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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 5258477" data-attributes="member: 467">I think there's more to it than simply removing option from a more complex game. It is equally about kinds of options and how they interact with the rest of the system and how they come out in play.Let's take for example Power Attack, which I think was a "problematic" option in 3.x and became a "good" option in Pathfinder. Previously, PA gave the player options *every time he rolled to hit* and in so doing required the player to do a whole bunch of math -- and likely non-intuitive math because the kinds of characters likely to use power attack also had chosen a number of other options that complexified (word?) PA. In Pathfinder, by contrast, PA becomes a much simpler option.I think I made a mistake in the subject of this thread in that I should have said "rules and options" instead of just "options" because I was thinking rules = options (which may not be intuitive to others). A good illustration would be the difference between 2E's "called shots" and 3E's combat maneuvers. They do the same thing, with similar mechanical requirements. However, the 2E called shot is a single rule with a lot of room for interpretation, where the 3E combat maneuvers are a collection of precise rules than, IME, tended to a) drag play to a screeching halt and b) be ultimately bad options without support from other choices (ie feats). IMO, the 2E was is infinitely superior: it is easier to adjudicate for the GM and more versatile for the player -- win-win.</blockquote>

Verification