Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3102776" data-attributes="member: 18280">That, right there, I think is the source of the complaints.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It is almost as though some people want to prevent change.&nbsp; Whenever you consider doing something different -- lower the amount of magic, lower the amount of treasure, re-roll initiative, etc. -- people will say &quot;But did you consider the effect that would have on CR?&quot; or something simular.&nbsp; 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):&nbsp; &quot;Why don't you just go play some other game, instead of altering this one?&quot;&nbsp; Sheesh.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Something that is well balanced, when its balance is disturbed, easily comes back into balance.&nbsp; Something that is poorly balanced, when its balance is disturbed, falls over.&nbsp; IME (and I doubt there are many who modify rules much more than I do), 3.x doesn't fall down.&nbsp; Not when you lower treasure.&nbsp; Not when you lower XP.&nbsp; Not when you lower magic.&nbsp; Not when you re-roll initiative.&nbsp; Not when you change the classes.&nbsp; Not when you add AE stuff.&nbsp; Not when you add a weapon skill system.&nbsp; Not when you alter flanking and AoO rules.&nbsp; &nbsp; Not when you change the races.&nbsp; Not when you alter the rules for weapons and armor.&nbsp; Not when you alter starting money.&nbsp; Not when you add social standing.&nbsp; Not when you do all of those things at once.&nbsp; The system falls into a different balance, but hopefully the reason you changed the rules was because you wanted a different balance.All &quot;knock-on effects&quot; 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.&nbsp; Useful to point out.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Modifying pre-statted foes is a lot easier.&nbsp; DMs should (IMHO) keep their stat blocks once generated, and re-use them (with modifications if classes) whenever appropriate.&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3102776, member: 18280"] 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. :p 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 [i]more[/i] 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 [i]different balance[/i], but hopefully the reason you changed the rules was because you [i]wanted[/i] 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 [i]Everyone Else[/i] for NPC class characters. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification