Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...

[kitsune9]

In many well-known ways I don't have time to list. Just for one example, which CR 4 creature should be harder to turn, a vampire or a zombie? (Now take a look at the CR 4 vampire and zombie.)

I remember Sean K. Reynolds writing a blog about these turning rules and pointing out that at low levels turning is okay, but mid to high levels, forgetaboutit.

I've never dwelled on inconsistent rules too much myself so I have nothing to really note. My gripes with games are more of the experience aspect as opposed to the rules aspect.

 

[mhensley]

AoO's (or OA's now i guess). Why? Here's an example- A is busy fighting B when C runs by A triggering an AoO. A gets a free attack on C. So why doesn't B get a free attack on A who just shifted his attention to another target (and may have had to turn completely around to do so)?

 

[Remathilis]

I think people and mixing up "arbitrary" with "inconsistent".

Arbitrary is when there appears to be no logic behind the rule choice: IE why in 1e does a dex or 4 or lower FORCE you to be a cleric? Why is the only adventuring choice for klutzes the clothe?

Inconsistent means not applied universally across the board: If humans are the only race that can dual-class, how do 1e half-elves become bards? (Since you must dual-class from fighter to thief to bard)

Add to the Mix Undefined (A character's dexterity mod was added to "dodge-able" breath weapons and spell attack saves, without defining what exactly those effects are) and Illogical (Since I just dual classes from a 9th level fighter to a first level magic user, I now officially suck with all my weapons again!) and you get some of D&D's great WTF moments.

Surprisingly, D&D has few Inconsistent rules. Early editions often lacked rules for specific situations period, while later editions began to tightly control rule interplay (sometimes too much). HOWEVER, there were plenty of undefined, arbitrary and illogical rules along the way. (along with their half-sister, poorly rationalized rule. Level limits is the poster child for THAT).

 

[Storminator]

Surprisingly, D&D has few Inconsistent rules. Early editions often lacked rules for specific situations period, while later editions began to tightly control rule interplay (sometimes too much). HOWEVER, there were plenty of undefined, arbitrary and illogical rules along the way. (along with their half-sister, poorly rationalized rule. Level limits is the poster child for THAT).

Taken as a whole tho, 1e's rules, primarily task resolution methodology, are inconsistent.

PS

 

[PHE-NOM]

well, i figured i will throw my 2 cents here. first off i'm not nearly as knowledgeable as most of you here, and you know the old saying: ignorance is a bliss, so based on that i can say that the whole idea of ANY role playing game is to have fun. so even-thou they are some "rules" that can be a pain, most of those rules can and should be altered by the DM..... i mean, if we want to live by all the crazy rules, let's just stick to our real world, the whole idea and reason of me playing d&d, is to get away from all the rules and be someone magical, right? granted, they are weird rules that can be a hasle, that's when the DM should take over and find an even ground for all the players and npc's. maybe some of you, if not most, think i'm crazy, but the only reason i play d&d is to have fun. how sad is it to go into a game thinking of the rules that dont make sence.......... just my thoughts...

 

[Dedekind]

4E: (Assuming this hasn't been clarified and I missed it)

Some monster powers have effects that occur after the first failed save. If you grant someone a save (say from a cleric or warlord power) and they fail, does it fulfill the requirement? I think by the rules it would, but I feel that seems to be inconsistent with the intent of the granted save, i.e., granted saves should only help and never hurt.

 

[Hjorimir]

4E: (Assuming this hasn't been clarified and I missed it)

Some monster powers have effects that occur after the first failed save. If you grant someone a save (say from a cleric or warlord power) and they fail, does it fulfill the requirement? I think by the rules it would, but I feel that seems to be inconsistent with the intent of the granted save, i.e., granted saves should only help and never hurt.

This is covered on page 219 of PHB2 (under the Failed Saving Throw header). In short, it works just the way you hoped it would work.

 

[FireLance]

One of my favorite head-scratchers arose from the 1e dual-class rules. I think Remathilis would call it an illogical rule:

1e dual-classing required a minimum of 15 in the prime attribute of the original class, and a minimum of 17 in the prime attribute of the second class. This means that a human fighter with Strength 14 and Intelligence 17 could not dual-class to wizard magic-user because he was not strong enough.

 

[Rolflyn]

Inconsistent means not applied universally across the board: If humans are the only race that can dual-class, how do 1e half-elves become bards? (Since you must dual-class from fighter to thief to bard)

I would call that contradictory, much like the 1E monk surprise rules.

Inconsistent to me means sometimes doing things one way, and sometimes another. Like in 1E adventures where attribute checks were sometimes 3d6 less than your attribute, sometimes they where d20 less than your attribute, or whatever the module writer wanted. Or 3E's undead turning using a completely different system than the rest of the rules.

This happens a lot in spell effects. One spell that creates dangerous foliage uses an entirely different resolution system than another.

I would also add vague to the mix of bad rules. Something like 3E's wall of thorns where you get rules like "if you move, you take damage". What does "move" mean? Change positions on the grid, make any movement at all?

 

[Treebore]

OK, I already edited in "arbitrary", should I add in "inconsistent", "contradictory", and "vague" too?