Rules that never made sense to you?

[DragnLancr]

One problem with losing XP is that the loss of a fixed amount of XP hurt different levels differently. Losing 500 XP is a tragedy at level 2 but a mosquito bite at level 12.

As far as that goes, losing 1 negative level is a tragedy at level 2, just as 500 XP would be, and losing 1 negative level at level 12 would be just as mosquito-bite-esque. Granted, the 500 XP doesn't equal necessarily equal a full negative level in either case, but you get the idea.

 

[two]

sounds about right

Having actually done this before (in martial arts no less!) I'll toss in my input. The first time you try it, fighting blindfolded is about as bad as fighting 4 people. After a little experience fighting blindfolded, you learn a few tricks (mainly that grappling is your bestest friend) and it becomes about as bad as three people.

EDIT: This was my experience with the matter, your milage may vary.

Makes sense to me. 1 invis = 3 visible.

Obviously fighting something invisible that is a much, much better grappler than you are would be ... oh, just really... really bad. Invisible dire bear? owwwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[jeffwik]

You cast invisbility, you cast lightning bolt, your lightning bolt hits a chicken, you're no longer invisible. You cast invisibility, you cast lightning bolt, your lightning bolt hits nothing, you're still invisible. I totally get the game-balance justifications for this, but the whole "an 'attack' negates invisibility" is just so weird and wonky.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I did have a rule that a dead body in a square was like rubble (I assumed this to be the case) until Hyp or someone pointed out that it was not in the rules.

If you bring in 100 pounds of crap and strew it across a 5-foot square, it's also not in the rules that the square is now difficult terrain ... but it is. Same with a (probably ex-sanguinating, possibly eviscerated) corpse. Or two. Or three. Of course that's difficult terrain.

Not everything needs to be specifically mentioned in the rules in order to have the rules apply.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A spellbook full of 0-level cantrips can be sold for the same amount as a spellbook full of 1st-level spells, despite the fact that every wizard already knows them all and would have no need of them.

Whoa. You know 200 cantrips!?

I dunno, if in the Real World people buy books like Laundry for Dummies, I don't really have a problem with Fantasy World apprentices being willing to buy the Cliff's Notes of their homework for the next four years.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Flanking: If a third person joins two teammates flanking the new person does not get a bonus to hit

I never thought about it, but that's a great point. It would make much more sense to have "Flanked" be a condition of the defender, than to say the attackers are "flanking."

It would add some combat power to rogues, obviously.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Prone: You can tumble on your feet, and you can tumble while prone, but you can't tumble to your feet from prone. Or rather, you can, but it's a DC35 and you still get an AoO for your trouble. tripping is way too easy, and there is no way to avoid the AoO for becoming not prone again.

Tumble: dwarves can tumble in any armor, by the rules. wtf??
They can do that but I can't do a shoulder roll or a kip up and avoid the AoO?
Honestly though, do you really need to be doing somersaults and cartwheels past someone to keep them from smacking you as you go by? Football players run around, juking, keeping everyone off their asses, none of which looks like tumbling to me. Does look like the basis for a combat maneuver to me though.

-10 you're dead: this one just really sucks. makes me have a new character every 2 sessions. great for continuity IMO.

-1 to -9 you're bleeding out 1 hit point at a time: often times, if someone goes down, the other say "well, he's at -3, we got plenty of time to kill all the bad guys and come bind his wounds at -9." so I sit there for an hour going "ok, rolling for stabilization..crap, -5, next"

Feinting: so you successfully feint, and this guy loses his Dex bonus for your next attack, but if you provoke an AoO from him, he can still take it normally. You just faked him out, and put him where you wanted him, but he still sees an opening in your defense.

 

[Destil]

From my POV, this is not the issue at all.

The cumbersomeness of Energy Drain shouts that there really is no need for a Energy Drain concept as it is currently implemented at all in the game.

Penalties to ability scores, loss of spells, etc. could handle it without the mess of wholesale redesigning of character sheets.

It's one thing to change a few numbers on your sheet. It's another to mess around with half of the sheet.

...

As designed, it's just a very poorly thought out game mechanic.

Really, I'm of the exact oppisite opinion as far as negitive levels goes. Negitive leves are very easy to apply on the fly because you don't get the cascading effects like you do with damage to ability scores (i.e. forgetting to change say your reflex save or init bonus when you loose dex. Negeitve levels are just a flat penelity and tend to be fairly easy to deal with).

Now as far as level loss, that is a pain. I think I'd go with XP loss instead of levels if I had a choice in the matter, with no possibility to actally loose a level (but if your XP is reduced to below 0 you still die).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Honestly though, do you really need to be doing somersaults and cartwheels past someone to keep them from smacking you as you go by? Football players run around, juking, keeping everyone off their asses, none of which looks like tumbling to me.

I'd say that a football player running around, juking, and keeping everyone off his ass is, in D&D combat terms, either a/ making a successful Tumble check, b/ using the Mobility feat to increase his AC, or c/ using the Total Defense action to increase his AC.

In most cases, I'd go with Tumble check.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

-1 to -9 you're bleeding out 1 hit point at a time: often times, if someone goes down, the other say "well, he's at -3, we got plenty of time to kill all the bad guys and come bind his wounds at -9." so I sit there for an hour going "ok, rolling for stabilization..crap, -5, next"

Interesting house rule?

When you're "dying," you roll 1d10: 1-3 (lose 2 HP, still dying), 4-6 (lose 1 HP, still dying), 7-9 (lose 0 HP, still dying), 10 (stabilized).

Note that it doesn't add even a single die roll to the process, and it introduces some uncertainty, precisely for those players -- like all of us, at one time or another -- who metagame the whole "bleeding out" experience.