Trimmin da fat

[Imaro]

This thread was inspired by the now locked "balance" thread and the CR thread. Simple question really, what rules do you find unnecessary, used with enough modification, too much of a hassle or unimportant enough in 3.5 that you could do without them. Please restrict this thread to D&D 3.5 only. I'm just curious on how much people playing the game could have the rules stripped down and still find it satisfying to play. And yes you can even include rule add-ons from the various supplements. Here's a few but I will probably post more as I think of them.

1. AoO: I think a DM judgement call on a free attack is enough.

2. CR's it's still a guesstimating game so why not just state it upfront and maybe have guidelines on what to look for instead of a formula and rating system that don't really work.

3. Cover & Concealment: I actually think I would rather make DM calls on this type of stuff. As the rules are written some of it doesn't sit right in my mind. YMMV

 

[Felix]

Considering that the DMG really does make it clear that the DM is free to run the game how he likes, I have a hard time seeing any of the "rules" of the game being more than a set of conventions. Yes, they can be changed, but they do provide a starting point. For the AoO's DMs are free to rule as they like; many have house-ruled them out altogether. But what would be a mistake would be for the core rules to be silent on the issue and simply leave a hole, forcing DMs to create their own mechanics. The same would be true for cover and concealment.

2. CR's it's still a guesstimating game so why not just state it upfront and maybe have guidelines on what to look for instead of a formula and rating system that don't really work.

CRs are guidelines. The DMG does tell you that the environment or other factors can increase the challenge of an encounter, even if it doesn't change the CR of the critters involved.

 

[Imaro]

Considering that the DMG really does make it clear that the DM is free to run the game how he likes, I have a hard time seeing any of the "rules" of the game being more than a set of conventions. Yes, they can be changed, but they do provide a starting point. For the AoO's DMs are free to rule as they like; many have house-ruled them out altogether. But what would be a mistake would be for the core rules to be silent on the issue and simply leave a hole, forcing DMs to create their own mechanics. The same would be true for cover and concealment.


CRs are guidelines. The DMG does tell you that the environment or other factors can increase the challenge of an encounter, even if it doesn't change the CR of the critters involved.

So what exactly are we paying ninety dollars for if everythings a guideline. This type of logic ranckles me because its like saying nothing can be wrong with the game cause it's not a game, it's guidelines. Well if that's the case why did so many players switch from 3.0 to 3.5? Let me guess, not enough guidelines?

Ok...New question what are the actual rules of D&D and what are "only guidelines".Or is the whole game just guidelines? If I'm playing by the rules what does that entail?

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

The rules as "guidelines" has really been the spirit of the game from the very beginning. The balance part of it provides everyone with a neutral position from which to tweak things to their tastes. Kind of like have your stereo equalizer knobs all set to "o" or the middle position, if you get me.

I agree with your opinion about cover and concealment rules and there are other areas that have a lot of grey areas and wriggle room that a DM can adjust things as he sees fit. As far as cover and concealment, the game mechanics actually offer DMs the option of increasing or decreasing the bonuses to suit the circumstances.

This is what I really love about such focus on balance in the past few years with game design. You have the RAW and options to go "outside the lines" with some suggestions on doing so or the invitation to go a completely different way.

 

[PallidPatience]

The entire set of rules is a toolset. You are free to use what you will, and abandon what you don't want to keep. The point of paying $90 for them is that you don't have to write your own, or come up with your own way to figure out the results of your players' characters' actions. You have a ready-made system right there, for it. You don't have to make a judgement call on every little thing, and what's there has already been (For the most part) play-tested for you, so most of the problems are gone, and most of the ones left over are little, or the ones that are really hard to see unless put into the hands of people who WANT to break the system.

That being said, this entire system is more like a toolkit. You can abandon the entire array of "core" classes and races for a new set, in a new world, with new magic, and an entirely different style of magic for a new feel (see Arcana Evolved, by Monte Cook). Or, you can abandon magic and fantasy races at all, and focus on truly heroic heroes (Iron Heroes).

So complain about how "unnecessary" the whole "guideline" situation is, but there you have it. It's pre-written, customizable, and supported by a bunch of people with more feedback than just your gaming group, so it's capable of finding and fixing bugs fairly quickly. They might not be fixed in the way you quite want them to be, but there's always someone else tinkering with the nearly-fully-customizable system who can maybe give you what you need if you can't or don't want to come up with it yourself.

I like the guidelines.

 

[kensanata]

Well, if you allow to substitute Experience for rules, then you can strip a lot. Personally, I'm using M20 in my current campaign. Core rules on a single page. They basically reflect the simplest d20 principles: Hit points, AC, to-hit rolls, damage rolls, attributes. I still like to use monsters from books, so a monster manual is mandatory. Inexperienced players trying to play M20 also seem to like the D&D spells. Those should therefore stay, too.

M20 has convinced me that I can live without skills, feats, prestige classes, most of the combat rules, saving throws, etc.

All I need is basic combat, four classes, four races, monsters, players, dice, and off we go.

