Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 2083227" data-attributes="member: 945">I still don't see that anyone has answered my question.  What is it about 1st edition, or C&C, or some other simplified ruleset that makes people want to forego 3e to play that other system instead?  My GM wanted to switch to C&C rules.  I told him that I wanted to play a half-elf paladin sorcerer who specialized in shield bash and bull rush attacks.  Knowing full well that at least half of that was completely not doable using that ruleset.So why?  Why would someone go from a position of having options available to them, to going to where where options are not as available? Is there anything inherintly complicated about sorcerers that would make someone want to go back to a ruleset that didn't include them?  Are the rules for bull rush or shield bashing so arcane and discombobulated that there would be a reason to go back to a system that doesn't include them?  I don't think so.  In doing so, isn't the GM going to either A) have to create the rules on the fly, or B) end up just frustrating his players in the long run?  Because certainly the *idea* of being able to disarm, shield bash, bull rush, or grapple someone has been around in the game long before the rules were there.  There just were no simple rules to handle those situations before now.So why would a GM willingly go back to a position of not allowing those rules?  In what world is a 18/92 strength *better* than a 20 strength.  Since when are racial level limits or race/class restrictions better than having options?  What *about* these old rules compels people to willingly abandon the presence of rules and options, for the lack of rules and options?  Don't tell me simplicity. Because if it's simplicity you want, just ignore those rules.  I could run 3e and say, "I'm only allowing the 4 core classes, and there is no such thing as bull rush in my world."  Ok, that's silly, but I've just dumbed down 3e to a "simplistic" framework that might work for me.No, I'm not saying 3e is better than any of the other systems one might choose to use.  Don't misinterpret what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that there are *more* options in 3e.  One can choose to ignore those options, or not.  There isn't any good reason that I can think of why one would choose to use a simpler ruleset.edit: No, scratch that.  One could choose to use 1e or an earlier edition if one had no desire to *learn* the 3e rules. Or, you did not want to purchase them.  That might be a reason to *stick* with an earlier edition, but doesn't necessarily validate why one would choose to leave 3e after having learned it over an earlier edition.  Another reason might be that you only wanted to run original modules, and to convert them to a newer edition would just take too much time. So, if all you wanted to do was play Isle of Dread, and Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, then that might be a reason to stick with an earlier edition.  My GM is running WLD, so in using the C&C rules, he ends up creating *more* work for himself, not less. Which baffles me.Someone explain this phenomenon to me.</blockquote>

Verification