Not really, Sharp. I did not touch the classes and gears, but on the more baser parts of the system. But yes, it is larger than just some house rules. And no, the changes I made were to actually give more freedom to integrate player creativity into the game, instead of more quantitative number crunching, and to bring more common sense to the skills. If I understand your assessment properly.
Originally Posted by Ensou
If you noticed, instead, that it is less imaginative and less common sense, can you highlight where I made those mistakes? I will bring them back to my workshop.
Yeah, I realize that what I posted above was a bit difficult to parse. Let me elaborate a bit.
What I meant was this: I like the idea, in general terms, of rewarding player imagination and common sense applications of skills to combat, etc. Being able to cast entangle
at a wall, and then climb the wall? Definitely clever. Rolling a tumble check to add to your trip modifier, or bullrush? Definitely an interesting idea.
So the base premise, I have no problem with. The reason for my somewhat cryptic "potential..." was that I fear that, in some cases, too stringently trying to apply mechanical solutions - that is, numbers and rules - to a system based on imaginative impulse and spur-of-the-moment insight can ultimately stymie those same imaginative impulses and spur-of-the-moment insights. Take as a case study the problem of "party roles" in
|I have little experience with other systems, so I'll keep my comments to 3.5. |
The existence of roles in the party is an inevitability, and likewise, it's good to have an understanding of basic roles and responsibilities so that the PCs, and players, can learn to work together as a team. But when this concept is taken too far - when "there are roles that some PCs are better-suited to fill than others" becomes "every party must have a front-line fighter, a sneaky/scouty type, a divine caster, and an arcane caster", then things have gone too far. The system has become too systematized, and limited itself.
The party roles example is a more abstract one, but I think the same lesson applies to the ideas that are being toyed around with here. As I said above, being able to do things like add a skill check to an attack roll, or what have you, is a really intriguing idea. But if things get to the point that you're telling your players "OK, getting a 15 on your Intimidate check gets you a +1 to attack, a 20 gets you +2..." then what you've done in the end is simply create more rules, rather than open up existing rules to new and imaginative interpretations.
The flip-side of all of this is that the GM has to have a firm grasp on how much of a reward can be given out for this flash of player-genius or that one, and must also be the final arbiter when it comes to players who might be trying to
take advantage of the system
|Example: "No, I should totally get to get a bonus to my damage roll from a Concentration check, because my PC is concentrating really hard on doing extra damage! |
. But I think a balance can be found - or, I'd like to hope so - without the need for excessive homebrewing.
Does that help?