Pet Peeves....
- Thread starter Rasyr
- Start date
Sebastian Francis
First Post
fredramsey said:
Not if he's an elf. [PLOINK!]
Last edited:
fredramsey
First Post
Point I was making (too much sarcasm kept it hidden, I fear) was that you could come up with any kind of outrageous crap you wanted to, like a 150th level farmer with a pet Tarrsque and Asmodeus hooked up to his plow.
But why bother?
But why bother?
Sebastian Francis said:Not if he's an elf. [PLOINK!]
Sebastian Francis
First Post
fredramsey said:Point I was making (too much sarcasm kept it hidden, I fear) was that you could come up with any kind of outrageous crap you wanted to, like a 150th level farmer with a pet Tarrsque and Asmodeus hooked up to his plow.
But why bother?
I suppose that's true. My pet peeve was that it is even *possible* to have an epic peasant or an epic blacksmith. Yet the alternative, that all peasants or blacksmiths are 0-level (AD&D 2e), seems worse. As you're saying, just because we *can* make an epic-level peasant doesn't mean we have to. It just gives us more options. So perhaps it isn't such a big deal after all. Holy crap, am I changing my opinion? Cool!
(But don't forget, the *purpose* of this thread was for us to list pet peeves...
)
painandgreed
First Post
Other pet peeves of mine:
Commoners: I dislike the idea that all commners are 1st level and never go up. 0 levels int he old system bugged me even worse. I think I had a house rules commoner class written up and in use in the late 80's. None of this bothers me as much as the people who seem to get furious when you suggest that the 45 year old farmer or black smith in a frontier town might be a third level commoner after all those years in a harsh environment.
Spending XP: Level drains and spending XP really bug me. Especially when a vampire did it by touch. A bite I could understand, but touch? Requireing XP for things like making magic items is just seems to be a broken kludge that doesn't fit in anywhere in the rules.
Sheilds: Lately, after watching lots of the War..., er, I mean History Channel, it seems that a sheild should do much more than just reduce the chance of being hit by 5%. From my brief time using such things in simulated combat with some SCA friends, I remember using it a lot more than than 5% of the time and would probalby rather have a good shield than studded leather armor to block sword blows.
Commoners: I dislike the idea that all commners are 1st level and never go up. 0 levels int he old system bugged me even worse. I think I had a house rules commoner class written up and in use in the late 80's. None of this bothers me as much as the people who seem to get furious when you suggest that the 45 year old farmer or black smith in a frontier town might be a third level commoner after all those years in a harsh environment.
Spending XP: Level drains and spending XP really bug me. Especially when a vampire did it by touch. A bite I could understand, but touch? Requireing XP for things like making magic items is just seems to be a broken kludge that doesn't fit in anywhere in the rules.
Sheilds: Lately, after watching lots of the War..., er, I mean History Channel, it seems that a sheild should do much more than just reduce the chance of being hit by 5%. From my brief time using such things in simulated combat with some SCA friends, I remember using it a lot more than than 5% of the time and would probalby rather have a good shield than studded leather armor to block sword blows.
Narfellus
First Post
ah, geez, i have lots of pet peezes with 3.x, but i still love the game. I've just found ways to circumvent the problems.
a) spell slot, fire-and-forget. Never made much sense other than easy to implement. Ars Magica has a GREAT magic system, sort of skill based with built in failure rates. But Ars is so different you wouldn't want a DnD character failing that fireball when the goblin horde is breathing down his neck.
b) Grappling rules. We find them confusing. Please simplify. I know you can do it, you're game designers!
c) Experience rules, item creation rules, leveling rules in general.
a) spell slot, fire-and-forget. Never made much sense other than easy to implement. Ars Magica has a GREAT magic system, sort of skill based with built in failure rates. But Ars is so different you wouldn't want a DnD character failing that fireball when the goblin horde is breathing down his neck.
b) Grappling rules. We find them confusing. Please simplify. I know you can do it, you're game designers!
c) Experience rules, item creation rules, leveling rules in general.
Acid_crash
First Post
My personal pet peeves of the d20/D&D game system:
in no particular order of preference -
- the magic fire-and-forget system. I've read novels, seen movies, read other rpgs, read more novels, and I have never, ever seen this system or style of magic utilized (I've not yet read any of Vance's original novels, which is wheret his magic system comes from, but why in the world give so much credence to this outdated and rather hasslefilled magic system that is about forty or so years old).