Oh and I disagree with previous posters basically saying that it's Ok for the rules to be there and optional: It takes energy to read it, understand it, and discard it. It also takes energy to convince your players to do the same. It also costs money to write it, test it, edit it, ship it, and so on. So the extra flexibility does come at a price. And I think it is a valid question to ask, whether there is not a different balance to be struck.

Luckily we now have d20 allowing us to experiment with different elements without having to write everything from scratch. And D&D is an interesting point of departure for game designers, or dungeon masters still trying to find their own style.

As I said, if you substitute Experience for rules, you can save maybe a third of the material...

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Well, if you allow to substitute Experience for rules, then you can strip a lot. Personally, I'm using M20 in my current campaign. Core rules on a single page. They basically reflect the simplest d20 principles: Hit points, AC, to-hit rolls, damage rolls, attributes. I still like to use monsters from books, so a monster manual is mandatory, too. Inexperienced players trying to play M20 also seem to like the D&D spells. Those should therefore stay, too.

M20 has convinced me that I can live without skills, feats, prestige classes, most of the combat rules, saving throws, etc.

All I need is basic combat, four classes, four races, monsters, players, dice, and off we go.

I've seen your system and think it's real slick. I think if I were to introduce some youngsters or newbies to the game, your system would be a great jumping off point for getting into the game. It's like the new Basic Set. And I mean that in a good way.

 

[Imaro]

The entire set of rules is a toolset. You are free to use what you will, and abandon what you don't want to keep. The point of paying $90 for them is that you don't have to write your own, or come up with your own way to figure out the results of your players' characters' actions. You have a ready-made system right there, for it. You don't have to make a judgement call on every little thing, and what's there has already been (For the most part) play-tested for you, so most of the problems are gone, and most of the ones left over are little, or the ones that are really hard to see unless put into the hands of people who WANT to break the system.

That being said, this entire system is more like a toolkit. You can abandon the entire array of "core" classes and races for a new set, in a new world, with new magic, and an entirely different style of magic for a new feel (see Arcana Evolved, by Monte Cook). Or, you can abandon magic and fantasy races at all, and focus on truly heroic heroes (Iron Heroes).

So complain about how "unnecessary" the whole "guideline" situation is, but there you have it. It's pre-written, customizable, and supported by a bunch of people with more feedback than just your gaming group, so it's capable of finding and fixing bugs fairly quickly. They might not be fixed in the way you quite want them to be, but there's always someone else tinkering with the nearly-fully-customizable system who can maybe give you what you need if you can't or don't want to come up with it yourself.

I like the guidelines.

Like how you totally avoided my question. It's not a tool box, GURPS and HERO and BESM are tool box games, no setting assumptions whatsoever. D&D has explicit assumptions( common magic items, certain amount of treasure, niche protection etc.) which in turn define D&D more as a genre onto itself than a generic toolbox. I have no problem with that, what I'm asking are what rules(included in 3.5 are necessary for emulation of D&D's genre and which are

a.) not necessary, can easily be figured out by using the base mechanic and DC's
b.) not necessary, because they don't really accomplish their intended purpose
c.) not necessary, because they don't work in a logical manner(I mean D&D logic)
d.) not necessary, because they bog down play for no appreciable net gain to fun

Kensanata thanks for answering, and by the way already downloaded Microlite, me and a few co-workers play in a bar after work on a couple of days out the week its easy, simple and fun. Basic necessary rules and nothing else. This type of thinking is why I find myself playing less and less D&D and more C&C.

 

[GlassJaw]

1. AoO: I think a DM judgement call on a free attack is enough.

3. Cover & Concealment: I actually think I would rather make DM calls on this type of stuff. As the rules are written some of it doesn't sit right in my mind. YMMV

Putting my player hat on, the phrase "judgement call" really bothers me. When I'm playing, I want to know what the rules are up-front. Regardless of whether I agree with them or not, I just want to know in advance. Knowing that a "judgement call" may be levied at any time would definitely frustrate me.

As a DM, I run a a fairly tactically strict game. I tell my players that if it's in the book, assume that's how it's going to work in my game. I do this mostly to remove any doubt from the players about how I am going to run things and also to address rules discussion before they get out of hand. If there's a rules discussion and the answer is found in the book, that's how it's going to work, end of story.

Rules that I don't really like:

Weapon Sizes
Time for copying scrolls into spellbooks
Handle Animal training/animal tricks
Wild Shape not granting non-combat Ex abilities
Whip treated as a melee weapon

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Like the others, I'm not sure I get the OP's objection to CRs -- they're guidelines, and the game authors never pretend otherwise. They're the best guidelines we've had in the game's history, even if they're imperfect.

Otherwise, I agree with the OP: I dump most AoOs and streamline cover/concealment. My players managed for decades with my judgement calls, and their successors do so today with no complaints.

In my pbp games, I also dump initiative to streamline the process, but having everyone around the table yell out their actions and go in the order of who yelled first wouldn't be very practical.