Really good things in theory, but in practice...

[Glyfair]

For D&D 3.X, what one rule or concept do you think fits this statment best?

"<This thing> is really good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that well."

For me, it's ability damage, whether poison, disease or something else.

In theory, I really like the idea. Poison can potentially kill you, but it doens't have to. It also has side effects. When you are poisoned (standard CON damage poison), you are much easier to kill. When you are weakened, you are much less effective in melee.

In practice, it's a big headache. My group has a large new player contingent. Some are juggling enough things keeping track of the things they need to track now. Add the additional bookkeeping with ability damage, and its a nightmare.

Take a new player with a fighter with a 2-handed weapon. He gets hit with a 4 pt. ability drain. Now he has to know he has a -2 to hit, a -3 on damage. Opps, he no longer qualifies for that Power Attack feat, so he can't use it. Want to climb the wall? Remember it's tied into your Strength, so you don't do it as well.

 

[Particle_Man]

Fatigue rules, for the same reason as above.

Makes me wonder if we could just do away with ability scores entirely.

 

[Shades of Green]

Challange Ratings.

In theory, they are a very useful way to balance encounters and traps for various levels of players, as well as a level-dependant XP mechanic.

In practice, they might work well with a 4-PC party with just the right amount of magical resources that the book assumes them to have, but have a different party size, or change the level of magic in your campaign, and this will start falling apart...

 

[Reynard]

CRs and ELs are the obvious ones. There is so much more going in to encounter design than the party level and the CRs of the creatures involved, but the tendency is to just look at the CR and go. Also, many CRs are just out of whack.

I'll throw in Sunder. Not because I don't like it -- I think it is a great idea -- but because once you get passed the very early levels, the characters' equipment is as much a part of them as their feats and class abilities and if you go destroying it, you'll create problems.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'll throw in Sunder. Not because I don't like it -- I think it is a great idea -- but because once you get passed the very early levels, the characters' equipment is as much a part of them as their feats and class abilities and if you go destroying it, you'll create problems.

I don't buy into that argument. There is an infinite supply of equipment -- the DM can re-create and rearm the PCs as necessary. And gear isn't essential if you tune the encounters to reflect the party's resources.

CR/EL I don't have a problem with. If you consider it an attempt at a rough guideline than it has succeeded. I don't think it was ever intended as a hard and fast guage of a creatures or encounters toughness in all circumstances.

I've made my feelings on the concept of named bonuses clear in other threads. Great concept, but the execution has crippled it by introducing too many name types and too many untyped bonuses.

 

[Reynard]

I don't buy into that argument. There is an infinite supply of equipment -- the DM can re-create and rearm the PCs as necessary. And gear isn't essential if you tune the encounters to reflect the party's resources.

I have one player who gets more upset at Sunder than at Save or Die.

CR/EL I don't have a problem with. If you consider it an attempt at a rough guideline than it has succeeded. I don't think it was ever intended as a hard and fast guage of a creatures or encounters toughness in all circumstances.

If you're experienced, it is fine. If you don't use random encounters, it's fine. But if you are either new to the game (or even new to the creature) or you make use of CR based random encounters, it can be problematic.

I've made my feelings on the concept of named bonuses clear in other threads. Great concept, but the execution has crippled it by introducing too many name types and too many untyped bonuses.

Just goes to show that it is all subjective. Named bonuses are one of the best new toys in 3.x, IMO, and have never caused me problems.

Another one: DR, especially DR versus magic. I mean, come on -- a Great Red Wyrm has a DR of what 20, 30? But even a 3rd level PC's favored weapon can cut through it like butter. I always want to use a house rule where every "+" on a weapon only overcomes 5 pints of DR/magic. Plus, that spell damage always overcomes DR cripples it, I think. A Fireball should do Fire damage and if the creature doesn't have DR/fire, you should be as screwed as the fighter without the adamantium weapon.

 

[Fishbone]

I think damage reduction is a really big D&D bugaboo and needs a serious overhaul. Past level 4 even something like DR Everything/Magic, is worthless as everyone packs +1 weapons. That, and regeneration, with creatures like Ocularons and Tendriculous and what not that can have 100s of HP and are only hurt by things like Acid and Keen weapons. Regeneration isn't that bad until you have creatures with boatloads of HP that are only hurt by obscure weapons and researched spells.

 

[OakwoodDM]

So would those of you who dislike the current DR system like to see a return to the 3.0 system, where magic wasn't all lumped into one category, but where there weren't so many material DRs, the return to the 2e version where you simply couldn't hurt something without the required level of magic weapon, the removal of DR altogether, or some amalgamation? Maybe keeping the material DRs but splitting /magic back out into /+1, /+2, etc?

Personally, my 'nice idea in theory' is Prestige Classes. It's not that they don't work, more that there're so many of them, and they vary so much in power, balance and general quality. I'm lucky that the people I game with are core book only kind of people, but I can imagine that setting up a game where you have multiple books available and powergamers galore there'd be a lot of grind just reading through all the prestige classes and 'yea' or 'nay'ing each one...

 

[Reynard]

Personally, my 'nice idea in theory' is Prestige Classes. It's not that they don't work, more that there're so many of them, and they vary so much in power, balance and general quality. I'm lucky that the people I game with are core book only kind of people, but I can imagine that setting up a game where you have multiple books available and powergamers galore there'd be a lot of grind just reading through all the prestige classes and 'yea' or 'nay'ing each one...

Quoted for excessive use of truth.

 

[drothgery]

So would those of you who dislike the current DR system like to see a return to the 3.0 system, where magic wasn't all lumped into one category, but where there weren't so many material DRs, the return to the 2e version where you simply couldn't hurt something without the required level of magic weapon, the removal of DR altogether, or some amalgamation? Maybe keeping the material DRs but splitting /magic back out into /+1, /+2, etc?

I think having seperate DR and defense/AC mechanics in a purely abstract damage system (like the hit point system in D&D) is silly, and having the right type of weapon should just give you a bonus to hit.

Of course, I also think SR is completely absurd; it's making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw. If the designers want a monster to be unusually resistant to magic, it should just have unusually good saves.