[Nexus] AoO change

[Aussiegamer]

I'm confused about how small 1 handed ranged weapons don't attract an AOO when used, since you haven't actually changed the ruling that attacking with a ranged weapon - ANY ranged weapon - provokes an AOO from an adajacent enemy (which therefore would rule that ANY ranged attack would not be able to make use of an AOO since it - the weapon being used as a ranged attack - provokes an AOO, according to your rules).

Additionally, that means the idea of automatic gunfire would be MORE useless against charging melee combatants than it is already by the MSRD, not less so as history as showned.

Just my idea of feedback.

Peterson

A small gun is just that, small. Easy to hold and fire just the same as a polearm right now does not, after all it takes effort to and concentration to wield.

In my system small 1 handed ranged weapons don't attract an AoO when used.The idea is for more risk in charging around with a melee weapon, but it still can be done as not all ranged weapons can do it.

Thoughts?

I did change the rule for small ranged weapons attracting AoO, so ????

This rule idea does not change the rules for automatic fire thus does not make it MORE useless.

 

[Aussiegamer]

Just an inane reply on my way out here....

Some are more inane that others

Actually, yes it does. A small change to a minor part of the game IS making it more complex, in the context that most people using your system (assuming your system is d20-based as it seems to be with the information provided here) will have to learn the d20 rules (or already have learned them) and must now either re-learn or forget what they have learned before in order for your system to make sense to them. Additionally, the word "complex", in regards to individual's learning curves and ESPECIALLY in regards to a person's learning curve of MECHANICS, is subjective. What might be "simple" to you could be downright mind-bogglingly "complex" to Roudi. That doesn't make either of you wrong, but at the same time - it doesn't make either of you right.

Just a quick point, change does not mean its more complex, you can make it less complex with a change. So a change does not equal complexity.

Simple and complex, the system as a whole really is the same. A minor change yes but making it more complex, well OK it is but so minor that its not a real change that you could call complex. But I agree its not the simplistic d20M system and it is more complex with some parts, but I am trying to maintain playablity by not going over board. It is still basically the same simple d20 system, with some changes which I feel enhance the feel during
combat.

With every system, like Iron heroes or even D&D3.5 and modern, they all have their own unique set of rules that cause you to relearn a system. The d20 system is flexiable enough to allow this, and if that you say it should all be the same then what the bugger are we doing putting anything her but direct questions to that knowledge? We are here to design or understand systems and in the end have a system that we as a GM and players are happy with.

On final thought here - your English skills DO have an impact on how people view - and comprehend - your system. If you don't possess the ability to accurately explain your mechanics in the language that the majority of your readers uses, then you need to do one of two things: One - hire an editor that can do that for you and pay him well, or Two - learn how to use proper English.

Simple spelling mistakes are just that, and to attack someone on a chat room over it is not on. We all do not have the same levels of typing, or education or even have english as a primary language. In the end the minor misspelling are annoying but either asks for a clarifaction nicely or ingone them. No-one has the right to attack anyone on these forums.

I have a bit of a typing problem, reversing letters and such. I attempt to clean them up, but I do miss some. Sorry for being a bit dislectic (sp!). We are not all English Majors from a university.

I agree that convaying an idea on a pure written forum is hard and thus my putting "Thoughts?" means if you don't understand ask. And thats what this is all about.

No offense intended, but take away what you will of this. I'm just doing my best to provide feedback.

Peterson

When properly discussed it not taken as an offence. (Theres another point, US english spelling is different to Aus and some others as well)

Any way [/rant off]

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Peterson]

A small gun is just that, small. Easy to hold and fire just the same as a polearm right now does not, after all it takes effort to and concentration to wield.



I did change the rule for small ranged weapons attracting AoO, so ????

This rule idea does not change the rules for automatic fire thus does not make it MORE useless.

First off, I missed that part - where you said In My System. I apologize, but it would make it easier to get feedback if you included relevant rule changes as a seperate line item - something that stands out that says "Hey, I'm more important than just words".

Second, so not only did you change/modify one rule to for AOO, you did so for a number of items. See - you just made it a little more work on the readers' part to understand your system since you've now adjusted how AOO work (especially for ranged weapons), and you've specialized small 1-handed ranged weapons.

Which brings up a question - is the ruling that changes the AOO provoked for using a ranged weapon subject to the size of the weapon or the handedness of it? The reason I ask is because you put "small 1-handed" in the description, and that's actually two different things. Example: A "small" weapon could be considered a Glock, but in the hands of a Gnome or other Small-sized creature, its actually a 2-handed weapon. Therefore, one begs the question - can my Gnome use his Glock to take ranged AOO or does he provoke an AOO? That's a big deal.

As to the Autofire rule, let's consider this: Automatic fire is deadly for a few reasons. One of those reasons is because it makes charging the operator of an automatic weapon more dangerous. However, your rule change about Ranged AOO actually makes "small 1-handed" firearms MORE dangerous because they can take AOO against a charging enemy where as a SAW can not. This sort of breaks the game, making an Automatic Weapon (which is already penalized with weight, extra required feats, and limited ammo) LESS USEFUL vs melee opponents that are charging or moving from cover to cover. Thus, this rule change - in regards to "Automatic Fire cannot be used as a ranged AOO" - doesn't seem to be a worthwhile change to me.

