Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[JohnSnow]

'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary. I'm sure there are others.

Not to disagree just to disagree, but why do you say that?

When a fighter swings his sword, there's a chance, usually based on the capabilities of the other character that he won't hit. Many spells don't have saving throws or attack rolls. How do you reward characters who take pains to try to "neutralize" the spells of the enemy mage? Can no spellcaster foil the casting of another?

Counter-spelling simulates this archetypal form of fantasy adventure. So, if you feel that mages spoiling each other's spells is part of the genre, what's the mechanic for it?

Just curious.

I agree on your general point though. I think 3e probably does have "more rules than necessary." I nominate the 14 different bonus types (granted it's an improvement from earlier editions where ALL items "stacked"). Condense them down to a few rational ones and you'd rein in rampant magic abuse (or "Christmas Tree PCs") at the same time.

Attacks of opportunity could do for some simplification. Good concept - just clumsy implementation.

I'm sure there are others, but I just don't see that counter-spelling fits.

 

[Ourph]

I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's The Ultimate Vehicle aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).

Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?

'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary. I'm sure there are others.

I would say arcane spell failure percentages for armor are another candidate for the "too many rules" category.

First, it breaks the rule of having a single dice-rolling mechanic to resolve tasks (d20+modifiers vs. DC).

Second, you've already got an ACP for each suit of armor, why not just make arcane spell failure part of the extant skill system and assign the ACP as a penalty to a Concentration or Spellcraft check for casting in armor? That falls right in line with how numerous other situations are handled in the rules and doesn't require an entirely new (though arguably simple) rule to handle.

 

[JohnSnow]

I would say arcane spell failure percentages for armor are another candidate for the "too many rules" category.

First, it breaks the rule of having a single dice-rolling mechanic to resolve tasks (d20+modifiers vs. DC).

Second, you've already got an ACP for each suit of armor, why not just make arcane spell failure part of the extant skill system and assign the ACP as a penalty to a Concentration or Spellcraft check for casting in armor? That falls right in line with how numerous other situations are handled in the rules and doesn't require an entirely new (though arguably simple) rule to handle.

Now THAT's a good one. I suppose if you think the ACP is too light, you could double it (like they do with swimming). Personally I think special circumstances should stick to the core mechanic as closely as possible.

In that vein, does anyone have a similar feeling about the percent miss chance from "concealment?" Or do people think that's good as is?

 

[Ourph]

I suppose if you think the ACP is too light, you could double it (like they do with swimming).

I've thought about this, but even for armors with NO ACP, you still have to make the check and beat the minimum DC. If you make it 10+spell level, that's still going to give the average 1st level caster an ~15% chance of failing the casting check on a 1st level spell(not unreasonable IMO, but probably higher than the normal ASF chances given for those armors).

 

[JohnSnow]

I've thought about this, but even for armors with NO ACP, you still have to make the check and beat the minimum DC. If you make it 10+spell level, that's still going to give the average 1st level caster an ~15% chance of failing the casting check on a 1st level spell(not unreasonable IMO, but probably higher than the normal ASF chances given for those armors).

Hmm...I see your point. But then you'll get a lot of casters running around in padded, leather, and masterwork studded leather (maybe even a masterwork chain shirt...:\)

How does it scale as the casters go up in level? Would it make us likely to see armored casters at higher levels? Just curious...

Obviously, a high-level caster could throw out 1st level spells until the cows come home without worrying about the fact that he's wearing armor. But what about his mid-level spells?

 

[Ourph]

Hmm...I see your point. But then you'll get a lot of casters running around in padded, leather, and masterwork studded leather (maybe even a masterwork chain shirt...:\)

I don't know that the end result would be exactly the same as the current system. But does it really need to be as long as it fulfills the purpose of the ASF% (i.e. - providing a penalty for arcane casters wearing armor)? Like I said, even with an ACP of 0, a 1st level caster's going to have an ~15% chance of losing his spell on any given roll while wearing such armor, and that's with the less stringent DC = 10 + spell level. If you up that to the normal DC = 15 + spell level.....well, I'd never be wearing armor as an arcane caster.

 

[JohnSnow]

So you wouldn't just ask the caster to make a check if he wasn't wearing armor?

If so, that might be the element that I was missing.

It's got to "substantially discourage" casters from wearing armor. Not just discourage them. At least, that's my opinion.

By the way, +1 on a d20 is the same as +5%...just sayin'.

 

[Ourph]

So you wouldn't just ask the caster to make a check if he wasn't wearing armor?

Right. No armor = no check necessary.

 

[JohnSnow]

Right. No armor = no check necessary.

Gotcha. Well that makes a fair amount of sense.

Are we off-topic?

 

[Ourph]

Gotcha. Well that makes a fair amount of sense.

Are we off-topic?

Yes, but we're at least close. Which, considering it IS pg. 19 of the thread is somewhat of a miracle.