Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 4833888" data-attributes="member: 31216">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4833733" target="_blank"> AD&D is not "rules light" </a>Removing grappling rules: that just means all those grappling monsters do straight damage with their attacks -- just like it worked in AD&D, yes? What monster could you not play straight out of the MM with any reference to grappling erased?Ability score damage/poison: What would be hurt by removing this? I hate the bookkeeping that comes from ability score damage, so in my games, when I DM, I don't use it. The Players haven't missed it, and it hasn't hindered my game in any way. If I use a poison, I just have it do HP damage, or paralyze, or kill, like in AD&D. But I guess this breaks your rule for this exercise.Iterative attacks where you subtract 5 each time: I hear D&D4 works fine without this rule.Feats and skills: The game will *work* without feats and skills. AD&D worked without them, and I see nothing about D&D3 that would end a game if they were taken out.Will removing some of these rules change the game play? Sure. But then if you were used to using weapons vs. AC and rate of fire in AD&D, removing them from the game would change the play there, too.But the game will play without them. The proof is that the game played without them in AD&D.Bullgrit</blockquote>