since we are in the begging for examples phase, let’s look at one in 5e.
A big change was the removal of most “on this roll bonuses”. For example in 3e you might have a bonus for flanking, for higher ground, for being a certain distance with a bow, spells that have a one round buff…etc etc. these bonuses changed roll to roll or round to round.
5e removed the vast majority of these bonuses. Now you have the one attack number on your sheet + the d20 roll. You might roll another die like for bless but that’s also a concrete bonus on the table, not something you have to remember or look up.
On the one hand, this meant 5e lost a lot of granularity of bonus options. On the other, it’s much kinder to those who are not great at math or memory, and greatly accelerates the combat turn, making combats faster and helping to maintain player interest.
Is this simplification an improvement or a mistake?
A big change was the removal of most “on this roll bonuses”. For example in 3e you might have a bonus for flanking, for higher ground, for being a certain distance with a bow, spells that have a one round buff…etc etc. these bonuses changed roll to roll or round to round.
5e removed the vast majority of these bonuses. Now you have the one attack number on your sheet + the d20 roll. You might roll another die like for bless but that’s also a concrete bonus on the table, not something you have to remember or look up.
On the one hand, this meant 5e lost a lot of granularity of bonus options. On the other, it’s much kinder to those who are not great at math or memory, and greatly accelerates the combat turn, making combats faster and helping to maintain player interest.
Is this simplification an improvement or a mistake?