Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6874403">Rules are what make a game function.&nbsp; I don't want my rules to be &quot;vague&quot;.&nbsp; I want my rules to tell me how the game is supposed to work.&nbsp; If the rules aren't doing that then they are failing to serve their purpose.&nbsp; If they are, and I don't like it, I'm always free to change it, no matter how exacting those rules may be.&nbsp; This has ALWAYS been true.&nbsp; I like 5E's simplicity, but it's simplicity and speed of operations is hindered by the fact that I almost constantly have to rule on something.&nbsp; It's worse than being meticulous about what can or cannot be.&nbsp; It's tedious, tiring and requires far too much effort for a solution that could have been created with, in many cases with the 5E &quot;natural language&quot; problems, the change of ONE WORD.I don't see that we needed either.&nbsp; The same philosophy that was applied to Movement could have been applied to attacking.&nbsp; You have X amount of movement and Y number of attacks that you can take during your turn.&nbsp; Instead of making an attack you may also do *things*.5E's problem is they attempted to take the &quot;simple&quot; approach but failed to reduce many parts of the game to its simplest component.&nbsp; A convoluted Attack Action that replaces your normal Action but is somehow different from when a dragon makes a Multiattack.&nbsp; The &quot;action&quot; segment of your turn should have been eliminated just like the &quot;move&quot; segment of your turn.You have attacks.&nbsp; You can make them.&nbsp; If you want to do something else you're doing that in place of one or more attacks.The &quot;replacement&quot; actions methodology works fine for 4E when you're doing what essentially amount to performing specialized maneuvers during your &quot;standard action&quot; it makes sense in that context.&nbsp; It doesn't make any sense in the 5E K.I.S.S. methodology.&nbsp; &quot;Multiattack&quot; could very easily have been &quot;Extra Attack: this creature may take 3 attacks of any combination.&quot;&nbsp; This provides more variety to monster combat and also syncs up the wording, now we don't even need the confusion over if Multiattack and the Attack Action are different!&nbsp; Monsters take the Attack Action and get multiple attacks!&nbsp; Ah!&nbsp; The clarity!&nbsp; What destruction it brings!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6874403"] Rules are what make a game function. I don't want my rules to be "vague". I want my rules to tell me how the game is [I]supposed[/I] to work. If the rules aren't doing that then they are failing to serve their purpose. If they are, and I don't like it, I'm always free to change it, no matter how exacting those rules may be. This has ALWAYS been true. I like 5E's simplicity, but it's simplicity and speed of operations is hindered by the fact that I almost [I]constantly[/I] have to rule on [I]something[/I]. It's worse than being meticulous about what can or cannot be. It's tedious, tiring and requires far too much effort for a solution that could have been created with, in many cases with the 5E "natural language" problems, the change of [B]ONE WORD[/B]. I don't see that we needed either. The same philosophy that was applied to Movement could have been applied to attacking. You have X amount of movement and Y number of attacks that you can take during your turn. Instead of making an attack you may also do *things*. 5E's problem is they attempted to take the "simple" approach but failed to reduce many parts of the game to its simplest component. A convoluted Attack Action that replaces your normal Action but is somehow different from when a dragon makes a Multiattack. The "action" segment of your turn should have been eliminated just like the "move" segment of your turn. You have attacks. You can make them. If you want to do something else you're doing that in place of one or more attacks. The "replacement" actions methodology works fine for 4E when you're doing what essentially amount to performing specialized maneuvers during your "standard action" it makes sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the 5E K.I.S.S. methodology. "Multiattack" could very easily have been "Extra Attack: this creature may take 3 attacks of any combination." This provides more variety to monster combat and also syncs up the wording, now we don't even need the confusion over if Multiattack and the Attack Action are different! Monsters take the Attack Action and get multiple attacks! Ah! The clarity! What destruction it brings! [/QUOTE]

Verification