The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints

[Warbringer]

Here's a simple change I'd like to make: not all actions happen simultaneously in your turn, but rather are apread over the turn, ala 2e.

So a fighter in 3e on his initiative (say 13) moves 15 feet, drawing a dagger in his off-hand, strikes with his primary weapon, then with the dagger... all in 13.

I'd rather... in 13 he moves 15 feet taking him to count 11 (using 1 sq 2 counts) drawing his dagger. In 11 he attacks with the sword, then in 8, with a dagger (say 2nd attack initiative +3).

Now all of that is pretty simple, but what are the ramifications?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Now all of that is pretty simple, but what are the ramifications?

There are a few obvious ways this could work (but I am not going to go into details unless you are really tapped for ideas).

The main ramifications are:

(1) How do you want to handle AoOs provoked by movement? More little itty bitty movements pieces can potentially generate many separate AoOs.

(2) Depending on your answer to #1, is it too easy or too hard for spellcasters/archers to avoid AoOs for your taste?

(3) How does Charge fit it?

(4) How do Readied movements work in this system? Readied charges?

(5) What does a Withdrawal action look like (if it still exists)?

These issues are only difficult insofar as having a very wide selection of rule knobs available to tweak can be daunting at first. But a very wide of range of possible answers would make for a fun tactical game -- few to none of the possible answers would play poorly.

I would note that the only true knock on effects are #1 and #2. (#3, #4, and #5 are questions exploring what your houserule is in the first place.) But I think these would be pretty small issues and would not present a significant balance problems, regardless of what your answers may be.

 

[MerricB]

An example of a change that would have serious knock-on would be, say, ditching the entire feats system. This would force a near-complete re-build of the Fighter class to make it playable, and a decision on whether the idea of metamagic is worth keeping and if so how to implement it, and a question of how to handle things like blind-fighting, and..., and... And that is the level of changes and tweaks that are being looked at, and where the knock-on effect becomes a serious issue.

Er... and how is this different than the adding of the feat... I'm sorry, NWP... system had to AD&D 1E?

Suddenly you have things like Blindfighting in the rules that weren't there before. Surely they also have an effect? Not only that, but given the combat-nature of some of the NWP system, and that fighters gain more NWPs than wizards, you've just altered the underlying balance of the game. Same with Weapon Specialisation.

It's easier to add new rules rather than remove them. (Which is why XPH, Magic of Incarnum and other systems have been produced). If I rip out the Hit point system of AD&D, doesn't that cause a big problem?

Even so, the *only* problem you have with removing the feat system is the balance between the classes. Some options are no longer viable, but that's ok.

Meanwhile, AD&D added new systems and changed the balance between the classes. I fail to see a significant difference.

Cheers!

 

[FireLance]

An example of a change that would have serious knock-on would be, say, ditching the entire feats system. This would force a near-complete re-build of the Fighter class to make it playable, and a decision on whether the idea of metamagic is worth keeping and if so how to implement it, and a question of how to handle things like blind-fighting, and..., and... And that is the level of changes and tweaks that are being looked at, and where the knock-on effect becomes a serious issue.

The "near-complete re-build of the Fighter class" wouldn't require a lot of effort. You just have to pick 11 of the existing feats (ignore the prerequisites) and give them to the fighter as class abilities:

1. Power Attack
2. Weapon Focus*
3. Cleave
4. Weapon Specialization*
5. Combat Expertise
6. Improved Critical*
7. Improved Disarm
8. Greater Weapon Focus*
9. Dodge
10. Greater Weapon Specialization*
11. Whirlwind Attack

* Pick one specific weapon

 

[Storyteller01]

Can't say much about the Knock on effect (I don't see it myself) but, to use Lanefan's analogy, the foundation has too much on it. I don't see the system collapsing, but a lot will be left to the wayside in the near future.

 

[Cam Banks]

I don't find D&D3E to be complex or hard to manage at all. I do think it requires a certain mode of thinking when designing for it, but I've run pickup games of D&D with almost no preparation, and most sessions of the three 3e campaigns I've run so far had only as much prep as it takes to whip up a stat block or pick a monster from a book.

Now, I'm a liberal arts major who only pretends to know a fair bit about math and science and computer programming, but I do consider myself a fairly adaptive learner. I've heard more complaints about D&D's complexity from science majors.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMNSHO the "Knock On Effect Problem" is a complete myth.

Anyone with a different opinion going to take up the gauntlet?


<chirp> <chirp>

 

[Raven Crowking]

The first complaint that I see is that the d20 rules are so tightly wound that it is virtually impossible to change the rules. Usually the term Knock On Effect is used to say that any change you make will cascade into a large number of unforseeable effects that will grind the game to a halt. To some degree I agree with this. There are some rules in the game that would be very difficult to change.

Take initiative for example. Rerolling initiative every round could have many effects, and most of them are bad.

That, right there, I think is the source of the complaints. When, in another thread, I pointed out that I was using a re-rolled initiative house rule, and that there were no negative effects to report, I was told that I was either lying or wrong.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong here) that the people who really, really love this edition are the first to claim that the complexity prevents adaptation. It is almost as though some people want to prevent change. Whenever you consider doing something different -- lower the amount of magic, lower the amount of treasure, re-roll initiative, etc. -- people will say "But did you consider the effect that would have on CR?" or something simular.

Now, pointing out what other effects might occur can (obviously) be helpful, but all too often these responses seem more intended to change the OP's mind about altering the system than anything else.

It gets as far as statements like (not an exact quote): "Why don't you just go play some other game, instead of altering this one?" Sheesh.

Something that is well balanced, when its balance is disturbed, easily comes back into balance. Something that is poorly balanced, when its balance is disturbed, falls over. IME (and I doubt there are many who modify rules much more than I do), 3.x doesn't fall down.

Not when you lower treasure. Not when you lower XP. Not when you lower magic. Not when you re-roll initiative. Not when you change the classes. Not when you add AE stuff. Not when you add a weapon skill system. Not when you alter flanking and AoO rules. Not when you change the races. Not when you alter the rules for weapons and armor. Not when you alter starting money. Not when you add social standing. Not when you do all of those things at once.

The system falls into a different balance, but hopefully the reason you changed the rules was because you wanted a different balance.

All "knock-on effects" are is the realization that, if I alter Rule A, I might have to alter the rules related to Rule A to make them mesh with the new rule. Useful to point out. Not really a big problem.

---

As for the complexity issue, statting out foes is time-consuming, expecially if you need to be able to reverse-engineer them and show your math. Modifying pre-statted foes is a lot easier. DMs should (IMHO) keep their stat blocks once generated, and re-use them (with modifications if classes) whenever appropriate. A good Rogues' Gallery for 3.5 would have been a useful product, though, as was the excellent Everyone Else for NPC class characters.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyone with a different opinion going to take up the gauntlet?


<chirp> <chirp>

Well, I obviously agree overall. However, when you suggest that there is no potential complexity to dealing with rules changes, I think that you are being fairly dismissive. I would argue that any "questions exploring what your houserule is in the first place" that are, in fact, questions about how a new rule will interact with existing rules, is included in what people mean with the term.

But, as I said, I agree that the problem is largely perceptual.

 

[MerricB]

That, right there, I think is the source of the complaints. When, in another thread, I pointed out that I was using a re-rolled initiative house rule, and that there were no negative effects to report, I was told that I was either lying or wrong.

Bizarre. For me, that's a trivial change. Hey, it's even suggested in the DMG.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong here) that the people who really, really love this edition are the first to claim that the complexity prevents adaptation. It is almost as though some people want to prevent change.

First part is incorrect. I really love 3e, but I think it's eminently tinkerable. The second part is dead on.

Now, pointing out what other effects might occur can (obviously) be helpful, but all too often these responses seem more intended to change the OP's mind about altering the system than anything else.

I've seen exactly the same mentality from 1e players, actually. "Gygax knew what he was doing! The rules work perfectly." "But he didn't even use these initiative rules!" "So?"

It gets as far as statements like (not an exact quote): "Why don't you just go play some other game, instead of altering this one?" Sheesh.

There are times when that's justified. Like, when the player wants to throw out feats, skills, the magic system. Sometimes it's just a kneejerk reaction.

Something that is well balanced, when its balance is disturbed, easily comes back into balance. Something that is poorly balanced, when its balance is disturbed, falls over. IME (and I doubt there are many who modify rules much more than I do), 3.x doesn't fall down.

Totally agree.

As for the complexity issue, statting out foes is time-consuming, expecially if you need to be able to reverse-engineer them and show your math. Modifying pre-statted foes is a lot easier. DMs should (IMHO) keep their stat blocks once generated, and re-use them (with modifications if classes) whenever appropriate. A good Rogues' Gallery for 3.5 would have been a useful product, though, as was the excellent Everyone Else for NPC class characters.

Alas, Enemies and Allies was exactly what I was not looking for, and probably killed the possibility of such a product. Mind you, see DMG2, Prestige class descriptions, MMIV, Heroes of Battle, etc. for prestatted NPCs. They're out there.

Cheers!