This magic system is bland to me, and doesn't make much sense logically.
- prestige classes. I've yet to be in a d20 game where half the players will sift through any books looking for prestige classes to become, aim their characters in that direction, and despite any story changes or character decisions in the story the player pushes the character along a path that not only does NOT make sense but is pure meta-gaming from the moment the character is created. I wish the core rules had a ruling or option for changing how prestige classes operate and can be attained.
- the x/day abilities. I can understand why this is done...it keeps the players in line. But, lets compare Rage to Sneak Attack. Rage is limited per day, which is assumed to be about how many times per day the character might get involved in a hard challenge encounter (I'm assuming of course, I could be wrong, first time for everything ). Sneak Attack is not limited, based on situation, the rogue could sneak attack all day long without limit. In the long run, which is more powerful.
Plus, by having these limits, players would sometimes make choice that just don't make sense. Have a barbarian hold back his rage in one combat because "the next combat might be harder" so he chooses not to use it, not because of an in game reason, but because of meta-gaming thinking.
- no background options. d20 Modern does this in spades, as far as occupations and background go (I think).
- combat. This take too long. Too many options, too many tactical decisions made by players who count the squares, decide if going the full 30 feet is wise, think some more, count in another direction, try to evade AoO's, see which enemies threaten which squares, where should the center of a spell be so he doesn't hit the other party members, which spell to use, keeping track of all the feats, which character provides the group with what bonuses, how many hit points to keep track of, players making decisions that are bogus and completely made due to meta-gaming, etc, etc, etc.
For a game in which the combat rounds are simulated to be six seconds, if often takes a good hour or two to complete a combat that lasts no longer than 8 to 10 turns (which in my book is just one minute of game time).
I think this is about it for me.
in no particular order of preference -
- the magic fire-and-forget system. I've read novels, seen movies, read other rpgs, read more novels, and I have never, ever seen this system or style of magic utilized (I've not yet read any of Vance's original novels, which is wheret his magic system comes from, but why in the world give so much credence to this outdated and rather hasslefilled magic system that is about forty or so years old).
This magic system is bland to me, and doesn't make much sense logically.
- prestige classes. I've yet to be in a d20 game where half the players will sift through any books looking for prestige classes to become, aim their characters in that direction, and despite any story changes or character decisions in the story the player pushes the character along a path that not only does NOT make sense but is pure meta-gaming from the moment the character is created. I wish the core rules had a ruling or option for changing how prestige classes operate and can be attained.
- the x/day abilities. I can understand why this is done...it keeps the players in line. But, lets compare Rage to Sneak Attack. Rage is limited per day, which is assumed to be about how many times per day the character might get involved in a hard challenge encounter (I'm assuming of course, I could be wrong, first time for everything
). Sneak Attack is not limited, based on situation, the rogue could sneak attack all day long without limit. In the long run, which is more powerful. Plus, by having these limits, players would sometimes make choice that just don't make sense. Have a barbarian hold back his rage in one combat because "the next combat might be harder" so he chooses not to use it, not because of an in game reason, but because of meta-gaming thinking.
- no background options. d20 Modern does this in spades, as far as occupations and background go (I think).
- combat. This take too long. Too many options, too many tactical decisions made by players who count the squares, decide if going the full 30 feet is wise, think some more, count in another direction, try to evade AoO's, see which enemies threaten which squares, where should the center of a spell be so he doesn't hit the other party members, which spell to use, keeping track of all the feats, which character provides the group with what bonuses, how many hit points to keep track of, players making decisions that are bogus and completely made due to meta-gaming, etc, etc, etc.
For a game in which the combat rounds are simulated to be six seconds, if often takes a good hour or two to complete a combat that lasts no longer than 8 to 10 turns (which in my book is just one minute of game time).
I think this is about it for me.
CronoDekar
First Post
Suppose I'll chime in with my D&D peeves:
* Spell memorization - Not that big of a deal, but it can be a hassle at times. I probably wouldn't be arguing if D&D incorporated a system like AU's.
* Massive damage - Fine in modern systems usually, but it's just something I don't like in D&D. At low level, if by chance you deal 50 HP damage you probably overkilled them anyway, and at high level you're probably frequently dealing out 50+ HP damage (especially if you're a mage).
