Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 7957306" data-attributes="member: 82504">bad service is a pretty broad thing... and indeed subjective but it probably relates to what I expect out of a variant rule.ok I will bite that example (almost) how about healing being broken because trivial magic item creation in 3e allowed far far too much healing... ever hear that criticism.&nbsp; Rules are part of &quot;systems&quot; if you arent treating them in concert you are doing them wrong. I expect the game designers to have more ability to see that than others.Rules have purposes and its a very very narrow and non game designer view to treat them like you do not know the purpose and goal of particular rules it seems well deceptive ( for the game designers in my opinion ). It is presenting a cosmetic shadow that will not serve the purpose it fulfilled (like healing surges which do not limit healing). I would say variant rules should start with comments about what the goal of this rule is... and follow through with a rule variant to fulfil that. The purpose of flanking was never to &quot;give combatants a simple way to gain advantage on attack rolls against a common enemy&quot;. Advantage is pretty pervasive already IMO why would i want that... It was a component of the rules to make position significant.&nbsp; Present a collection of rules if you must for the overarching purpose. Then show how the componentprovides in this case &quot;reward for position&quot;&nbsp; creates incentive to offset other components that provide difficulties for achieving position.&nbsp; While misnamed the 5e healing surges actually do accomplish what they are labelled to do ... not actually seeing a variant rule that even seems to try an implement how 4e limited every source of healing based on the internal awesome of the characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Garthanos, post: 7957306, member: 82504"] bad service is a pretty broad thing... and indeed subjective but it probably relates to what I expect out of a variant rule. ok I will bite that example (almost) how about healing being broken because trivial magic item creation in 3e allowed far far too much healing... ever hear that criticism. Rules are part of "systems" if you arent treating them in concert you are doing them wrong. I expect the game designers to have more ability to see that than others. Rules have purposes and its a very very narrow and non game designer view to treat them like you do not know the purpose and goal of particular rules it seems well deceptive ( for the game designers in my opinion ). It is presenting a cosmetic shadow that will not serve the purpose it fulfilled (like healing surges which do not limit healing). I would say variant rules should start with comments about what the goal of this rule is... and follow through with a rule variant to fulfil that. The purpose of flanking was never to "give combatants a simple way to gain advantage on attack rolls against a common enemy". Advantage is pretty pervasive already IMO why would i want that... It was a component of the rules to make position significant. Present a collection of rules if you must for the overarching purpose. Then show how the component provides in this case "reward for position" creates incentive to offset other components that provide difficulties for achieving position. While misnamed the 5e healing surges actually do accomplish what they are labelled to do ... not actually seeing a variant rule that even seems to try an implement how 4e limited every source of healing based on the internal awesome of the characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification