Zombies that need to stay dead. DEAD.

[mkill]

I need to add another one:

* Class / race restrictions, level caps etc. I played a Drow Paladin in 4E and the character was awesome. Don't block my character ideas just because you as designer can't come up with a way to make it work. Some race / class combinations will always be mechanically weaker, but none should be banned outright. (Multiclass restrictions are a subcategory of this)

Also, I'd like to clarify some of my points:

* Damage resistance: It's ok if a superunique boss monster has some special defense that needs a specific weapon to crack. DMs can build that into a story. But if you go to another plane and EVERY monster has resistance to your attacks if you don't have some specific weapon, it's wrong.

* Half-Orc / Half-Elf: The problem here is that it's treated as it's own race, and that the Half-Human part is implicit. This creates all kinds of weirdness. There are so many more elegant ways to solve this. For example, if 5E has themes, "Elven blood" could be a theme to make a half-elf half-anything. (Why would only humans have all the interracial nookie fun?)

* Alignment spells: This is part of a more complex issue of everything that is wrong with alignment. At the very core it's because in D&D, you don't DO evil, you ARE evil. You're simply not expected to do anything that is not evil. Which kills a lot of the grey zone that many imteresting characters operate in.
And there is the idea that good and evil are objective and absolute. But my terrorist is your freedom fighter. Is it evil to Disintegrate a tyrant king? What if you only did it to crown yourself? What if he was a tyrant because otherwise that wall against the next orc invasion wouldn't have been built?

 

[Lanefan]

Someone's gotta be the one who disagrees, I guess it's me this time:

* Different XP for different classes. Just No. I thought the mere idea is ridiculous, but there is a thread at rpg.net
--- I can live with it if it's needed as a balancing mechanic, but then again I don't expect the party members to always be the same level.

* Favored class. Iconic class / race combinations will be rewarded by good support, they shoul NOT receive XP bonuses on top
--- I don't care about facoured class but I come from an era where high stats gave an ExP bonus, no big deal to me.

* 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)
--- This depends on whether you want alignment to be mechanically relevant or not, and if so, how much. Most divination spells can kill detective-type adventures in a heartbeat, this is just one more. If nothing else I'd want to keep Know Alignment for casting on things or places, I could certainly live with making living beings immune to it.

* Level adjustment for races - Playable monster races would be cool, but not this crud mechanic. Ever.
--- With only rare exceptions (like rolling '00' on a random race table) monsters should not be player characters at all. 3e was really bad for this; some of the most broken things I saw came from people playing monsters.

* Entire categories of monsters with the same damage resistance - led to the infamous fighter golf bag
--- Golf bag goes away as soon as you enforce encumbrance rules.

* Save-or-die spells - should be the absolute exception. 4th ed sleep is a reasonable compromise. The rest of the party wants to be more than the Pips for Gladys the Wizard
--- I don't mind 'em - remember, the opposition can use 'em too!

* Half-races: Bye half-elf, bye half-orc, hello full-blood orc. Much more cooler and no icky "how did it happen?"
--- Part-Elf and Part-Orc are canon now, I vote they stay in. And the "icky" stuff can provide some great copy if you so desire.

And a few I agree with:

* Sneak attack resistance on way too many monsters
--- Ditto crit-proof monsters. There is no logical rationale for either - yes an undead doesn't have vital organs but it still has a key bit holding it together...

* Self-buffing wizards, clerics and druids - good old CODzilla, how I miss you NOT
--- Buffs in general REALLY need to be dialed back and-or removed. Even 1e has too many once a party figures them out. 3e was ridiculous.

* The Toughness feat. Mentioned by Monte himself to be a deliberate trap crap choice. Don't ever pull something like that again.
--- Well, if you get rid of feats entirely (which is my vote) this problem goes up in smoke.

Lanefan

 

[Wormwood]

the whole half-orc thing was gross. What was Gary thinking putting that in there.

The Tolkien was strong in those days, and half-orcs were straight out of Isengard.

 

[Wightbred]

OK, not trying to be a smart-ass or trying to pick on the OP. But I'm really interested to see if "modularity" can give effect to options people want even if others don't and this seems a good and challenging list to try and apply it to. Not that I wouldn't personally bother with some of these, as I agree some of them are Zombies like different XP, but this is just to test the theory. Also note that this is just 5 minutes of my thinking, and hopefully Wizards would put in more than that, so I am not saying these should be "the" solution, they are just "a potential" solution.

* Different XP for different classes. Just No. I thought the mere idea is ridiculous, but there is a thread at rpg.net
-> Optional different XP, with those costing more having additional abilities to compensate.

* Favored class. Iconic class / race combinations will be rewarded by good support, they shoul NOT receive XP bonuses on top
-> Have suggested / favored class listed, but whether you get XP is an optional choice.

* 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)
-> Detect Alignment spells are collectively optional. If they are out you can get an alternative spell choice as usual, or an alternative ability.

* Challenge rating. Just NO, you cruddy, wonky bane of the DM
-> Multiple ways to determine challenge, with ratings for each listed in monster stat blocks. Use the way that works for you in planning an encounter.

* Level adjustment for races - Playable monster races would be cool, but not this crud mechanic. Ever.
-> Two optional ways to make a character of races: level adjustment or standard writeup like all the others.

* Feat-only Fighter. Gyah, if you can't come up with good Fighter class abilities, don't design my D&D. Oh, and 3rd ed Marshall and Swashbuckler, you guys deserve mention for being even worse. What a waste of potentially amazing concepts.
-> Fighter with feats, but Knight or something using stances etc. Use the class you like and cut the other. Or not.

* Entire categories of monsters with the same damage resistance - led to the infamous fighter golf bag
-> OK, this one is stumping me. Any ideas?

* Save-or-die spells - should be the absolute exception. 4th ed sleep is a reasonable compromise. The rest of the party wants to be more than the Pips for Gladys the Wizard
-> Some optional spells that are save or die.

* Half-races: Bye half-elf, bye half-orc, hello full-blood orc. Much more cooler and no icky "how did it happen?"
-> Easy: choose what races you want to use and cut the "half"s if you want.

* Sneak attack resistance on way too many monsters
-> Option to make Sneak Attack not work on undead, but characters with this ability get an alternative ability instead to compensate.

* Self-buffing wizards, clerics and druids - good old CODzilla, how I miss you NOT
-> Define a buffing spell type, and have an optional rule that they can't work on the caster.

* The Toughness feat. Mentioned by Monte himself to be a deliberate trap crap choice. Don't ever pull something like that again.
-> Write the limitation on the feat so people who choose it are aware, and then have an optional rule to let people swap feats.

OK, so 11 of 12 is not too bad for 5 minutes work.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

* Different XP for different classes. Just No. I thought the mere idea is ridiculous, but there is a thread at rpg.net
-> Optional different XP, with those costing more having additional abilities to compensate.

Or, standard XP for all classes, but optional XP progressions that can be applied by campaign (to all characters) to vary pace--i.e. not just a linear adjustment, but to change advancement pacing over a story arc.

Or, standard XP for all classes, but optional XP progressions that can be applied to any set of classes that have been severely boosted or harmed by other options that you have selected. For example, normally everyone moves the same and XP is the same, but if you turn on "Wizard's Rule the Roost" options, you pick a slower advancement to compensate, instead of reducing the poor wizard to nothing but a staff and no skills at start.

 

[mkill]

* Entire categories of monsters with the same damage resistance - led to the infamous fighter golf bag
--- Golf bag goes away as soon as you enforce encumbrance rules.

... at which point I'd invoke "my house, my game table, I DM next week"

Apart from the fact that bags of holding etc. make encumbrance rules dead weight. If the DM has to pull one crud rule to enforce another crud rule and maximize PC screw-over, he's on the wrong side of the screen.

(I know you were joking, but I hate this DM attitude)

 

[Lanefan]

Apart from the fact that bags of holding etc. make encumbrance rules dead weight.

Assuming, of course, that you give such things out in your game. Also, putting sharp pointy things into bags of holding has never really been that good of an idea...

If the DM has to pull one crud rule to enforce another crud rule and maximize PC screw-over, he's on the wrong side of the screen.

(I know you were joking, but I hate this DM attitude)

Hey, if someone wants to game the system by carrying 20 swords around along with all their other gear*, I'm more than ready to game the system right back and smack 'em down; I have neither time nor patience for that sort of thing. However, if someone's reasonable about how they play and doesn't try to pull stunts with the rules then I'll be just as reasonable in return.

* - but note that if a donkeyhorse is involved then all is well.

Lanefan

 

[RHGreen]

I like Half-races. If people have issue with Half-Orcs being the result of non-consensual sex then the solution is simple. In the race description make it that they are the result of genetic (magic) combination by a Necromancer far in the past (A Wizard Did It) and sometimes their submissive genes pop up in human-human offspring.

Then perhaps people can stop harping on about it.

 

[mkill]

Hey, if someone wants to game the system by carrying 20 swords around along with all their other gear*, I'm more than ready to game the system right back and smack 'em down; I have neither time nor patience for that sort of thing.

Huh, what? The borked game rules force the player to carry a normal sword, a silver dagger, an adamantium hammer, an cold iron rapier to do his job properly, and pull every trick in the book to boycott him? Why? 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.

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?

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.

 

[delericho]

* Different XP for different classes. Just No. I thought the mere idea is ridiculous, but there is a thread at rpg.net

* Favored class. Iconic class / race combinations will be rewarded by good support, they shoul NOT receive XP bonuses on top

Agreed.

* 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)

Alignment should be an optional, and customisable, module. Support should be given for including "Detect X" spells. But they should be optional additions, and not the core.

I don't think 5e can drop alignment completely. Nor do I think it should.

* Challenge rating. Just NO, you cruddy, wonky bane of the DM

Challenge rating was actually a step forward, but it has been superseded by both 4e and Pathfinder. I agree - use one of the better methods.

* Level adjustment for races - Playable monster races would be cool, but not this crud mechanic. Ever.

This was one of my bugbears with 3e, and one of the big things I wanted them to fix with 4e. Of course, they took the game in a completely different direction.

Basically, I wouldn't worry about supporting "play as monster" in the Core at all - add it later. And when they do add it, a better mechanic would be very good.

* Feat-only Fighter. Gyah, if you can't come up with good Fighter class abilities, don't design my D&D. Oh, and 3rd ed Marshall and Swashbuckler, you guys deserve mention for being even worse. What a waste of potentially amazing concepts.

Not bothered either way.

* Entire categories of monsters with the same damage resistance - led to the infamous fighter golf bag

* Sneak attack resistance on way too many monsters

Yes.

It was a major problem that the Rogue became almost completely useless against fully a third of monsters. Naturally, 4e learned this lesson, and then ran with it to an idiotic degree in the opposite direction.

It's reasonable for some monsters to be resistant to some attacks. That promotes good and clever play. It is not reasonable for fully a third of monsters to be resistant to the Rogue's only effective attack.

Give the Rogue several attacks that are better or worse in different situations against different foes. That way, if a monster is immune to Sneak Attack the Rogue has other weapons to employ. Better still, it means that the Rogue has interesting choices to make, beyond simply "how do I move to flank?"

Damage Reduction is somewhat similar, and likewise needs rethought.

* Save-or-die spells - should be the absolute exception. 4th ed sleep is a reasonable compromise. The rest of the party wants to be more than the Pips for Gladys the Wizard

Agreed. I think the 4e save mechanic is an improvement in principle. However, I think it is often too lenient on PCs. Perhaps some attacks should require multiple successful saves to throw off, or apply an ever-decreasing penalty to the saves. (That is, the first save is at -5, then -4, -3, and so on.)

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

??? These aren't zombies?

I'm inclined to think that half-races would be better modelled with a "half-blood" trait available to various races. That way, the game can easily handle half-elves, half-dwarves, or anything else you fancy including.

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

Don't care either way. CODzilla should be fixed, but I don't think that necessarily requires removing self-buffs.

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

Absolutely. There's no need to make everything absolutely balanced. But there absolutely should not be any deliberately-crap options, feat taxes, or other embedded "system mastery" issues.

I'd add:
Randomized stats as *default*. Don't mind it as an option, but that's a gaming artifact that I'd like to remain in the vault, to be pulled out for special, nostalgic occasions.

Certainly, point-buy should be an option available in the Core. However, for new players it is vastly preferable to be able to roll stats, and PCs generated in that manner absolutely must not be obviously sub-optimal for that choice.

In 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder, stats were just too important to leave to chance. And, indeed, all the point-buy systems that actually got used in those systems gave characters that were actually more powerful than those rolled.

Both of those are bad things. It is vital that the game allow you to play a character without exactly the 'right' stats and not be crippled. And it is likewise vital that characters generated by rolling should be pretty close to equivalent to those generated using point-buy.