Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 2389352" data-attributes="member: 22882">I totally agree.  This is something I prefer about almost every other RPG I've played, and IMO the biggest problem with D&D: D&D does not have, and never has had, a unified core mechanic.  d20 D&D, be it 3.0 or 3.5, is closer to the mark than its predecessors.  Castles and Crusades, though I don't care for it, is closer.  True20, HERO and SilCore are each in their own way significantly closer.Every exception to the core mechanic is a design flaw, in my opinion.  It should occur only - ONLY - if an absolutely compelling reason demands it.  'Because it was in a previous edition' or 'because (I think) it's realistic' are not compelling reasons.Figuring AoOs for movement is an interface issue, though, not a rules issue, and it's one I don't understand and probably never will.  Don't let players count squares on their turns, people!Modular rules really shouldn't be necessary.  If everything uses the same core mechanic, why have modular rules.AoOs, being an interface issue, are part of a modular interface, which almost all RPGs have to some extent.  d20 D&D does perhaps drop the ball a bit in this regard - its interface is clearer and better defined than most RPGs, but it has lost some apparent modularity.Balance isn't a red herring; it's just all but impossible in a system as contradictory and burdened by the past as D&D.  Whether it's desirable or not is another matter.</blockquote>

Verification