Improvements after 3.5

[Li Shenron]

I have mixed feelings about whether these improvements are really, well, improvements.

Definitely they are options, but so small that the advantage is quite minimal... I don't see the point yet in introducing swift actions and immediate actions for example, when the game was already working well with the core action types. The benefit doesn't necessary compensate for the added confusion. But if you make good examples why those should be necessary, I'll change my mind.

Then I don't like a RPG which introduces new rules in accessory books and then pretends to treat them on the same level with the core rules. Sounds like a clever way to keep people feeling that accessories are not optional after all. At least that's what seems to me if people talk about swift actions like they are nowadays necessary or "integral" with the core.

An finally I don't like the idea of having a RPG which evolves like Windows i.e. in "patches", but I guess that's only a matter of personal taste: if I were to follow the process of refining rules over and over, it would detract me from more interesting sides of the game.

 

[Deadguy]

I have mixed feelings about whether these improvements are really, well, improvements.

Definitely they are options, but so small that the advantage is quite minimal... I don't see the point yet in introducing swift actions and immediate actions for example, when the game was already working well with the core action types. The benefit doesn't necessary compensate for the added confusion. But if you make good examples why those should be necessary, I'll change my mind.

Well, the only real rules change has been to add Swift and Immediate actions. Everything else has been refinement of presentation (though I admit that refining Skills usage borders on a rules change). And these new actions are just an attempt to codify what has otherwise been included in the individual descriptions of powers and spells. Take, as the classic example, the Featherfall spell. Its casting time is a free action, but it isn't really a free action as generally described, since it can be used outside of your own turn. Now that's a nice effect - and necessary for the spell to have a 'useful' effect - but it has to be written specially for that spell, and the same again for any other spell or ability that ought to be usable the same way. So instead we create the 'Immediate' action, describe that once, and then say 'Casting Time: 1 Immediate action'.

The Swift action just codifies that Free Action which you can only take one of in a round. Rather than having each time to say, as with Quickened spells, that it's a free action, but you can use it only once per round, instead you can say 'Swift action'. This also handles the interactions betweeen different abilities that are all 'use as a free action, but only once per round'. The latter needs to say whether or not the actions of different types can be combined, whilst it is built into the definition of Swift actions.

As Complete Adventurer demonstrates, codifying this requirement allows you yo open up and create new powers and spells which use this tool. It's not that they couldn't be written without the Swift/Immediate action, but it does make it clearer, by putting a rules effect into general rules, rather than buried in a power or spell description. Are these changes essential? Of course not - we got along without them okay. It's just that with them, I can create a game with more options, for just a little work.

Then I don't like a RPG which introduces new rules in accessory books and then pretends to treat them on the same level with the core rules. Sounds like a clever way to keep people feeling that accessories are not optional after all. At least that's what seems to me if people talk about swift actions like they are nowadays necessary or "integral" with the core.

I think that Wizards (and Paizo) have taken a very fair line with the Swift and Immediate actions. Whenever the make use of something outside the core rules in a supplement, they've reprinted the underlying rule in a sidebar. No need to buy another book beyoind that supplement - they've given it to you gratis. Short of never using anything at all from the supplements, that's the fairest way to make use of supplemental material.

An finally I don't like the idea of having a RPG which evolves like Windows i.e. in "patches", but I guess that's only a matter of personal taste: if I were to follow the process of refining rules over and over, it would detract me from more interesting sides of the game.

Obviously for you it's a distraction. But for me, it's a fair attempt by the company to extend its game without printing a whole new rules set. You never [/i]need[/i] to add these refinements, but I'd rather the option to do so existed than to say 'carved in stone until the next edition'.

 

[Hussar]

Formatting changes are simply an outgrowth of publishing. It's not a case of rules changes which need to be tested and retested to make sure they mesh. Simple format changes are an outgrowth of responses from buyers. Personally, I love the new PrC format. Lot's of interesting goodies instead of just boring bare bones stats.

 

[Henry]

This may blow the Shaman's mind, but I almost wish that they do away with Free Actions and replace it with just swift and immediate ones. They make more sense to me, because even with free actions, there's only so many meaningful things you can do in six seconds, and if you're concentrating enough to toss off an insta-spell, you can't concentrate enough to quickdraw, or speak, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

This may blow the Shaman's mind, but I almost wish that they do away with Free Actions and replace it with just swift and immediate ones. They make more sense to me, because even with free actions, there's only so many meaningful things you can do in six seconds, and if you're concentrating enough to toss off an insta-spell, you can't concentrate enough to quickdraw, or speak, etc.

They should have thought about this early on then, but eventually some of the early 3ed authors still believed there was a DM out there.

 

[Psion]

They should have thought about this early on then, but eventually some of the early 3ed authors still believed there was a DM out there.

But be realistic here: a great many of the DMs out there are either uncomfortable deviating from the rules (not so good, but people have their own comfort zones) or have an expectation that the rules be robust enough that the need for GM intervention is minimal and don't like smacking down loophole seeking players every session (rather reasonable, I think.)

Hindsight is 20/20 and forethought in the rules about common situations that crop up is a good thing. AFAIAC, the addition of swift and immediate actions is a boon to the game. (In fact, I liked them when they appeared in another publisher's 3.0 book... )

 

[Evilhalfling]

the SRD itself is wonderful -
I use (a /the ?) hypertext version. If my computer is handy it is actually easier than looking up all the rules/monsters /spells in individual books. Even after using colored tabs in my books to mark the important pages.

 

[Odhanan]

Does anyone else feel the way I do?

Yes.

 

[Li Shenron]

But be realistic here: a great many of the DMs out there are either uncomfortable deviating from the rules (not so good, but people have their own comfort zones) or have an expectation that the rules be robust enough that the need for GM intervention is minimal and don't like smacking down loophole seeking players every session (rather reasonable, I think.)

Yeah yeah, but still in our Xp we have never encountered a single case when the DM had to count how many free actions a PC had done on his turn. Maybe we have just been lucky

Obviously I can only speak from my small xp but never it felt to me that adding swift & immediate actions would have had any benefit. There could be some specific case that doesn't come to my mind tho.

 

[Henry]

Obviously I can only speak from my small xp but never it felt to me that adding swift & immediate actions would have had any benefit. There could be some specific case that doesn't come to my mind tho.

Swift actions, I'll agree with -- I'd rather see the rule for swift actions replace the vague free action. However, immediate actions and immediate spells are something that D&D has needed to my mind, because I have seen a long-standing tradition in wizardly duels of spells and counterspells, of arcane ripostes and reflexives much in the same way a fencer would parry a sword-blow. It started with the humble Feather Fall, and I'd love to see it more in other spells. (One or two Spells from Arcane Strife actually carried this idea also.) Carrying the immediate psionic effects over to a series of "Immediate Spells" would be beneficial to D&D, I believe, though if they leave them with psionic characters I'm OK with that too.