* Sundering - Everyone's made the arguments before, not much need to make them again.
* Diplomacy - Waaaay too easy to bring up and the DCs just mostly remain static. I like Rich Burlew's house rule, personally.
* Too easy to die - Maybe it's just because I prefer games with low mortality rates, but I don't like this too much. It's way too easy to just fall from positive HP to -10 in one unlucky full-attack sequence, particularly at low and high levels. Not to mention the existence of save-or-die spells pretty much requires you to have a high fort or keep various death protections up. (Granted, I know it's not as bad as some other systems, but I still find it irritating.)
* Prestige classes - Not to say I don't like prestige classes -- I love them, but like the others in this thread I don't like the ones that require a significant amount of planning to get into them. Beware the Paladin who learns how to Sunder and hide...
* DR and TWF - I love the 3.5 DR system, but a two-weapon fighter seems screwed if he doesn't have the right weapons. The two-handed fighter can just PA into it -- the two-weapon fighter (or anyone who focuses on number of attacks rather than power of attacks) suffers the DR for each attack they make.
* Turn undead - Strange system, should've been changed in revision.
* Sorcs a spell level behind - I don't mind so much the lack of flavor, or the lack of feats, or the various prestige problems (well, a little, but not peevishly), but the fact that they don't get their lv2 spells until Lv4 bugs me.
* Con and HP - Oops, my barb took too much damage and he's going to die as soon as he stops raging!
There might be more, but that's all I can think of right now. That said, I do like the vast majority of 3.5 D&D.
* Spell memorization - Not that big of a deal, but it can be a hassle at times. I probably wouldn't be arguing if D&D incorporated a system like AU's.
* Massive damage - Fine in modern systems usually, but it's just something I don't like in D&D. At low level, if by chance you deal 50 HP damage you probably overkilled them anyway, and at high level you're probably frequently dealing out 50+ HP damage (especially if you're a mage).
* Sundering - Everyone's made the arguments before, not much need to make them again.
* Diplomacy - Waaaay too easy to bring up and the DCs just mostly remain static. I like Rich Burlew's house rule, personally.
* Too easy to die - Maybe it's just because I prefer games with low mortality rates, but I don't like this too much. It's way too easy to just fall from positive HP to -10 in one unlucky full-attack sequence, particularly at low and high levels. Not to mention the existence of save-or-die spells pretty much requires you to have a high fort or keep various death protections up. (Granted, I know it's not as bad as some other systems, but I still find it irritating.)
* Prestige classes - Not to say I don't like prestige classes -- I love them, but like the others in this thread I don't like the ones that require a significant amount of planning to get into them. Beware the Paladin who learns how to Sunder and hide...
* DR and TWF - I love the 3.5 DR system, but a two-weapon fighter seems screwed if he doesn't have the right weapons. The two-handed fighter can just PA into it -- the two-weapon fighter (or anyone who focuses on number of attacks rather than power of attacks) suffers the DR for each attack they make.
* Turn undead - Strange system, should've been changed in revision.
* Sorcs a spell level behind - I don't mind so much the lack of flavor, or the lack of feats, or the various prestige problems (well, a little, but not peevishly), but the fact that they don't get their lv2 spells until Lv4 bugs me.
* Con and HP - Oops, my barb took too much damage and he's going to die as soon as he stops raging!
There might be more, but that's all I can think of right now. That said, I do like the vast majority of 3.5 D&D.
Turjan
Explorer
Acid_crash said:
The system is not 40, but 54 years old (or even older if you count the formats that predate the novel). It's one of the few classics of modern style fantasy literature. It's older than the Lord of the Rings. D&D spells like Prismatic Spray and naming conventions are taken from there. You should read "Mazirian the Magician". You'll see that the system makes perfect sense
.Of course, you are free to not liking the system. But accusing a magic system of not following conventions that have been established after the D&D game was designed (the fantasy boom is a very recent phenomen that started sometime in the 1980's) is a bit ridiculous, IMHO
.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
I detest fire-and-forget magic.
I think hit points are silly.
I think a skill-based attack modifier is an interesting idea, though I don't HATE the current system.
I'm not crazy about classes, generally speaking.
Um, howzat?
I think hit points are silly.
I think a skill-based attack modifier is an interesting idea, though I don't HATE the current system.
I'm not crazy about classes, generally speaking.
Um, howzat?
Similar Threads
