Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 1646000" data-attributes="member: 20239">Right now the rules (let's say Core + official splatbooks) give you at least 10 ways to trade attack for AC.&nbsp; They also give you a few ways to trade attack accuracy for damage.&nbsp; I would simplify that by consolidating all of those options into 1 rule (you can distribute BAB toward hitting someone, defending yourself or hitting harder) and allow EVERYONE to access that option.&nbsp; That's MORE flexible than the current system and it's simpler.&nbsp; You don't have 15 or more feats or combat options all doing basically the same thing and all with their own particular rules quirks, but you still get the flexibility of being able to choose defense over attack or power over accuracy.I've simplified a lot.&nbsp; You no longer have to track individual AC bonus types that apply or don't apply in specific situations.&nbsp; In general, all bonuses of a particular type (and there are only two types) either apply or don't apply.&nbsp; If you look at my previous posts, there are a few good examples of situations where specific situational rules lead to some pretty complex AC adjustments.&nbsp; You still have all the options you previously had for improving your AC but the situational modifiers are much simplified and tracking what your AC is against a specific attack requires remembering or looking up MUCH fewer rules.You're right, I've removed no math during the combat round, as Dex caps due to armor generally don't change.&nbsp; This was simply an example of a rule I feel is an unnecessary complication that could be removed without removing any options or flexibility.&nbsp; Which is what you and I were discussing originally, right?&nbsp; You're also right that most of these rules changes would require compensations in other areas.&nbsp; The fact is, I don't like the way the designers of 3rd ed went about incorporating options and flexibility into the system.&nbsp; I think they sacrificed simplicity unnecessarily.&nbsp; I WOULD rebuild the game from the ground up if I were trying to &quot;fix&quot; it to my liking.&nbsp; I'm not trying to lay out actual options for people to use as house rules, I'm answering ashockney's questions about how I think the game can retain flexibility while improving simplicity.&nbsp; I thought that would have been pretty clear to anyone reading our conversation in this thread.&nbsp; I didn't think it was necessary to put up a disclaimer saying WARNING: Using any one of these suggestions in isolation is going to screw up your game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 1646000, member: 20239"] Right now the rules (let's say Core + official splatbooks) give you at least 10 ways to trade attack for AC. They also give you a few ways to trade attack accuracy for damage. I would simplify that by consolidating all of those options into 1 rule (you can distribute BAB toward hitting someone, defending yourself or hitting harder) and allow EVERYONE to access that option. That's MORE flexible than the current system and it's simpler. You don't have 15 or more feats or combat options all doing basically the same thing and all with their own particular rules quirks, but you still get the flexibility of being able to choose defense over attack or power over accuracy. I've simplified a lot. You no longer have to track individual AC bonus types that apply or don't apply in specific situations. In general, all bonuses of a particular type (and there are only two types) either apply or don't apply. If you look at my previous posts, there are a few good examples of situations where specific situational rules lead to some pretty complex AC adjustments. You still have all the options you previously had for improving your AC but the situational modifiers are much simplified and tracking what your AC is against a specific attack requires remembering or looking up MUCH fewer rules. You're right, I've removed no math during the combat round, as Dex caps due to armor generally don't change. This was simply an example of a rule I feel is an unnecessary complication that could be removed without removing any options or flexibility. Which is what you and I were discussing originally, right? You're also right that most of these rules changes would require compensations in other areas. The fact is, I don't like the way the designers of 3rd ed went about incorporating options and flexibility into the system. I think they sacrificed simplicity unnecessarily. I WOULD rebuild the game from the ground up if I were trying to "fix" it to my liking. I'm not trying to lay out actual options for people to use as house rules, I'm answering ashockney's questions about how I think the game can retain flexibility while improving simplicity. I thought that would have been pretty clear to anyone reading our conversation in this thread. I didn't think it was necessary to put up a disclaimer saying [b]WARNING: Using any one of these suggestions in isolation is going to screw up your game.[/b] [/QUOTE]

Verification