The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Chiaroscuro23
First Post
And there you have the Knock-On Effect, Ladies and Gentlebeings: removing AoOs affects the balance between classes, the value of certain feat choices (and, recall that some PrCs require AoO-related feats as entry requirements. You could just remove them--but that makes the PrC more accessable. You could require them but the feat has no other value--that makes it less accessable. You could substitute in a new feat--but then you need to think about it ahead of time, come up with an appropriate feat, and most importantly, know that you have to do so before the PC gets to the right level, because they can't go back and change their feat choices. So removing AoO affects feats, which affect PrCs, which have the potential to affect the permanency of earlier feat choices, if the DM chooses the third path, here.)Crothian said:
For some posters, the issue seems to be not so much "does changing one rule affect other rules, sometimes in unpredictable ways", to which the answer is obviously yes, but rather "does changing one rule make the game unplayable", to which the answer is obviously no. So whether you believe in this ripple or knock-on effect seems basically to depend on whether you think the ripples rules change cause are "big enough". And that's an issue about the definition of knock-on, not about whether ripples happen.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Chiaroscuro23 said:
I thought the issue was "does changing a rule impact/disrupt the game more than previous editions".
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Chiaroscuro23 said:
To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed there were no ripple effects or knock on effects to rule changes. That is going to be true about all game systems when you amend them, isn't it?
The assertion (made repeatedly) is that the integrated nature of 3e rules make the knock on effects more difficult to deal with relative to some other game systems such as 1e/2e.
So far no one has offered an iota of evidence to support this assertion.
Chiaroscuro23
First Post
Okay, that's a more reasonable question. I think the answer is yes, 3e is more tightly integrated and better balanced, so changes will ripple more, and the change in balance will be more noticeable.ehren37 said:
First example off the top of my head: requiring an attack roll for Magic Missile.
In 2e this would make the iconic spell less valuable, because the THAC0 of wizards was crappy, and, IIRC, there was no distinction between touch attacks and regular. Low overall impact--just stick to spells with saves unless you're a fighter/mage.
In 3e this changes the effect of magic missile quite a bit more. Since it has an attack roll, it can be critted with, and can do sneak attack damage. For thief/mages it makes the spell *more* powerful. Because force damage is treated differently than other types of damage (IIRC, again, this was not the case in 2e) it... well, I don't know what, but that's the point--does that make a difference? Do I have to comb through every supplement to be sure?
Also, perhaps more importantly, the value of first level attack spells is balanced a bit better in 3e. How it compares to Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp, MM is probably better, but it doesn't blow them out of the water in every situation. Requiring an attack roll knocks it down a power level, but since someone actually bothered to balance the spells it the first place, that matters more.
Hmmm, on consideration, it seems to me that a lot of the connected rules in 3e weren't available in 2e, were they? If you want to change how armor check penalties work... well, used to be armor didn't slow you down, and anyway there wasn't a skill system on which to take checks. Thieves had armor penalties, but then no one else could try to use theif skills. Presumably anytime there are more rules for things there's more chance for unexpected interactions.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Chiaroscuro23 said:
That is a plausible argument regarding meaningful differences between editions and houseruling.
However not all rules are equal with respect to interactions. FREX, I could add a list of 97 polearms and the increase in numbers of interactions might be close to zero when considering a particular house rule. Likewise the large number of pages spent of skills description may or may not matter -- there could 1 single paragraph in 1 skill to look at.
I do not believe that core 3e rules is notably different in terms of complexity to core 1e rules or core 2e rules.
But before we can even attempt to make a useful comparison, we have to ask what standard we should apply when a number of 1e rules already fail to successfully interact with each other out of the box.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Ridley's Cohort said:
So far no one has offered an iota of evidence to support this assertion.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=176333
The advice of the experts seems to be "just make something up" in some situations.
What happens when a Monk meets a Drow? You have to start making house rules. It is not even clear how the Monk works with the core rules standing alone.
Raven Crowking said:
A couple of instances:
Surprise. In AD&D, you roll 1d6 to see if you a surprised. On a 1 or 2, you are surprised, and for that many segments. A 4th level monk has a reduced chance of surprise, being surprised only 28% of the time. How does that work? How many segments is the monk surprised for?
Initiative A fighter charges 30' to attack a magic-user casting web. Who wins initiative? Repeat, but with 60' being the distance charged. Add someone firing a bow.
Cheers!
Raven Crowking
First Post
Ridley's Cohort said:
Sorry, but I've never had a problem when a monk met a drow. Care to elaborate?
Similar Threads
