fredramsey
First Post
I think it would be nice if every monster had it's height/width/length listed in its stats. I'm not talking about face/reach, I'm talking about actual size.
Pet Peeves....
- Thread starter Rasyr
- Start date
Pbartender
First Post
Mercule said:
Ooo... I hate that one.
That and all the all or nothing effects from hit points to saving throws and more.
Oh, and conditional modifiers... "+2 bonus to Appraise checks when appraising metal or gems made by blindfolded goblinoids during the week of a full moon."
I also absolutely despise having to refer to charts in mid-game. It's half the reason I like the D20 system so much more than the earlier ones (though it's still a problem on occasion). I so much prefer having a simple rule of thumb.
Finally, I can't stand players who don't know what they're character's abilities can do. Really, I mean, if you don't have at least the smallest idea of what your Wizard's spells can do and you can't look them up before your turn comes up, then maybe you should be playing a Fighter.
painandgreed
First Post
More roleplay will make for a deeper more inteesting character much more than more minatures combat. Therefore, XP for roleplaying allows players to develop their characters witout having to resort to sensless combat.
My pet peeve is combat centric nature of the XP system. There should be more ways to get XP than combat to free up people to role play rather than play mini games. Last Sunday we played and plotted amonst ourselves, deal with city officials, prepared for a ocean voyage, got equipment, gathered information, dealt with morale problems with the crew, interacted with all the crew members to figure out what they're like and if they were a danger to us, investigated a murder, and explored a ghost ship. Sum total XP for the day: 0 because we didn't kill anything. While the Dm could relate it to a CR and award XP, the rules offer no help or guidelines in doing so let alone encouraging such.
Terwox
First Post
wilder_jw said:
I've never met a player, besides myself, who preferred NOT to roll! I made my groups do point buy, and there was much grumbling and gnashing of teeth. Quite frustrating, really.
My pet peeves with d20 are generally how much my friends complain about it and dislike it on the basis of poor reasons that aren't true problems, and their real problem is they dislike it because it's hip to dislike it. I really like d20. A lot! My main pet peeve is not being able to find a group in Louisiana.
CarlZog
Explorer
It's the basics that bug me the most:
Peeve #1: The core combat mechanic.
-- For all its other advances, D&D's basic "to-hit" mechanism remains woefully stuck to its wargame origins. The idea of armor strength determing hit success comes from wargames in which units were assigned offensive and defensive strengths that when compared gave you a ratio for determing the outcome of an attack. It was meant to effectively model large battles between armies in which units representing thousands of soldiers could be eliminated with a single die roll. It was NOT meant to effectively model the skill of a single soldier swinging a sword at someone in front of him, or the opponent's ability to defend himself.
From the 1e attack matrices to 2e ThAC0 to 3e Base Attack Bonuses, the rules have danced around explaining what the abstraction of the core attack roll was supposed to depict. They've never succeeded in fitting this square peg of wargaming in the round hole of role-playing, but they've never given up. Specific weapon proficiencies, and, more recently, "armor as damage reduction" rules have applied band-aids to problem, but it still doesn't make very good sense.
Peeve #2: Hit points.
-- Hit points are another leftover wargaming tool that D&D has never completely adapted to role-playing. I don't have a problem with the basic idea of measuring a character's health and injuries with a general series of points, but it drives me nuts that that there is no incremental reduction in a character's ability to function as points are lost.
We now have reams of tactical combat rules modeling every 5-foot step, amount of cover, attacks of opportunity,etc., yet the final result of all this maneuvering is a grossly abstract hit determination method that results in the loss of a handful of homogenous points that wont' affect us 'til we pass out or die. Given the level of detail ladled onto every other aspect of the game, it blows my mind that this core activity remains so badly modeled.
I discovered Alternity over the summer and have become a huge fan of its pure skill-based mechanics. Though it certainly has its flaws, Alternity is a lot closer to what 3e/d20 should have been.
Carl
Peeve #1: The core combat mechanic.
-- For all its other advances, D&D's basic "to-hit" mechanism remains woefully stuck to its wargame origins. The idea of armor strength determing hit success comes from wargames in which units were assigned offensive and defensive strengths that when compared gave you a ratio for determing the outcome of an attack. It was meant to effectively model large battles between armies in which units representing thousands of soldiers could be eliminated with a single die roll. It was NOT meant to effectively model the skill of a single soldier swinging a sword at someone in front of him, or the opponent's ability to defend himself.
