Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 1398181" data-attributes="member: 1656">That's a matter of opinion.I don't agree, and I don't think the rules as written are &quot;a problem&quot;.They take a nice simple mechanic to handle Disarm and Sunder: Bigger is Better.&nbsp; It's easy to remember, and once you know the rule, it's intuitive.Does 3E's lack of facing make for a realistic model?&nbsp; Does Armor-as-AC make for a realistic model?&nbsp; Does turn-based initiative make for a realistic model?Not really.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean that more realistic rules are better.&nbsp; It means they're more realistic.&nbsp; But too much realism can complicate things and bog down play.3.5 has a nice simple rule - Bigger Weapon, Bigger Bonus.The FAQ rulings take that simple system and - apparently through a lack of understanding of that system, judging by the answers - get it wrong.It's not proposed as a correction for mechanics the designers have decided are flawed and shouldn't have been written.&nbsp; It's written as an explanation for how the rules work... and doesn't get those rules right.That's a bad answer, IMO.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 1398181, member: 1656"] That's a matter of opinion. I don't agree, and I don't think the rules as written are "a problem". They take a nice simple mechanic to handle Disarm and Sunder: Bigger is Better. It's easy to remember, and once you know the rule, it's intuitive. Does 3E's lack of facing make for a realistic model? Does Armor-as-AC make for a realistic model? Does turn-based initiative make for a realistic model? Not really. But that doesn't mean that more realistic rules are [i]better[/i]. It means they're more realistic. But too much realism can complicate things and bog down play. 3.5 has a nice simple rule - Bigger Weapon, Bigger Bonus. The FAQ rulings take that simple system and - apparently through a lack of understanding of that system, judging by the answers - [i]get it wrong[/i]. It's not proposed as a correction for mechanics the designers have decided are flawed and shouldn't have been written. It's written as an explanation for how the rules work... and doesn't get those rules right. That's a bad answer, IMO. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification