Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...

[Hussar]

How infravision worked could be a real PITA and often inconsistent. Can infravision see undead like skeltons and zombies? Is it like a Predator's heat vision? Or is it like thermal imaging systems? Depending on who was writing the scenario, it could be either.

Hide in Plain Sight can be inconsistent if you have some creatures who can see through all darkness. HiPS says that you can hide so long as you are within X feet of a shadow. But, who determines the existence of that shadow? Can you HiPS from someone with darkvision? After all, there are no shadows relative to that character. Or is the existence of the shadow for the hider all that matters? What if the HiPS character can see in the dark? Are there any shadows around him/her?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why does a Bill-guisarme get a +1 to attack AC 8?

PS

It doesn't. It gets a +1 to attack the leather armor type. I'm not saying the weapon vs. armor adjustments made a lot of sense or were very playable at all. Some weapons got a bonus to hit AC 10. If the target were an unarmored human with an 18 DEX then the AC would be 6, but the Armor type would still be 10 and the bonus would still apply.

I understand the logic behind certain bonuses (impaling vs chain for ex.)but others just seemed to be there on a whim.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

3.5

1) The Dragon Disciple prestige class has as a prerequisite that one cannot be of the Dragon type.

Half-Dragons are of the Dragon type.

The 10th level ability of the Dragon Disciple is to give you the Dragon type.

Any member of a prestige class loses the special features of that prestige class if they no longer meet its prerequisites.

Put them together, mix and you generate a paradox with any 10th level Dragon Disciple.

Not true. If you do not meet the prerequisites of a prestige class you can't take levels in that class, you don't lose abilities from levels already gained.

And actually according to the 3.5SRD:

Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class.

The rules are even more lenient stating that you only need to meet the Requirements to take the first level of the Prestige Class. I personally would not allow a player to take ANY level of a prestige class if they don't meet the Requirements, but I geuss that's my houserule. Even with my houserule, after the PC takes their 10th level of DD and no longer meets the Reqs, there is no paradox because they have no more levels to take anyway.

Back on topic:

1E - Psionics. 'Nuff said.
2E - Kits. The power levels of various kits were extremely arbitrary and seemed to have no designer guidelines on how to balance them (see any kit in the Dwarf book vs. any kit in the Cleric book) with the sole exception being the Complete Bard's Handbook (they actually went into the structure of how they designed the kits in that book).
3E - Prestige Classes. See Kits above.
4E - Rogue weapons. I think they arbitrarily decided to limit the rogue too much in this regard. They are the only class that has powers that can't be used without a specific set of weapons. Even implement users can still use their powers without the limited implements they can use. Why stifle the Rogue so much?

 

[Obryn]

I understand the logic behind certain bonuses (impaling vs chain for ex.)but others just seemed to be there on a whim.

To an extent, I get the logic, too. It's a pain, but I gave them a whirl. It's a weird little bit of attempted simulationism, stuck in the middle of the PHB.

What got me with it was that your AC types might be (for example...)

AC3: Plate or Banded + Shield

If you're trying for realism, these things are not like one another at all.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

To an extent, I get the logic, too. It's a pain, but I gave them a whirl. It's a weird little bit of attempted simulationism, stuck in the middle of the PHB.

What got me with it was that your AC types might be (for example...)

AC3: Plate or Banded + Shield

If you're trying for realism, these things are not like one another at all.

-O

I think that there is a passage buried somewhere stating that shields are not usually a consideration for purposes of armor type/AC resolution. Books are not handy at the moment so I can offer no actual proof at this time.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To an extent, I get the logic, too. It's a pain, but I gave them a whirl. It's a weird little bit of attempted simulationism, stuck in the middle of the PHB.

What got me with it was that your AC types might be (for example...)

AC3: Plate or Banded + Shield

If you're trying for realism, these things are not like one another at all.

-O

The thing I disliked about weapons vs. armor type in 1E was:

What armor type was a bear's hide?
How about a dragon?
And what weapon type was the bear's claws?
And the dragon's bite or tail?

The whole chart was very humanocentric. It didn't apply in humanoid-vs-monster combats. Talk about arbitrary.

 

[Nymrohd]

You want dozens of arbitrary and inconsistent rules? Check Planescape! Every planar layer had its own effects that used a different resolution system. Or three systems. Or more.

AD&D did have a comprehensive attempt to bring all the rules under one form, the Player's Option series. Unfortunately it has less balance than me on a bike (trust me it's painful to look at).

 

[TerraDave]

Ya, its 1ed AD&D, and some 2ed AD&D.

I know of no one that played 1ed AD&D by the book. Mr. Gygax did not play by the book. I can still read the DMG and finds rules I didn't know about.

My pet peeve was sneaking. Rangers, elves&halflings, and thieves all used different mechanics to get the jump on an opponent. And what if you had an elf theif?

Just one of many.

 

[Obryn]

I think that there is a passage buried somewhere stating that shields are not usually a consideration for purposes of armor type/AC resolution. Books are not handy at the moment so I can offer no actual proof at this time.

I kinda think the opposite, and believe that shields were explicitly considered in the table. As evidence, I point to the column for AC 2 - which is unattainable in pre-UA 1e, except through Plate + Shield.

The thing I disliked about weapons vs. armor type in 1E was:

What armor type was a bear's hide?
How about a dragon?
And what weapon type was the bear's claws?
And the dragon's bite or tail?

The whole chart was very humanocentric. It didn't apply in humanoid-vs-monster combats. Talk about arbitrary.

Yep, it was arbitrary, but the rules state that DM could decide to treat a creature's natural armor as an armor type for purposes of the table. I know I never bother - but if you want to treat that Ancient Gold Dragon as wearing Plate (or Scale or whatever), the rules support your decision.

The other way around - what weapon type a creature's attacks count as - isn't mentioned at all, IIRC.

-O

 

[MerricB]

The thing I disliked about weapons vs. armor type in 1E was:

What armor type was a bear's hide?
How about a dragon?
And what weapon type was the bear's claws?
And the dragon's bite or tail?

The whole chart was very humanocentric. It didn't apply in humanoid-vs-monster combats. Talk about arbitrary.

You can see there the impetus for the original Rolemaster, which actually defines all those armour types as part of the creatures' stats!

Cheers!