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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4122678" data-attributes="member: 7635">While I can honestly say I was never "in the room" when these decisions were made, I can hazard a GUESS. The idea is similar to what 4e is trying: simple PC creation rules, complex combat abilities. It was an attempt to create options (should the fighter sunder, grapple, or full attack?) without reducing the value of the basic attack (something 4e has decided against). The problem was, as the game got bigger and numbers higher, the whole thing ground to a halt.This probably stemmed from the countless complaints about sub-systems in 1e/2e and how they interacted, or often didn't interact (compare non-weapon profs to thief skills, bend-bars with strength checks, and how many versions of martial arts rules were printed?) Third tried something radical: a unified system that covered (or tried to) every contingency a PC could try. Strike a weapon? *Sunder*. Restrain your friend? *Grapple*! However, by adding a rule for nearly everything (from AoOs to bull rushes) the game became nearly impossible to recall from memory, let alone run without having a rule-book (or rule summary) in front of you at all times. In essence, by trying to account for all of 1e/2e's sub-systems, they bloated the main system with rules for corner-case scenarios. My guess is 4e will remedy this by keeping rules like grapple or sunder tied to powers that only arise as corner-case, uncluttering the main mechanic for speed and retention. It also removes the need for sub-systems, and thus keep things unified. Its not the perfect balance, but its a lot better than 1e/2e's "A system for every action" or 3e's "A page of rules for every action" builds.</blockquote>

Verification