game, because it isn't the &quot;primary goal&quot;.&nbsp; Fact is, there are several goals in action at any given time, and not all of them are primary, but are considered nontheless.&nbsp; Yes, simplification is good.&nbsp; But yes also rolling dice is good.&nbsp; So, more often than not we have simplified, but in a few places we have extra dice.&quot;*I* would happily trade,&quot; is not a good argument for a core rules change.&nbsp; You are one person.&nbsp; Then use them.&nbsp; Done.&nbsp; Yes, well, it isn't like you want to remove *all* tactical considerations from Basic, right?&nbsp; You want to leave a few in there.&nbsp; And ducking for cover is so darned basic an idea - at a house con this past weekend, as I walked past the 5e session that was doing their first combat of the game, someone was diving for cover already - that I think it isn't a bad choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6330112, member: 177"] Yes, and by that logic, they should remove all dice and randomization from the game, because it isn't the "primary goal". Fact is, there are several goals in action at any given time, and not all of them are primary, but are considered nontheless. Yes, simplification is good. But yes also rolling dice is good. So, more often than not we have simplified, but in a few places we have extra dice. "[I]*I*[/I] would happily trade," is not a good argument for a core rules change. You are one person. Then use them. Done. Yes, well, it isn't like you want to remove *all* tactical considerations from Basic, right? You want to leave a few in there. And ducking for cover is so darned basic an idea - at a house con this past weekend, as I walked past the 5e session that was doing their first combat of the game, someone was diving for cover already - that I think it isn't a bad choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification