SmootRK wrote: ... To me, several of your proposed tweaks change the core rules, while I propose stuff (as Solomoriah has said regarding the new upcoming 3rd edition) that does not invalidate or change the core rules... but simply layers onto those rules. Perhaps that is the better way to describe my paradigm.
I would suggest things that layer upon the existing class framework without changing the nature of the core rules as written (when possible).
This really is a good description, and it changes how I see things.
Take the Arcane Bolt, for example. The insistence by Smoot and others on making the MU make a normal combat roll to see if it hits has been frustrating for me because none of the reasons offered until now made any sense to me. The two big reasons (as I recall) were that the combat roll was simpler and that we didn't want the MU player to be doing something different from everyone else. But, ability rolls are actually simpler than combat rolls because you don't take AC or range into account. And, there was the assumption that everyone else was using a weapon in a fight, so they would make combat rolls, but the MU alone would be doing something different by making an ability roll. In fact, the thief might be hiding in shadows to prepare for a sneak attack and the cleric might be casting a spell. So, three of the four classes can do something different already; the initial assumption is wrong. In addition, there are several good reasons to use the ability roll, so the argument to use a combat roll just made no sense to me at all.
Until now. Basing the capabilities of the Bolt on the thrown dagger is a much smaller change to the rules than any other way of doing it. THAT makes a lot of sense to me. That would be a very good reason for doing it your way.
One clear advantage that approach has is that any optional rules would be as fitted to the core rules as possible, which would seem to minimize unexpected results. I think I will start looking at possible options through that lens as well, asking questions like,
Does this violate any core rules? How much of a change to the core rules is this? or
Is there a core rules mechanic we can use for this? It's not the only thing I'll consider, of course, but it looks pretty helpful.
This way of doing it may sound obvious to a lot of people here, but my way of thinking about this has been different. Instead of asking,
Does this change any core rules? or
How can we do this with minimal change to the rules? I tend to ask,
How will this best work with the rules?
My question is close to Smoot's, but there is a subtle difference. His focus is on not making mechanical changes (e.g., on the surface, Bolt is very different, but the underlying mechanic is that of a thrown dagger), or on minimizing changes to the core rules. My focus has been simply making sure the changes I make are coherent with the core rules, so I have felt much freer to make significant changes.
Maybe I'm making much ado about very little, but this may actually be the key difference between an Old School gamer and some guy who just wants to have a cool rules system to play a game a lot like the one he played when he was a kid.