From the 1e attack matrices to 2e ThAC0 to 3e Base Attack Bonuses, the rules have danced around explaining what the abstraction of the core attack roll was supposed to depict. They've never succeeded in fitting this square peg of wargaming in the round hole of role-playing, but they've never given up. Specific weapon proficiencies, and, more recently, "armor as damage reduction" rules have applied band-aids to problem, but it still doesn't make very good sense.
Peeve #2: Hit points.
-- Hit points are another leftover wargaming tool that D&D has never completely adapted to role-playing. I don't have a problem with the basic idea of measuring a character's health and injuries with a general series of points, but it drives me nuts that that there is no incremental reduction in a character's ability to function as points are lost.
We now have reams of tactical combat rules modeling every 5-foot step, amount of cover, attacks of opportunity,etc., yet the final result of all this maneuvering is a grossly abstract hit determination method that results in the loss of a handful of homogenous points that wont' affect us 'til we pass out or die. Given the level of detail ladled onto every other aspect of the game, it blows my mind that this core activity remains so badly modeled.
I discovered Alternity over the summer and have become a huge fan of its pure skill-based mechanics. Though it certainly has its flaws, Alternity is a lot closer to what 3e/d20 should have been.
Carl
Turjan
Explorer
Well, let's see what we have apart from the high complexity for a group of complete beginners:
Some of these pet peeves have been addressed in publications like Arcana Unearthed or the Artificer's Handbook.
The dependency on specific classes, mostly clerics and rogues.
The arcane/divine split. Wizards can hop from plane to plane but are unable to heal a sore thumb.
Clunky multiclassing rules. Frontloaded classes encourage peculiar combinations with superior save combos. Spellcasters cannot multiclass (except maybe one level of one other class) because of the limited scalability.
Item creation rules. I can see the reasoning behind the XP-spending mechanics (even IC), but I don't like it, because it makes spellcasters pay for common advantages for the whole party.
The magic item overload. Without certain magic items you cannot achieve anything at certain levels. (Interestingly, CRPG's like Baldur's Gate and NWN show very easily how intuitive but dumb this mechanic got with the change to 3E). Don't get too attached to a certain magic item with a great backstory; you will probably have to throw it away 2 levels further on.
The golfbag syndrome. This got worse with 3.5e. You have to carry an assortment of weapons for different purposes.
The battlegrid. I know that many people say it's not necessary, but this depends on the players; sometimes you have to have it for conflict resolution.
Some of these pet peeves have been addressed in publications like Arcana Unearthed or the Artificer's Handbook.
Aaron2
Explorer
painandgreed said:
XP only "allows players to develop their characters" if by "develop" you mean "make more powerful".
Let's say you have two players; the first wants to make an interesting character that is fun to play, the second just wants a character that is tough and powerful. By handing out "roleplaying" XP, the first players gets more and so his character will be more powerful even though he doesn't care about character power. The second player's character will end up as the weakest character in the party although that's all he cares about. Handing out roleplaying XP only serves to tell the player that is more concerned with the "game" aspect of RPGs that you don't want him around. I, for one, don't have so many players that I can start so callously get rid of them.
I disagree that there are "no guidelines" although I agree that they need to be more specific and detailed. IME this is a DM problem.
The D&D system has one advantage in that it encourages players to seek out adventure rather than just sit back and get XP for attendance.
Aaron
der_kluge
Adventurer
Mercule said:
I think you just pegged why I hate the Barbarian class so much.
DM: The play was amazing, the bards acting ability, and the ensemble's playing ability were unfounded. The story was clever, and the plot intricate, yet sublime.
Barbarian: Grog loved the play, and the wine was good, too. We should come out to these theaters in the park more often. It's such a beautiful day.
DM: but oh, what's this? As the play ends, and the crowd begins to leave, you see your arch-nemesis Trogdor the burninator walking around behind the actor's tents. What do you do?
Barbarian: I rage and charge him!
Give me a freaking break! Maybe you could implement a rule that Barbarian can't rage until they've sustained at least 25% of their hit points in damage, or at the very least the majority of their allies have.
LostSoul
Adventurer
My pet peeves?
The rules are generally tied around a specific setting that I'm not always fond of playing. d20 breaks that mold however.
The point of giving out XP for roleplaying is something like this - in that it encourages players to roleplay rather than just sit back and get XP for killing monsters.
The rules are generally tied around a specific setting that I'm not always fond of playing. d20 breaks that mold however.
Aaron2 said:
The point of giving out XP for roleplaying is something like this - in that it encourages players to roleplay rather than just sit back and get XP for killing monsters.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
die_kluge, that example doesn't actually work that well; if TtB is really their arch-nemesis, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the barbarian to rage at the sight of him. 
Similar Threads
