Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sunshadow21" data-source="post: 6225351" data-attributes="member: 6667193"><p>You also saw many people not even bother with them or simply ignore many of the rules that made the combat &quot;tactically interesting&quot; or casters balanced. Things like spell interruption, and a slower leveling curve, these are not overly popular in their own right, and even less popular when in order to implement them, you force the core rules as a whole to be more complex. Done right, spell interruption could work in a limited form, but for true spell interruption, you would have to completely abandon the overall framework of how rounds work developed in, and used since, 3.0. That isn't going to happen; pre 3E, combat rounds were just plain messy. Tactical to a certain degree for those who liked it, but overall they were just plain messy. 3E's model wasn't perfect, but it smoothed out most of the worst messes; one of the costs was that casting spells became easier and it's now necessary to look for other ways to limit caster's power. If you want spell interruption, PF's solution is the best I've seen. It doesn't require reworking the basic combat structure, but it does mean that you have to take at least some care in your battle tactics. In the end, full on spell interruption has the same problem as weapon speed; both are great simulationist rules, but a lot of people simply want to play a game. For them, reality is fine as long as it can be done simply, and neither of these things can be. They didn't get left behind because they were inherently bad, they got left behind because they just weren't worth the hassle to worry about, and they still aren't. They don't work as optional material, and trying to incorporate them into core is an even bigger pain.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="sunshadow21, post: 6225351, member: 6667193"] You also saw many people not even bother with them or simply ignore many of the rules that made the combat "tactically interesting" or casters balanced. Things like spell interruption, and a slower leveling curve, these are not overly popular in their own right, and even less popular when in order to implement them, you force the core rules as a whole to be more complex. Done right, spell interruption could work in a limited form, but for true spell interruption, you would have to completely abandon the overall framework of how rounds work developed in, and used since, 3.0. That isn't going to happen; pre 3E, combat rounds were just plain messy. Tactical to a certain degree for those who liked it, but overall they were just plain messy. 3E's model wasn't perfect, but it smoothed out most of the worst messes; one of the costs was that casting spells became easier and it's now necessary to look for other ways to limit caster's power. If you want spell interruption, PF's solution is the best I've seen. It doesn't require reworking the basic combat structure, but it does mean that you have to take at least some care in your battle tactics. In the end, full on spell interruption has the same problem as weapon speed; both are great simulationist rules, but a lot of people simply want to play a game. For them, reality is fine as long as it can be done simply, and neither of these things can be. They didn't get left behind because they were inherently bad, they got left behind because they just weren't worth the hassle to worry about, and they still aren't. They don't work as optional material, and trying to incorporate them into core is an even bigger pain. [/QUOTE]

Verification