"As should be obviously apparent to all players, I've got a good deal of experience running D&D games. I had an encyclopedic knowledge of AD&D and could recite rules by line and verse, much the way Josh does now. Although there is much to like in D&D 3.5 there is much I would like to change. Because I knew the limitations and strengths of AD&D I had no compunctions about changing rules. However, I only have about 6 hours of in game experience with D&D 3.5, so I'm a little afraid to change things because I'm not sure what consequences those changes might have.

"I like to set house rules early so there are no surprises later. I'm somewhat arrogantly convinced that I could make D&D 3.5 a better game, but perhaps I should just play by the book as much as possible and introduce house rules later.

"I only invoke the dictatorial privilege granted to referees, on the rarest of occaisions. I generally only do so when I am in posession of some piece of information which the players don't know and which I cannot reveal AND that fact might affect their understanding of my adjudication. Therefore I won't force my combat mechanics on players. After this quote I'm going to paste rules directly from my new ruleset. These rules affect nothing but the way the tempo of the game is resolved.

"Boiling out all the legalese BS, IMHO the net effect on combat by these new rules would be:

1. Winning initiative does not guarantee monsters, players or anyone anything. Initiative is less important than weapon size and speed.
2. Spellcasting is a little more difficult. It's almost impossible for a caster to get a spell off in combat if the caster is left undefended.
3. If you are the same speed or faster than your opponent, it's relatively easy to avoid combat."

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply