The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

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?

So, it becomes Lesser Orb of Force. Not a big change.

 

[Hussar]

Your argument is just for how 3e is better because the listen check is a unified way to handle hearing someone approaching.

I am wary of using such a loaded word as "better". I am not trying for an edition war here. Believe it or not. My point isn't that 3e is better, it's just that the arguement that 3e is more difficult to houserule falls on its face because of the transparency of the rules.

With unified mechanics that are open to anyone reading them, and mechanics that use the same language throughout, it becomes a much simpler task to change the rules. If the language is convoluted to begin with, and there are numerous similar but separate rules that also share some, but not all of the language, then determining how far something will spread when changed becomes a much more difficult task.

The arguement, at least as far as I can see, for 3e being so difficult to modify, goes something like this: The rules are highly integrated, thus any change will have huge rippling effects that cause the game to fall apart. The other arguement tends to coattail on this by saying that because the ripple effects are so widespread, it becomes impossible to determine what effects a given change will have.

My argument is that because the rules are written with design and redesign in mind, in plain language with as little ambiguity as possible, AND that any new rule which adds ambiguity is automatically rejected as poorly designed, designing new rules is actually not a terribly difficult task. Time consuming perhaps, but not byzantine.

 

[airwalkrr]

I agree with the OP. As my heavily HRed games attest, it is not impossible to change the rules without throwing balance out the window.