NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7938716" data-attributes="member: 42582">This thread has prompted me to think about what counts as a rules change, especially in the D&D context.Writing up a new monster (or similar element in a list-based PG) doesn't seem like a rules change. But in AD&D changing the HD size of a particular monster, or of monsters in general, would be a rules cnange.The second change - ie to monsters in general - is actually quite straightforward to understand. (And Gygax did it for the classes, upgrading them all except MUs, so why not do it for monsters if the game is playing too easy or too hard in combat?) It was quite a popular change in 4e, too.But why change the HD size for just this monster? Why not just give it more (or fewer) HD, or plusses to its HD? There's a marginal significance here - giving more HD can change the attack chart for a monster, and even giving plusses to HD can change a monster's saving throw chart. But is managing the numbers to that degree of precision so important in AD&D? Personally I'd be hard-pressed to be persuaded that changing an particular monster's HD size adds anything other than a potentially confusing gimmick. (Shambling mounds notwithstanding.)To pick on a different resolution system: surprise. It's not a rules change, in AD&D, to change the die on which surrpise is checked (for a particular monster, or class, or even circumstance) - the DMG flags this very possibility. Monks using d% rather than a regular die for surprise is a change, though, because it makes it impoosible to use the standard rule for determining the duration of surprise.And shifting things to a different mechanic again (eg the Classic Traveller opposed throw mechanic) would be a change.In a system like 4e or 5e D&D, with a relatively uniform resolution framework (check vs DC), I don't think setting DCs, or varying them from textual suggestions, really counts as a rules change. Setting DCs is part of the GM's job. But going to a different framework (eg rolling for surprise or initiative on d6) would be a rules change.4e D&D probably has as many points at which rules might be changed as 5e, given the deep similarity of the two systems. Conversations among 4e players on these boards showed changes being made of the sort one would expect - initiative (including some people using side initiative), recovery rates (eg modifying rest times, especially for "daily" resources) and systems (eg recovery only in "havens", or more radical fiction-based approaches to recovering "encounter" resources), skill challenges, including or excluding feats, ignoring errata, etc. I didn't see many people changing the fundamentals of skill checks or atttack and damage rolls, but at a certain point why would you not just change games?But there's certainly nothing in 4e that would make Gygax's government chart or tunneling matrix innaplicable!</blockquote>

Verification