Core concept or rule that just bugs you beyond your ability to put up with it?

[Kalendraf]

My biggest pet peeves with the current system in no particular order are:

A) Prestige Classes. Replace with properly written/restricted feat choices instead.

B) As others mentioned, the health problem - just fine w/ 1 out of 100 hp, vs disabled with 1+ more damage taken.

C) Magic crafting guidelines are woefully inadequate.

D) Total Battlefield Awareness. Currently, the game assumes you can see everything within your range of vision in 360 degrees all the time. This is in part due to having no facing in 3.5, but in terms of what you can look at during combat, I think there should still a front/side/back limitation.

E) Proliferation of extra attacks at higher levels. This isn't unique to 3.5. The extra die rolls begin to slow the game down more and more at higher levels. Instead, bump the damage and just have 1 attack roll. With the right rules, the net effect can be similar.

F) All or nothing saves on too many spells. A prime example is Flaming Sphere. The spell is quite often worthless due to the fact enemies often take no damage at all from it. Make it at least be a save for half damage. IMHO, the only ones that should have all or nothing kinds of saves should probably be the mind control ones and certain death effects.

G) Lack of variation in basic armors. Besides minor price differences which are only going to be a factor at very low levels, there's really no reason to wear stuff like Scale Mail (chain shirt is better), Chain Mail (breast plate is better), or Splint Mail (banded, half or full plate is better). How about giving some armor DR 1/slashing, DR 1/blunt and so forth to add more variation here?

H) Gnome's favored class = bard. It's not that big of a deal, but I still don't like it.

 

[mmadsen]

Besides minor price differences which are only going to be a factor at very low levels, there's really no reason to wear stuff like Scale Mail (chain shirt is better), Chain Mail (breast plate is better), or Splint Mail (banded, half or full plate is better).

I think that's one example of a more general problem: there isn't much "room at the bottom" in D&D. Characters only face mundane foes with mundane weapons and armor for a very, very short time -- and everyone's well equipped, even the goblins the party faces in its first adventure.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Not everyone has had your experiences. I thought I was giving out too much treasure in 2e, only to see in 3e I gave out a lot more.

Even when I did silly things like give 12th-level 2e PCs +3 weapons and armor, it's not as bad as giving them +2 weapons and +4 stat, +2 shield, +2 armor, +2 ring of protection, +3 cloak of resistance, bag of holding, etc etc.

I can't understand why you would suddenly be giving out more magic items with 3E as opposed to 2E when you didn't play that way before. I've always been stingy with the magic and always will be (ask my current group or my old Warhammer Fantasy RP group!). I just make sure I don't throw anything at the party that would be impervious to everything they can hit it with. With the new DR rules for 3.5 even that isn't much of a problem anymore.

And 12th PCs having +3 weapons and armour, even in 2E, was hardly 'silly'. Why would they only have that and the 3E PCs have all the other stuff you listed. Really your arguement just doesn't hold water.

 

[Storm Raven]

And you end up with a book that has no magical properties whatsoever. Odd that.

No magical properties other than the ability to transfer mystical energy into your mind and body sufficient to allow you to hurl elemental power and wield magical energies.

And it's not the paper either. You already bought and paid for a spellbook (or got one free). In fact, the paper that you're using is cheaper by almost 75% that normal paper (spellbook with 100 pages? 15gp. Piece of paper? 0.4gp).

When the book is pruchased, it is not fully trated yet. As part of the inscription process each caster finalizes the magical treatment of the paper to suit his or her own particular methods. Part of the cost of inscribing spells comes from this process.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not exactly.

If you wanted to treat magic as a plot device, you could have the players have some input on the way the plot unravels as well. You don't need to leave it up to the DM. Sure, the DM can have final say and can control the long-term plot, but giving the players some input now and then won't result in the universe ending.

Actually, no. Then magic ceases to be "mysterious and valuable". Once you put it into the hands of the PCs, and put rules around it, it becomes another tool, rationalized and ordinary. Magic is only mysterious and extraordinary if it is inaccessible and unexplainable. Once you put it in the hands of the PCs, it becomes accessible and explainable.

 

[Storm Raven]

the core thing that has always bugged me: level progression.



how short a time it takes for a character to gain a level.

even with training in earlier editions the level leap is still too short.

and now with everyone on the same chart and no training... level progression is just sad.

it ruins the game for me in later editions.

This is probably the easiest thing in the game to house rule. Just award one-half or one-quarter the "official" amount of experience allowed for by the standard rules and progression will slow down quite a bit.

 

[Storm Raven]

Why not start on your initiative, and then add the amount of time for your action, to see when you're next? Stabbing with a dagger might cost 3, slashing with a greatsword 7 poinst of initiative, so you could stab twice (and 1/3) before the other guy gets to slash.

Because there is no good way to assign numbers to this system. You think it is faster to attack with a dagger than with a greatsword, and thus a dagger wielder should get more attacks. My experience is the exact opposite. A properly used greatsword can strike many times before a dagger weilder can even get close enough to strike. (Try it, get out a longsword or greatsword sized piece of wood and a dagger sized peice of wood, you and a buddy carefully simulate combat and see who gets in more hits). But a dagger is handier in some other ways, so who goes first and faster? It is a question that cannot be resolved in any sensible way, so the initiative system (correctly, in my view) ignores it as part of the abstraction of the system.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

This is probably the easiest thing in the game to house rule. Just award one-half or one-quarter the "official" amount of experience allowed for by the standard rules and progression will slow down quite a bit.

I generally do that already. But I wonder if it is the power leap that might bug people mote so than the amount of game time it takes. Recently I removed my 'Xp breake' from the game and allowed some pretty rapid levelling to get the PCs to 7th level. They had be languishing at 4th for some time and in the space of about 10 sessions gained 3 levels. That is very fast imo and is the reason I have the XP brake on all the time normally. However the stuff i wanted to do just couldn't be easily accomplished with 4th level PCs. Sometimes fast levelling can really help.

 

[Slobber Monster]

Because there is no good way to assign numbers to this system. You think it is faster to attack with a dagger than with a greatsword, and thus a dagger wielder should get more attacks. My experience is the exact opposite. A properly used greatsword can strike many times before a dagger weilder can even get close enough to strike. (Try it, get out a longsword or greatsword sized piece of wood and a dagger sized peice of wood, you and a buddy carefully simulate combat and see who gets in more hits). But a dagger is handier in some other ways, so who goes first and faster? It is a question that cannot be resolved in any sensible way, so the initiative system (correctly, in my view) ignores it as part of the abstraction of the system.

Just to add to this, the system correctly identifies _reach_ as the most important factor in determining which weapon lands the first hit.

I've often thought that it might even make sense to go a step further with the system and treat the dagger wielder as unarmed for the purpose of drawing attacks of opportunity vs the sword user. So if both opponents are aware of each other the sword wielder gets two attacks to every one for the dagger wielder.

 

[Rel]

Actually, no. Then magic ceases to be "mysterious and valuable". Once you put it into the hands of the PCs, and put rules around it, it becomes another tool, rationalized and ordinary. Magic is only mysterious and extraordinary if it is inaccessible and unexplainable. Once you put it in the hands of the PCs, it becomes accessible and explainable.

So are you suggesting that magic should be kept out of the hands of the PC's?