If you had to cut one element from the D&D game...

[delericho]

Of the elements you listed, the Arcane/Divine split is least useful. Besides, I think it has lingered beyond the point of any usefulness at this stage.

However, I would be inclined to consider removing any magic item that gives a flat bonus to a stat, attack, damage or skill roll. So, no more swords +1, belt's of giant strength, cloaks of elvenkind, or the like. Not because I think they're overpowered... I just think they're a bit dull, but they're mechanically preferable to more 'interesting' items.

 

[Erratic K]

#1: The grappeling rules... the source of more rules arguments at tables I've been at. This should just plain be abstracted with non-lethal damage or something that matches the rest of combat.

#2: I'd probably ditch some of the lighting rules too, especially magical light/darkness. We just ignore this type of problem.

#3: Level Adjustment is pretty poor as well. De facto it is removed from the player's side in the games I've played in, because no one has taken a LA race. So if it is a DM only tool, it is not a tool that is saving me time or effort as a DM and as such it is suboptimal.

#4: Weapon sizes based on size of creature. It is too complex right now. It needs simplification. I'd just do weapon groups- small weapons are for small creatures, medium for medium etc. Then have adjustments for using weapons more than one size class away from your current size (maybe -4 for each weapon size). Which leads to:

#5: spells that increase and decrease size: they need a little tuning so they fit with #4.

So I'd vote for the grappeling rules, but there are at least a few things I'd cut.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Divine/arcane magic distinction. I want one big juicy spell list. And I want what makes casters different to be their "method" and their source of power.

Me, too. Maybe we could distinguish the casters by their domains, um, I mean spell spheres, or schools or something...

\advocate for one method of differentiating different types of spells

 

[Wormwood]

The players.

 

[Andre]

Alignment

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

AoO because it is the least used and therefore the element with the smallest effect. Not that it has NO effect, just the smallest from the list.

Now that I think about it for a moment I actually should have voted other. What I have wanted since prior to SECOND edition was to see a revision of spells, assigning higher levels to those spells that have a greater impact on how the game plays, and eliminating the ability for effects to scale well beyond the level assigned to the spell. Simple, low-level spells like invisibility and fly would notably increase in level, and a spell like fireball or lightning bolt would not be so OVER-used compared to other spells of the same level.

 

[Emirikol]

Cool responses so far.

In my campaign, we did away with the Arcane/divine split..for wizards, sorcerers, and shugenja.

jh

 

[sydbar]

I would get rid of the stupid alignment system of D&D, and go with a system like Palladium's alignment system.

 

[Cryndo]

Alignment

Seconded. Alignment is far to subjective. I hate trying to cram my characters into one of those little boxes. And the poor player that wants to play a Paladin. Each DM has a different idea of what is kosher and what isn't for the Paladin. I'm much prefer a Code the Paladin must stick to.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Restrictions. Especially restrictions for restrictions' sake.