Zombies that need to stay dead. DEAD.

[Man in the Funny Hat]

* Detect Alignment spell - looks harmless, but can kill any kind of detective adventure in seconds. Also, tool of worst fantasy racism issues (it's fine to kill all orcs, they're evil and I can prove it)

Hmn. Indiana Jones fights Nazis. Should he need more than a swastika to prove that he is allowed to kick their asses?

Orcs were intended to be just one of many groups of Nazis that PC's were PERMITTED to kill without the DM playing alignment-trap games with the paladins. Even if Conan were able to cast Know Alignment should he ever even need to BOTHER doing so? Shouldn't he just be able to pick up his axe and assume the Frazetta pose atop yet another pile of PROVABLY EVIL foes?

* Half-races: Bye half-elf, bye half-orc, hello full-blood orc. Much more cooler and no icky "how did it happen?"

So, how G-rated do you want it? Conan is not rated G. Yes, on occasion R is stretched a bit far but PG-13 is clearly too low. I don't think it was a problem when PC racial choices along those lines were limited to human/elf (not at all icky), and human/orc (okay, icky but marauding, PROVABLY EVIL orcs are not supposed to be pretty). It became a problem when PC racial choices were expanded to EVERY MONSTER IN THE BOOK.

* Self-buffing wizards, clerics and druids - good old CODzilla, how I miss you NOT

I hate to say it but this is the MMO counter-influence. I never had a problem with buffing in the game until the rules started including every conceivable buff coupled with telling the player - this is where the fun is.

* The Toughness feat. Mentioned by Monte himself to be a deliberate trap crap choice. Don't ever pull something like that again.

Amen. Choices don't all have to be obvious and uber-cool. Optimizers will never go away and will always make THEIR OWN determinations as to what should be ignored. Don't mine the game with pitfalls for people who don't want or need to wallow in "system mastery". There will be plenty of crap choices to be found WITHOUT intentionally introducing more.

 

[delericho]

I don't know; in 4e, at least, the by-the-book point buy really is used most of the time (probably because the character builder defaults to it rather than any rules presentation factors). Whereas dice are inherently prone to fudging.

Indeed. All the forms of official play mandated Point Buy at all.

I have no issue with point buy being an option. In fact, I very much prefer it myself, and actually use it exclusively in all my games.

However, for new players random rolls are vastly preferable - in order to generate stats they need to understand the meaning of the six stats (where the hardest thing to grok is the Int/Wis split, which isn't hard).

To use point buy, a new player must not only understand the six stats, but must also grasp the non-linear relationship between points assigned and the resulting stat and the relationship between stat and modifier, and understand something of how those modifiers actually affect the game at large. It's a much greater undertaking.

Hence my insistence that random rolls should not only be viable, but should at the very least give comparable results to point buy on average. New players are already necessarily at something of a disadvantage due to their lack of familiarity with the system; the system itself shouldn't also be working against them!

(You could argue that new players should be given pre-gens. In 3e or 4e, that is almost a necessity. But you'll get a more compelling play experience if they can create their own character, and that means they're more likely to stick. 5e really should support that if it is at all possible to do so.)

All IMO, of course.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

... by the base die-rolling method specified in the book. But in actual play, I've never seen rolled attributes fail to include multiple sets of attribute rolls (and not just for a by-the-book 'hopeless character', either), bonus points, and/or re-rolling 1s.

Yep, the rules don't work unless you actually follow them.

 

[drothgery]

Indeed. All the forms of official play mandated Point Buy at all.

I have no issue with point buy being an option. In fact, I very much prefer it myself, and actually use it exclusively in all my games.

However, for new players random rolls are vastly preferable - in order to generate stats they need to understand the meaning of the six stats (where the hardest thing to grok is the Int/Wis split, which isn't hard).

FWIW, the default in 4e isn't point buy. It's a standard array (that happens to be one of the possible arrays with the second, point buy, option).

 

[Lanefan]

The guy who's "pulling stunts with the rules" is you, because there is absolutely nothing that says Bags of Holding can't hold sharp objects.

Post 40, this thread, quotes the 3e rule.

From the 1e DMG write-up on Bag of Holding: "If overloaded, or sharp objects are placed within so as to pierce it, the bag will rupture and be ruined, and the contents will be lost forever ..."

That's 2 editions out of 4. What rules are you reading?

The PC never chose to carry around a golf bag. The rules force him to, and you add to the insult by punishing him for it. What's the message here? Sucks to be you, why didn't you play a Wizard, so I can pester you with bat guano and sulphur needs for Fireball?

The message here is that even as a hero you might have to face the fact you won't always have the perfect answer for the problem at hand.

Ok, here is another zombie that needs to stay dead:

* Adversarial GMing: No, it's not your job to make the game an exercise in frustration because "that's how Gary did it", "it's not a children's card game" or "it would be boring". I deal with this kind of crap enough in real life, thank you. You're a negative influence that drives players away. Get out of my hobby. YOU SUCK THE FUN OUT OF THINGS, FUNSUCKER.

It's not my job to make the game an exercise in frustration* but it is my job to say 'no' when common sense demands it.

* - in fact, and oddly enough, in a small way it is the game's job to make itself frustrating - you always want that next level, or next item, or to finish that next quest; and somehow you never quite can, and so you keep playing. If the game gave you everything on a platter it'd get mighty dull mighty fast.

Lan-"sometimes, no means no; and that's the second time I've used that quote in less than an hour in here"-efan

 

[Lord Mhoram]

How I handled alignment spells and such- being a fan of classic LG paladins - is that evil comes in two forms evil and EVIL and the spells. detections and protections only work on EVIL.

So if a guy is a murderer or a thief, nothing. But if he as a cleric with Evil spells, necromantic wizard, undead, demon, whatnot - a "big E evil" a paladin could detect and smite him. Made paladins feel a little more like holy warriors.

If you take the classic 9 and and the "unaligned*" from 4th as a base idea - most people are unaligned with leanings towards good and evil, but really nasty stuff gets the extreme ends.

Using something like that has allowed classic mysteries and such, but still give holy warriors something to really pound on.

 

[Gort]

FWIW, the default in 4e isn't point buy. It's a standard array (that happens to be one of the possible arrays with the second, point buy, option).

I know! And yet everyone seems to assume that point buy is the default!

I use standard array in my campaign because I keep it real.

 

[delericho]

FWIW, the default in 4e isn't point buy. It's a standard array (that happens to be one of the possible arrays with the second, point buy, option).

I know! And yet everyone seems to assume that point buy is the default!

I use standard array in my campaign because I keep it real.

Actually, it's not. 4e provides the three methods, but doesn't specify a default. In fact, the implication is that the individual player gets to choose which he uses, except to note that "Living..." games don't allow random rolls.

However, the 4e PHB does also note that the random method produces, on average, characters that are "slightly worse" than those from point buy. It is actually incorrect on this point - on average, the random roll method described produces characters who are much worse than those generated by the point buy system described. (Well, unless the point buy system is being used by a total incompetent, that is!)

 

[Hassassin]

Actually, it's not. 4e provides the three methods, but doesn't specify a default. In fact, the implication is that the individual player gets to choose which he uses, except to note that "Living..." games don't allow random rolls.

However, the 4e PHB does also note that the random method produces, on average, characters that are "slightly worse" than those from point buy. It is actually incorrect on this point - on average, the random roll method described produces characters who are much worse than those generated by the point buy system described. (Well, unless the point buy system is being used by a total incompetent, that is!)

This is indeed a bit problematic. I like how in 3e you actually get slightly better characters on average if you roll than if you use the default point buy 25. However, the problem is that with a "SAD" class you still want point buy since only getting an 18 matters.

 

[delericho]

This is indeed a bit problematic. I like how in 3e you actually get slightly better characters on average if you roll than if you use the default point buy 25. However, the problem is that with a "SAD" class you still want point buy since only getting an 18 matters.

Indeed.

Honestly, I think both 3e and 4e (and PF, of course) put way too much importance on getting the 'right' stats. The power difference between a PC who is kinda-okay and one who is optimised is huge. Make the stats less important, and this becomes less of an issue, and things get a whole lot more flexible as a result.