Aspects of D&D that have made you fed up?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, characters with half a dozen classes get my goat.

My PC design is always concept driven, so the number of classes the PC has is determined by how I think of him. As a result, most of my PCs over the decades have been some kind of multiclassed. In 3Ed & 3.5Ed, I don't think ever hit a half-dozen, but I may have hit 5, and I have definitely hit 4 on a number of occasions.

Do I have to buy goat-chow now?

 

[Edgewood]

For me it's the amount of monsters that supposedly occupy a world full of humans. I mean, if you were to take each and every monster created for Pathfinder, there would be no room for anything else. Humans and all of the other humanoid races would be devoured in no time. In fact the ecosystem worldwide couldn't support all of the monsters listed because almost everything is a gigantic version of our real world species. A person couldn't walk five feet without being poisoned, devoured, paralyzed, burned, frozen, engulfed, impaled, skinned alive, buried alive, swallowed whole, enchanted, petrified, possessed, abducted, stung, electrocuted, deafened, blinded, drowned, clubbed, beheaded by some beastie.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

"What rules or features of D&D have made you to consider burning your books?"

Rules lawyers.

I hope 5e brings back the social contract assumption that the DM is actively trying to create an enjoyable game environment with some level of coherence instead of nitpicking when the one unique bad guy in the entire campaign nerfs a PCs mainstay tactic... the one they have been using for years and never expect someone to come up with a counter.
I have had entire sessions screech to a halt over this.

Issues that aren't quite the 'burn my books' level of aggravation include:

- 98% of combat rules are two dimensional and land based. Very little attention is paid to underwater, flight, and 3-d combat in caverns.

- Weapons are 'better' based primarily on damage capacity. There should be a significant differences between a broadsword and a rapier and a greatsword.

- DnD Economy. The old 'gp limit' rules for towns is great, and oft ignored. PCs expect the village blacksmith to have 100gp on hand to buy the sword they stole from the local heroes grave. Heck, they expect the village to even have a blacksmith!

- black and white definitions of good and evil, PCs are 'good' for destroying 'evil' races, but PCs can play 'evil' races and expect to not have towns turn on them. Either the game is a black and white morality play where Orcs are always evil no matter where they are, or the world is grey and most Orcs are evil...so you might want to ask before committing genocide on those Orcs that are 'invading' the valley farms.

- inconsistent use of thermodynamics. Fireball creates a blast of 3,000 degree heat, and only singes hair?

 

[billd91]

The "fans".

D&D has never really fed me up. I've usually taken it for what it is or I've figured out how to make it do what I want.

It really is the players that have made me fed up. It seems like there's an apparently constant complaint about the results they get from the game without wanting to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, whether that fix is a house rule, a more relaxed approach to the rules, a more complete use of the rules, harmonizing players, or even finding a game that works for them better than D&D.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

If you are asking about all editions of D&D... at the top of my list is Edition Wars.

I never understood this and it has taken the fun out of playing this game.

Regarding more specific game mechanics... (and other peeves)
~ Vancian spellcasting, THAC0, Prestige Classes, and 2 hour shopping sprees after every adventure into a dungeon, the reliance on gp as an economic basis, 4e Essentials (loved 4e but hated Essentials), 3e beyond level 10, pre 3e multiclassing, 3e low skill points, 3e Sorcerers were lame, and escalated Hit Points.

 

[Jraynack]

I never enjoyed running a campaign and taking forever for character's to level. For example, to run a 1st through 30th level game in 4E, you have to run nearly 300 encounters, roughly 9 to 10 a level - of course substituting an encounter or two for quests.

How long did it take to destroy the One Ring?

I've recently cut out experience from my game - at the end of each adventure (regardless of number of encounters), I allow my players to advance 5 levels.

6 adventures equal a 1st to 30th level campaign. That is enough to tell a decent story and have the players enjoy a good run with a character before starting a new.

 

[pogre]

Multiple attacks for PCs.

I used to hate high level D&D in general, but now that I just accept that it is a different game (more super hero-like) I like it.

I have a love-hate relationship with many parts of the game, but it keeps drawing me back.

 

[steenan]

While I never considered burning my books (maybe because I don't have any D&D books in paper), there are several D&D features and tropes that really annoy me:

1. Complexity of the system and the amount of mechanical material available. If I need an hour or more just to make sure that a high-level character is rules-legal (and he may still be severely under- or overpowered by accident), something definitely went too far.

2. Equipment dependence. I expect a powerful hero to be a powerful hero even with only a random axe and shield he happened to pick up from an enemy minion.
Also, the focus on equipment causes an extreme wealth inflation that makes world economy absurd and makes playing powerfull-but-poor characters impossible.

3. World design that assumes existence of magic and monsters, but completely ignores how they would shape the world.
Or, looking at the same facts from another point of view: worlds that are based on genre and convention, not on internal consistency, but that are described as consistent, while they should have "Play by the genre (read books A, B and C for examples) and don't try to be smarter than the game world, or you will break it" written in big, red letters.

4. Resurrection magic. I gladly accept PC death not being an option, or being possible only in very specific circumstances. But I have allowing character death and then making it not a problem. It sucks dramatic tension from many situations that are staple of heroic fantasy.

 

[steeldragons]

Also never desired to burn my books....I loves my D&D!

That said, the things that spring immediately to mind (and I'm sure there are more if I think about it, but just off the top of my head)...

--3e style multiclassing. Completely changed and ruined the game for me.

--The Elf/Eladrin split...we already had High elves and Wood elves...WHY in the Seven Heavens did we need Eladrin as/to be elfier-elves? Just stupid. And to a broader note "changing things for the sake of change" a.k.a. "fixin' what ain't broke" in just about any area makes me NUTS!

--What happened to the Drow. Salvatore, that's all on your head...and led to the ruination of the Ranger class as well.

--The Wizard/Sorcerer split. I know, I know, everyone wanted a spontaneous caster and "vancian" magic is the devil <rolls eyes>...but I just didn't like it...thought it was unnecessary and the fluff/explanation for it was/is weak.

As might be construed from this list, my game world/campaign setting does not include 3e style multiclassing, sorcerers as their own class, allow drow as PCs and, while an accessible Land [Plane] of Faerie exists and flourishes, no "eladrin" at all (there are high, wood, and the equivalent of grey elves inhabiting the Prime Material plane, some of whom opt to go to or are originally from the realms of the sidhe).

--SD

 

[frankthedm]

HP inflation. So many other problems stem from HP being too high.