Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="francisca" data-source="post: 1506367" data-attributes="member: 9734">Change the game?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Change combat tactics.&nbsp; Hell yes.And I'm with you.&nbsp; If your group is having, fun, good for you.&nbsp; The only downside I see to the proliferation of alternate rules like VP/WP, etc.. (as found in UA, and the upcoming advanced books from S&amp;SS and GR) is that there is the potential of joining a new D&amp;D group, and finding the mechanics completely alien.&nbsp; To me, that shoots the whole benefit of using d20 as the core right in the foot.&nbsp; The argument says that by using d20, you learn the core system once, then you can move to other d20/OGL systems, and they will be easier to learn, because you already know one.&nbsp; But I can forsee two groups, both playing d20 based D&amp;D, whose games are completely foreign to each other. One uses straight up 3.5, another uses a point based spell system, has replaced alignment with (whatever d20 modern uses, can't recall), uses Armor as DR, uses WP/VP, and let's say has dumped the core classes for the generic classes from UA.&nbsp; About the only thing in common is &quot;roll d20, add modifers, higher is better&quot;.&nbsp; Then the second group goes to 3d6 for resolution.&nbsp; Sounds alot like the fracture that I am told occured in late 2E with skills and power, and loads of house rules.&nbsp; Only now the &quot;house rules&quot;&nbsp; have the d20 logo on them for a stamp of approval.&nbsp; One of the things 3E championed was reigning in all of that chaos.But anyway, would both of the above hypothetical games be D&amp;D to me?&nbsp; Maybe.&nbsp; The elimination of strong archetypes, alignment, AC, HP, etc.. might put me off, but not others.I guess I'll just shrug my shoulders at this point.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="francisca, post: 1506367, member: 9734"] Change the game? No. Change combat tactics. Hell yes. And I'm with you. If your group is having, fun, good for you. The only downside I see to the proliferation of alternate rules like VP/WP, etc.. (as found in UA, and the upcoming advanced books from S&SS and GR) is that there is the potential of joining a new D&D group, and finding the mechanics completely alien. To me, that shoots the whole benefit of using d20 as the core right in the foot. The argument says that by using d20, you learn the core system once, then you can move to other d20/OGL systems, and they will be easier to learn, because you already know one. But I can forsee two groups, both playing d20 based D&D, whose games are completely foreign to each other. One uses straight up 3.5, another uses a point based spell system, has replaced alignment with (whatever d20 modern uses, can't recall), uses Armor as DR, uses WP/VP, and let's say has dumped the core classes for the generic classes from UA. About the only thing in common is "roll d20, add modifers, higher is better". Then the second group goes to 3d6 for resolution. Sounds alot like the fracture that I am told occured in late 2E with skills and power, and loads of house rules. Only now the "house rules" have the d20 logo on them for a stamp of approval. One of the things 3E championed was reigning in all of that chaos. But anyway, would both of the above hypothetical games be D&D to me? Maybe. The elimination of strong archetypes, alignment, AC, HP, etc.. might put me off, but not others. I guess I'll just shrug my shoulders at this point. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification