Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore (Rules, rules, rules)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5715864" data-attributes="member: 83768"><p>That's not inclusion. He specifically states he mashed up <em>3E and 4E rules. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em>He didn't even discuss how older editions presented those rules. His examples are straight up out of modern D&D models. He just assumes "setting DCs" is the standard and that the complexity arises from how you modify that skill check, instead of say having skill checks with setting DCs altogether. </p><p></p><p>That's why older editions fell between 1 and 2, not because his scheme somehow reflected them, but because they weren't represented whatsoever. Because he went straight from "you climb at half your speed" to the default "checks for each climb" thing and totally skipped over any sort of divergence from the status quo skill checks from 3E and 4E. </p><p></p><p>He can <em>say </em>he's avoiding edition comparison, but then by using the standard methods of 3E and 4E only, he's outright avoiding historic methods altogether - something his previous poll indicated that players wanted to preserve.</p><p></p><p>Are you less confused? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As it stands, I can choose Option 1, which sucks because it doesn't address DM judgment whatsoever. Or, Option 2, which is <em>basically </em>the same as Option 3, because "based on the difficulty of the climb" will need guidelines. </p><p></p><p>Do you really think Option 2 is a serious rules option? "Based on the difficulty of the climb" will need supplemental rules, which will wind up looking more like Option 3: a bunch of modifiers affecting the climb. </p><p></p><p>Therefore, we have: Option 1, Option 2 and 3 (basically the same), or "Radically Different" and "Nothing whatsoever". </p><p></p><p>Wtf? </p><p></p><p>He could have added: </p><p></p><p>None. I want an option that's <em>not </em>radically different, but falls somewhere between these options. </p><p></p><p>Where I stand, I don't want to roll checks for <em>every single task</em> that will occur in a basic adventure. But, there are also times when seemingly basic tasks, such as climb, become extraordinary: climbing the slick walls of a tower, climbing sheer cliffs, etc. </p><p></p><p>This is something Monte doesn't address. His choices basically become: </p><p></p><p>No checks. </p><p>Checks all the time based around a bunch of modifiers (more, or less modifiers to taste). </p><p>DM wings it. </p><p>Radically different. </p><p></p><p>Is that really the only options? It is in 3E (more to taste) and 4E (less to taste).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="P1NBACK, post: 5715864, member: 83768"] That's not inclusion. He specifically states he mashed up [I]3E and 4E rules. [/I]He didn't even discuss how older editions presented those rules. His examples are straight up out of modern D&D models. He just assumes "setting DCs" is the standard and that the complexity arises from how you modify that skill check, instead of say having skill checks with setting DCs altogether. That's why older editions fell between 1 and 2, not because his scheme somehow reflected them, but because they weren't represented whatsoever. Because he went straight from "you climb at half your speed" to the default "checks for each climb" thing and totally skipped over any sort of divergence from the status quo skill checks from 3E and 4E. He can [I]say [/I]he's avoiding edition comparison, but then by using the standard methods of 3E and 4E only, he's outright avoiding historic methods altogether - something his previous poll indicated that players wanted to preserve. Are you less confused? As it stands, I can choose Option 1, which sucks because it doesn't address DM judgment whatsoever. Or, Option 2, which is [I]basically [/I]the same as Option 3, because "based on the difficulty of the climb" will need guidelines. Do you really think Option 2 is a serious rules option? "Based on the difficulty of the climb" will need supplemental rules, which will wind up looking more like Option 3: a bunch of modifiers affecting the climb. Therefore, we have: Option 1, Option 2 and 3 (basically the same), or "Radically Different" and "Nothing whatsoever". Wtf? He could have added: None. I want an option that's [I]not [/I]radically different, but falls somewhere between these options. Where I stand, I don't want to roll checks for [I]every single task[/I] that will occur in a basic adventure. But, there are also times when seemingly basic tasks, such as climb, become extraordinary: climbing the slick walls of a tower, climbing sheer cliffs, etc. This is something Monte doesn't address. His choices basically become: No checks. Checks all the time based around a bunch of modifiers (more, or less modifiers to taste). DM wings it. Radically different. Is that really the only options? It is in 3E (more to taste) and 4E (less to taste). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore (Rules, rules, rules)
Top