Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2779701" data-attributes="member: 1757">Fortunately, I have at my disposal a much preferable (IMHO) set of rules that calls this sort of thing an &quot;attack challenge&quot; and assigns it more reasonable parameters than did the Complete Fighter's Handbook... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />FYI, Torm, the ranged disarm thing you mentioned generally gets handled as a feat (there are a bunch of ranged disarm variants out there). One thing I'd caution against is allowing too many of the purportedly &quot;realistic&quot; 2e optional combat rules into the game without comparing/contrasting for feat options; too many of them are &quot;gimmes&quot;.As for spells having &quot;teeth&quot;: It seems that the tide is against me, but one of my favorite things about 3e was its getting rid of these wacky sorts of things. I always hated to have to deploy the pseudo-realism entailed in dealing with 33,000 cubic-foot fireballs and flammable grease and whatnot. Much happier with 3e's &quot;magic is magic, not physics&quot; attitude.Like Shemeska, I am a big fan of those 2e rules (from campaign-specific materials, for the most part) that are about flavor rather than core changes. I use the spellcasting restrictions, spell keys, and power keys from Planescape as well, and some of the weirder FR wild and dead magic rules as appropriate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ruleslawyer, post: 2779701, member: 1757"] Fortunately, I have at my disposal a much preferable (IMHO) set of rules that calls this sort of thing an "attack challenge" and assigns it more reasonable parameters than did the [i]Complete Fighter's Handbook[/i]... ;) FYI, Torm, the ranged disarm thing you mentioned generally gets handled as a feat (there are a bunch of ranged disarm variants out there). One thing I'd caution against is allowing too many of the purportedly "realistic" 2e optional combat rules into the game without comparing/contrasting for feat options; too many of them are "gimmes". As for spells having "teeth": It seems that the tide is against me, but one of my [i]favorite[/i] things about 3e was its getting rid of these wacky sorts of things. I always hated to have to deploy the pseudo-realism entailed in dealing with 33,000 cubic-foot fireballs and flammable grease and whatnot. Much happier with 3e's "magic is magic, not physics" attitude. Like Shemeska, I am a big fan of those 2e rules (from campaign-specific materials, for the most part) that are about flavor rather than core changes. I use the spellcasting restrictions, spell keys, and power keys from Planescape as well, and some of the weirder FR wild and dead magic rules as appropriate. [/QUOTE]

Verification