Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="beepeearr" data-source="post: 2846125" data-attributes="member: 20548">If it already too "complex" why do you want to add even more complexity?If what you don't like in the current system is that it is arbitrary, why do you advocate an even more arbitrary system?WotC offers at least two variant rules that address this somewhat, one is the damage save from UA, with it's shaken result, but they also have the clobbering variant rule from the DMG.  Once a fighter realizes he's only getting either a move or standard action (meaning no full attack) every round, and his opponent is making full attacks, he'll quickly see that he's on the losing end.  It's not so much more life, as it is that you are tougher, more experienced with rolling with the blows, and shrugging off the blows.  Imagine taking a scientist or computer programmer who never leaves his office and putting him on a football field opposite a linebacker, who do you think is going to come out on top? Someone else already beat me to this one.  Your senses are wissom based, only after you sense something can you react to it.  Personally I prefer the system as is.It's alot harder to work around someones defenses than it is to smash through them.  That's why it requires the extra feat.There are already feats out there that simulate this, like the two weapon defense chain.I also allow the following (modified from the original that appeared in Sword and fist)Off-Hand Parry [Combat]Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Proficiency (any weapon), Base Attack Bonus +3Benefit: When fighting with two weapons that you are proficient in and using the full attack action, on your action you can decide to attack normally or give up all of your offhand attacks for a +2 dodge bonus to AC per off-hand attack given up.  When using this option, you still suffer penalties on your attacks as if you were fighting with two weapons.  If also using a buckler it’s AC bonus stacks.  Your off-hand weapon must be considered a light weapon to gain the benefits of this feat. Just because you thnk there are too many doesn't make it fact.  Personally I like the variation many different skills allow.  Think of skill use as a form of combat, there is a typically a lot more checks and rolls in one round of combat than there are in even the most skill intensive non combat round. Because people can't always see as well as they hear, and vice versus.Run isn't a skill, and the rest aren't really related.  An olympic swimmer can't compete with an olympic long jumper, and the long jumper problably couldn't keep up with an experienced rock climber.This one has mechanical differences as well.  Creatures of differing sizes get a penalty or bonus to one but not the other.For one balance is untrained, tumble is trained only.because some people like the detail it can add to the game, or they just want to do it themselves.What about a sorcerer, or the rogue who flunked out of wizard school, it about having the choice.because some want to make this decision for themselves.remember my example from earlier about the rogue who flunked out of wizard school.  I wide and diverse skill system allows players the option of further defining their characters.  Personally, the pruning of the skill list is one of my chief dislikes about true20 and other 3rd party books.    These are all your opinion, some people like to make their own items (and can do so at a 1/4 of the price with the appropriate feats, some people don't have any problems with the TWF rules, you don't like only +1 to ac, then bump it up, in 3.0 it was +2 (it was a different name to though I think.  I personally still use the +2)They can still balance and jump, they just get a minus -6 to their checks (fyi doing cart wheels isn't quite the same as a tuck and roll, which would be much harder in full plate).Then bump them up, personally I bumped up all armors medium and higher, as well as a few of the larger shields (+1 for bucklers, +2 for light shields, +3 for Heavy shields, +4 default for tower shields).  In my games at least, I've noticed that when I allow for alternative means of boosting AC (ie feats, and better mundane armor bonuses) sometimes attacks actually miss at higher levels.    If you don't like just remove it, or instead take the feat that allows you to cast in one type of armor.AoO have been in D&D since at least 2nd edition, they just weren't called that.  Personally I enjoy AoO, but there is nothing from preventing you from removing them.Think of it more as a compromise, when you move you are more worried about getting to where you want to go then you are about harming your opponent.  You are splitting your attention between your opponent and what you are trying to do.hmm, wow, just wow.  You do realize that when you are directly behind a wall, it is impossible for an archer to Arc their shots unless they are pratically on the other side of the wall, and then basically they are just firing straight up into the air.  Okay first, natural 20 always hits.  2nd, by the rules, 8 bears should be able to surround him, one bear can attack while the seven other bears aid another.  This adds +16 to the attack roll (+14 aid bonus, +2 flanking.  plus the bears can make a touch attack to trip, that can add an additional +2.  Plus there are the mob rules from the DMG II.  200 bears make 4 mobs with a +22 attack bonus, not including any other modifiers.  If none of these options are what you want, you could even change the flanking rules, mabe something like for every additional pair of flankers all flankers gain an additional +2 on the attack rolls.  This would mean a medium sized opponent could be ganged up on by 4 pairs of flankers all with a +8 to the attack roll (reach would make this even higher). What exactly don't you like with them.  Most of the gamers I know who actually understand them, like them or are at least okay with them.  I have noticed though, that a lot of my players who really like them were melee junkies in our old Shadowrun game.  Personally, I like the majority of the system.  I would rather see them do a modular system were you can add and remove pieces you like or don't like the to see them change the game to a different system then the the one they are using now.  Why should the people who like the current game have to lose their game because it isn't what you want.  You want something different, then either play something different or do the work and make the game fit what you want.  There are many things I find fault with in the current system, but there is alot more that I really like, or that I like so much that I choose to build upon.  Is my game for everybody, no.  Just like D&D isn't for everybody either.I've been posting alot lately.  I think it might be a subconscious thing, after having been a an almost daily visitor of this site since it's earliest incarnation (way back when, when it was Eric Noah's 3rd edition news that I stumbled upon trying to get info on never winter nights) I had finally gotten to my 99th post before the crash (having been an earlier victim of the various board problems over the years, I've lost track over hom many different times I've registered for this site, although I suspect it is higher than my post count).</blockquote>

Verification