Again, just feedback.

Peterson

 

[Masada]

Again, not to poke at any system, just to speak from my personal gaming...

I've always found AoO clunky. They come up from time to time, but rarely contribute much. They make trip, grapple, unarmed combat tedious instead of action packed. While there is a great deal of material around AoO use... I'd still be tempted to dump it in favor of something that was fun.

Edit: I was going to write more then my wife came in nattering about her haircut...

Quick time-saving summary: If it takes more than 5 minutes to explain, it might be more trouble than it's worth. Imagine the players using the rule and ask what would be fun about this idea/mechanic. Realistic protrayal isn't always fun. Sticking to a clunky rule system and trying to make it better may not help the clunky rules. Many groups throw out (or just plain forget AoO) altogether... So what if it did disappear, did your game become more fun? Less complicated? Easier to play? Easier to understand? If "yes" to 2 out of 4 then it may be a winner.

 

[Peterson]

Some are more inane that others


Just a quick point, change does not mean its more complex, you can make it less complex with a change. So a change does not equal complexity.

Simple and complex, the system as a whole really is the same. A minor change yes but making it more complex, well OK it is but so minor that its not a real change that you could call complex. But I agree its not the simplistic d20M system and it is more complex with some parts, but I am trying to maintain playablity by not going over board. It is still basically the same simple d20 system, with some changes which I feel enhance the feel during
combat.

With every system, like Iron heroes or even D&D3.5 and modern, they all have their own unique set of rules that cause you to relearn a system. The d20 system is flexiable enough to allow this, and if that you say it should all be the same then what the bugger are we doing putting anything her but direct questions to that knowledge? We are here to design or understand systems and in the end have a system that we as a GM and players are happy with.

I hate to say it, but I still think you're missing the point where I said "Complex and simple" are relative terms. Additionally, I'd like to point out something that Roudi said above:

Of course they are simple to you: you designed them! Other people may have different opinions.

My own systems that I've developed over the years have always been simple to me - because the idea formed in my brain and my brain fills in the blanks that my writing may leave out.

Simple spelling mistakes are just that, and to attack someone on a chat room over it is not on. We all do not have the same levels of typing, or education or even have english as a primary language. In the end the minor misspelling are annoying but either asks for a clarifaction nicely or ingone them. No-one has the right to attack anyone on these forums.

I'm going to assume you are speaking of Roudi's comments in this thread here, for the most part. I agree with you that simple spelling mistakes are just that and that no one has the right to attack anyone on these forums. I will also agree that we all do not have the same levels of typing, or education, or even have english as a primary language.

However, I will say two things here: One, I read Roudi's statements and saw them as nothing more than some friendly advice and observation. Feedback is another term I've heard used. Two, posting on forums has the distinct disadvantage that readers can not realize tone and implied direction - meaning that those doing the writing need to be more aware of how they type and (perhaps more importantly) those doing the reading need to have thick skin and not perceive slights where none were (most likely) not intended. Personally, I saw no intended slight from Roudi unto you, and would suggest that you read his replies (as with anyone else's) with less of a jaded eye. I've learned from experience that Roudi can be a great help to one working on d20 mechanics (regardless of what you're trying to do with them - simplify, complexify (is that a word?), or just standardizify (I KNOW that's not a word, but I like patterns).)

Thanks for your thoughts.

That's what any of us are here for - Roudi included.

Peterson

 

[Aussiegamer]

First off, I missed that part - where you said In My System. I apologize, but it would make it easier to get feedback if you included relevant rule changes as a seperate line item - something that stands out that says "Hey, I'm more important than just words".

Nice idea and i will try to remember to do it next time

Second, so not only did you change/modify one rule to for AOO, you did so for a number of items. See - you just made it a little more work on the readers' part to understand your system since you've now adjusted how AOO work (especially for ranged weapons), and you've specialized small 1-handed ranged weapons.

Well as you pointed out it was pretty silly to have small weapons do an AoO if they are not allowed to do it becuase they provoke an AoO.

I did put that side note in about the small weapons, but yes it was not easy to see. Again point taken.

Which brings up a question - is the ruling that changes the AOO provoked for using a ranged weapon subject to the size of the weapon or the handedness of it? The reason I ask is because you put "small 1-handed" in the description, and that's actually two different things. Example: A "small" weapon could be considered a Glock, but in the hands of a Gnome or other Small-sized creature, its actually a 2-handed weapon. Therefore, one begs the question - can my Gnome use his Glock to take ranged AOO or does he provoke an AOO? That's a big deal.

We all talk with a standard, mine is a medium creature, as modern does to some what. They have a standard and then tell you about the changes you need to do for larger or smaller creatures. (I am pretty sure they do :\ )

So a small is related to medium, as tiny is to small, as medium is to large. Again yep, but it is hard to not overload the idea with lots of "oh yer I do this" as well.

As to the Autofire rule, let's consider this: Automatic fire is deadly for a few reasons. One of those reasons is because it makes charging the operator of an automatic weapon more dangerous. However, your rule change about Ranged AOO actually makes "small 1-handed" firearms MORE dangerous because they can take AOO against a charging enemy where as a SAW can not. This sort of breaks the game, making an Automatic Weapon (which is already penalized with weight, extra required feats, and limited ammo) LESS USEFUL vs melee opponents that are charging or moving from cover to cover. Thus, this rule change - in regards to "Automatic Fire cannot be used as a ranged AOO" - doesn't seem to be a worthwhile change to me.

LOL yet another ruling change. I never said this is modern compatiable . There is no such thing as autofire. I have automatic fire which is treated as a SA or FA.

Please don't think this is d20 modern. Its not its nexus as iron heroes is iron heroes.

I wanted to remove that, as someone said it would be bad on another site, as the damage would be higher than standard compared to a melee style attack or single ranged weapon attack. So it is system based not relaity based. But I am not locking it up, so lets see.

Since it is not there already for ranged and I am adding a single round from a ranged weapon within 10m then it is not braking the system.


I just don't see that its easy to get a shot off as a reaction to something happening with a large ranged weapon to that of a small ranged weapon or a melee weapon. Its a reaction and not a set shot.

Again, just feedback.

Peterson

And again theres feedback and stuff thats just not!

 

[Aussiegamer]

Again, not to poke at any system, just to speak from my personal gaming...

I've always found AoO clunky. They come up from time to time, but rarely contribute much. They make trip, grapple, unarmed combat tedious instead of action packed. While there is a great deal of material around AoO use... I'd still be tempted to dump it in favor of something that was fun.

Edit: I was going to write more then my wife came in nattering about her haircut...

Quick time-saving summary: If it takes more than 5 minutes to explain, it might be more trouble than it's worth. Imagine the players using the rule and ask what would be fun about this idea/mechanic. Realistic protrayal isn't always fun. Sticking to a clunky rule system and trying to make it better may not help the clunky rules. Many groups throw out (or just plain forget AoO) altogether... So what if it did disappear, did your game become more fun? Less complicated? Easier to play? Easier to understand? If "yes" to 2 out of 4 then it may be a winner.

I do like the system as it makes the player think that doing this might be bad, and stops a my go then you go mentality for me.

I am trying to unclunk it, but I do like the basics. true not for everyone.

 

[Aussiegamer]

I hate to say it, but I still think you're missing the point where I said "Complex and simple" are relative terms. Additionally, I'd like to point out something that Roudi said above:

Then ask don't insult. Works for me.

My own systems that I've developed over the years have always been simple to me - because the idea formed in my brain and my brain fills in the blanks that my writing may leave out.

yer i agree and thats why I try to get feedback. Again if you don't understand then ask.

I'm going to assume you are speaking of Roudi's comments in this thread here, for the most part. I agree with you that simple spelling mistakes are just that and that no one has the right to attack anyone on these forums. I will also agree that we all do not have the same levels of typing, or education, or even have english as a primary language.

partial. he decided that he was the language police in another thread and basically shreaded me over stuff.

However, I will say two things here: One, I read Roudi's statements and saw them as nothing more than some friendly advice and observation. Feedback is another term I've heard used. Two, posting on forums has the distinct disadvantage that readers can not realize tone and implied direction - meaning that those doing the writing need to be more aware of how they type and (perhaps more importantly) those doing the reading need to have thick skin and not perceive slights where none were (most likely) not intended. Personally, I saw no intended slight from Roudi unto you, and would suggest that you read his replies (as with anyone else's) with less of a jaded eye. I've learned from experience that Roudi can be a great help to one working on d20 mechanics (regardless of what you're trying to do with them - simplify, complexify (is that a word?), or just standardizify (I KNOW that's not a word, but I like patterns).)

yep and when actually seen with the other comments he has put in other topics I have started they add up to a basic baiting exercise to abrasive bashing.

Now if you, I don't care who you are, put a comment in that is asking for clarification or just nope because.... then OK I am not here for pats (though they are nice too ) but I am trying to develop my system.

That's what any of us are here for - Roudi included.

Peterson

Yes you are, you are here for civil discussing of a thought or idea etc. Not to be right or feel that you have the right to just be rude in the end.

 

[Masada]

I do like the system as it makes the player think that doing this might be bad, and stops a my go then you go mentality for me.

I am trying to unclunk it, but I do like the basics. true not for everyone.

Ahhhh... you bait and switched on me. You asked for feedback, but what you wanted was debate. See in feedback you throw an idea, I throw out ideas and it's all just ideas. In a debate you throw out an idea, I throw out an idea and you tell me why I'm wrong. The end goal is to pursuade rather than discuss. Geeky types are notorious for turning every conversation in to debates. So it's an easy trap to fall in to.

I have no desire to debate the Nexus system. I'm sure you and your players will be happy with the end results. They are the true targets of the system. I'll be staying out of future Nexus debates, but I would like to hear about your game sessions and how the changes you've made were played out, how well the players liked them and if it seemed to "flow" well.

 

[Masada]

Bizarre double post...

~Cheers