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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5879412" data-attributes="member: 92511">Ok. I can appreciate that. I don't diagree that you should be able to take risky actions in melee. I still see no reason why a "rule must be in core" to make that happen or dictate the consequences. As for "where rules should be" just rings as so much Joan Crawford. In reality, you realize I hope, that what you are saying is simply "where I think [yes, and others] rules should be."Ahhh. I knew we'd be getting around to this at some point. Not meaning you, per se, casualoblivion, but sooner or later someone was going to say "put it in and you can take it out just as easily. Why should I have to add it in? You take it out!"This, quite frankly, is bunk. Let's face it. It doesn't work in cooking and it doesn't work in D&D.If "taking things away" were as easy as adding in (and I do believe they  are) we'd still be using descending AC and THAC0. And gods know nobody wants that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Everything needs to be "add, add, add, more rules, more options, more complex."IS it as easy to take out and add in? Yes, of course it is, in practice. We're all smart enough to do that, here.But the simple fact is, once ANY "rule" is IN the basic simplest part of the game, it's IN and anyone wanting to take it out is going to get slandered for "badwrongunfun! The book says so!" And we're right back where we [the splintered D&D community] started.Leaving everything bare bones and ADDING in what the game says "you can if you want", will not/can not receive such criticism."Simplest possible basic system with stuff you can add" NOT "Complex as I like it with stuff you can ignore."Do AoO/OA add to combat? Do they make things better/more enjoyable for some players? Obviously. Yes.CAN you play D&D combat without it? Obviously. Yes.If you CAN do without, then there's no reason a rule needs to be there at the bottom floor. Build it on.This goes for any/all elements of 5e, I hope. Take what I'm saying out of the context of combat...Alignment, let's say.I like alignment. I use alignment. 9-pt. Always have. Always will.I do not expect Alignment to be a part of the "basic simplest level of the game system/must be built in at character creation." Nor do I think it should be.I expect to see an optional module saying "Hello and welcome to using Alignment in your 5e D&D game. This is what Alignment is/means. Here are the various optional ways you can incorporate it (3-pt, 9-pt., 5-pt.). Here's some ideas of how to utilize it in your stories/games (mandatory class restrictions, detection/protection spells/abilities, idunnowutelse). Use what you like." Now, I'm all for the DMG saying (and PHB for that matter to shut up the rules' lawyers from the get go) "All of this is guidelines. Alter any part of it as you see fit." BUT, I imagine a whooooole buncha people would not like that.And again, saying "its in the book but I'm taking it out" will naturally meet with signiiiiificantly more resistance than "it's in the book as optional and I'm adding it in." ...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />...think I got off topic there someplace.B'anyway...uhhh, yeah. There ya go. Glad we can agree to have both options for AoO. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /> --SD</blockquote>

Verification