Armor

[Asinjin]

There is no rule for armor slowing the wearer down.

Additionally, there is a rule for the minimum strength of a creature to wear certain armors.

Thoughts?

[Malchia]

This is only my humble opinion, but I believe it would be easier for you and Whitesword as DM's (as well as all of us) to keep as much of the printed rules in tact as possible in order to minimize your conversion efforts; assuming you even decide to pursue 5th edition.  I'm already seeing a trend of over-complicating the rules and adding/taking away basic features that don't seem to matter that much to the game.  It seems it would only serve to slow down game play as well as open up unnecessary debates over rules.  We sometimes experience that now with 3.5 due to a decade + of alterations and additional house rules.  Our two year long player vs. player tournament is all the proof you need of that.

Certain things are okay due to story lines and basic Habololian history such as changing the Bardic Colleges, adding Deities and domains, adding monastic traditions (martial styles), and adding sorcerous bloodlines, but it may be in everyone's best interest to keep the basic rules in tact to see if they work then change them later if you decide they don't.           

[Asinjin]

There is definitely something to be said for what you are getting it.  However, if we were ever to consider 5th edition, there are rules that I would require adding or changing.  The best example would be the spell failure in armor.  So what I am looking for are rules that fall into the category of we might as well change because playtesting with them gives us a false read since we would never play that way anyway.  Again, spell failure in armor is a good example.  If we playtested where wizards could cast in armor, and then went forward and they couldn't, that would give us a false result and also mess with any continuity we tried to achieve.

5th edition in general is simplified from 3.5; and from what I see too much for my liking.  I am trying to minimize the adding of rules.  For armor, I don't have any issue with leaving no change in movement and keeping the strength requirement...although if I were to do it how I thought, there would be both.

[Malchia]

I understand your point; it was more of a suggestion to make things easier on you.  Ultimately, it's up to you how you want to handle things and it does make sense to play test all the changes so that we get a real sense of how the game play feels.  In the end, it's all about fun factor.  As long as everyone has the tools they need to have a good time, then it's a win for everybody.   

[whitesword]

This is only my humble opinion, but I believe it would be easier for you and Whitesword as DM's (as well as all of us) to keep as much of the printed rules in tact as possible in order to minimize your conversion efforts; assuming you even decide to pursue 5th edition.  I'm already seeing a trend of over-complicating the rules and adding/taking away basic features that don't seem to matter that much to the game.  It seems it would only serve to slow down game play as well as open up unnecessary debates over rules.  We sometimes experience that now with 3.5 due to a decade + of alterations and additional house rules.  Our two year long player vs. player tournament is all the proof you need of that.

Certain things are okay due to story lines and basic Habololian history such as changing the Bardic Colleges, adding Deities and domains, adding monastic traditions (martial styles), and adding sorcerous bloodlines, but it may be in everyone's best interest to keep the basic rules in tact to see if they work then change them later if you decide they don't.           

This is one of the best arguments I've heard against switching.

I realized the other day that this year makes it more time spent playing 3/3.5 than 1/2 editions. I still find myself thinking back to how things were done in the old editions.