Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2283482" data-attributes="member: 25930">Concerning point 1) That's why I suggest the the rule is "needlessly" complex. A +1 bonus to AC is so minor in gameplay that it shouldn't require extra effort to remember it, either by the GM or the player. Whether or not the rule should be explicit (rules-heavy) or implicit (rules-light), it's not a well-written feat, IMO.Concerning point 2) Agreed. In fact, I like the fact that 3.x has attempted to codify a number of common situations which, in the past, were left up to GM fiat. While players should not know everything that is happening, they should have a consistent set of rules on which to base their decisions. Having common skill DC's explicitly stated, having the effects of conditions (sickened, etc.) clearly defined is a huge help in play.My concern has less to do with the rules-heavy/rules-lite discussion, and more to do with your concept of fidelity. I'll start with an example of where I think 3.x got it right: Saves. We have only 3 types of saves, each is clearly distinguished from the other, each is tied to exactly one stat. If a GM creates a new spell, it's almost always obvious which type of save should be applied. A reasonably simple mechanic that effectively differentiates differing effects.Now one could argue that this is too simplistic. That we need 10 save types, dependent on a mix of stats and/or skills. That an auditory illusion requires a different save type than a charm effect. And so on. While I might agree with the reasoning in theory, in play the difficulties of the more complex rule would not be equaled by the benefit in fidelity.IMO, 3.x too often falls into the trap of using a complex rule, when a simpler one would suffice. Grappling is different enough from normal combat that I can see the argument that it should have its own rules. But could these rules be simplified and achieve the same effect? My answer is clearly yes. The same with polymorph/wildshape. The same with many feats and spells. And the simpler the rules, the easier it is to master a rules-heavy system such as 3.x, which leads to greater consistency - presumably the whole point of creating a rules-heavy system in the first place.Of course that raises the question of where do the designers draw the line? As you've pointed out, "People's preferences in games are different because they value bona fide attributes of those games differently." This applies not only to the amount of rules, but to their complexity. Presumably the designers felt that 3 save types was enough, but less than 18 bonus types wasn't. I disagree, but I understand how they could reach that conclusion. My solution would be to make the simpler rule the default rule, and the more complex rules official, but optional. In effect, creating "official" house rules within the core books. Not that I ever expect it to happen, but I can always hope... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification