Small but annoying things D&D never got right

[Jhaelen]

A DC 12 disease would likely stack commoners up like cordwood, given their lack of any real Fort save and all (when Con = 10 and HD = 3, that's a +1!).

No, it wouldn't.
A DC 12 save with a +1 save means there's a 50% chance / day she'll take attribute damage.

Once the commoner realizes she caught a disease, she'll stay in bed, so she'll regain two points of attribute damage per day.
If the disease isn't overcome after a couple of days, a healer will look after her so she'll regain 2 or 4 points of attribute damage per day (depending on how good the healer is) and gets to use the healer's heal check instead of her saving throw.

It's important to remember she's regaining those points even if she takes attribute damage for that day.

For a disease dealing d4 damage, that's an average loss of 1.25 per day. For 1d6 damage it would be 1.75 per day. So, in both cases simple bed rest will on average heal more damage than she takes from the disease. Even without access to a healer she should survive it quite easily.

 

[Clavis]

But I thought you just said it was good to differentiate from Tolkien! ;P

-The Gneech

Hence, I never liked Rangers with spells.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The combat system has never adequately handled "called shots" or damage to specific body locations. This is compounded by an insistence that what PC's can do must in turn be doable by their opponents, and what opponents can do must in turn be doable by PC's. In other words, my upteenth level fighter can take his full attack routine and do enough damage to pulp and splatter my opponents head over a wide area - but if I put a dagger to his throat and try to coup de grace he'll stand a much better chance of survival. And yet I do NOT want my mighty fighter to ever get taken out with a single dagger thrust to the jugular...

Also, hit points are binary in effect. If you HAVE them you are unaffected in what you can do in combat whether you have 10hp left out of 10 or only 1hp left out of 250. Only when you have ZERO or fewer is your character limited - and in that case you're not just limited, but down for the count. (I happily note that 4E will change this, yes?)

 

[Exen Trik]

Now falling damage can kill you.

That's all well and good, but as I brought up in an earlier thread: if you really want to put a fear of falling in the hearts of PCs, have their equipment take damage as well. I know a number of players who find death less inconvenient than shattering all their potions, snapping their great axe in half, or having their +5 breastplate turned into a useless pile of bent steel.

As far as my annoyances? Fantasy economics. Especially the commonly available gold piece currency.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

I'm gonna have to echo others and go with falling damage and poison.

Falling off a cliff kills you. Sorry, it does.
Some poisons can kill you in one minute. Most take longer. Not in D&D. They either kill you in one minute or they don't kill you at all. You can house rule that one out of the way pretty quick, or simply use homebrew poisons, but it still bugs me.

And the whole "I can shoot into melee combat because even if I hit my friend he'll only take 1d6 damage" thing drives me nuts too. I've basically had to institute a morotorium on that.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I would be happy with DR gone and armor giving you bonus HP instead same effect but doesnt ignore minutia damage which I assume you are worried about.

+2 armor give you +20 hp
+8 armor gives you +80 hp
or per level might make more sense:
+2 armor give you +2 hp/level
+8 armor gives you +8 hp/level

Well, maybe those numbers are off a bit but I think you get the concept.

Hmm, so if my level 10 fighter loses 50 hp fighting a dragon, does taking off his plate mail kill him or heal him completely?

 

[Deset Gled]

Phalanx style fighting. I have never seen a good mechanic for protecting someone besides yourself with a shield, and I think the spear should be a much more prominent and powerful weapon.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

RACES:
• +2 STR = -2 INT & -2 CHA and its ilk. Especially since point-buy includes no such disparity.
• Favored class as a stick rather than carrot.
• Cultural tendencies built into the race.

CLASSES:
• Lack of a sword-mage in PHB.
• Druid weapon/armor limitations as if metal isn't natural... also scimitar okay; longword bad‽
• The paladin vs. cleric as crusader/templar archetype; reduce cleric to light armor.
• Cleric as uber-buff kick-ass FTR.
• Max spell level based on primary stat (all WIZ are 19 INT, all CLR are 19 WIS, all SOR are 19 CHA).

DESCRIPTION:
• Alignment as a mechanic.
• 110-year old debutante elves.

EQUIPMENT:
• Random starting money with too large a range.
• Encumbrance
• Weapon weights... a 16 lb. falchion‽‽
• Incredibly silly double weapons.

COMBAT:
• ARMOR CLASS: Better armors should grant some kind of DR or reduce criticals.
• HIT POINTS: Too abstract.
• PC HP range too vast (4- to 340+) falling damage, fire damage, and daggers are laughable.

ADVENTURING:
• Better defined XP reward for non-combat

MAGIC & SPELLS:
• 100%: No effect should be 100% (immunities, detection, etc.)
• Spells that overshadow skills & abilites (knock vs. open lock)
• Some spell's power-to-level ratio.
• Reversable spell being separated.
• Wish and Miracle... HATE THEM. These are not meant for PCs.
• No wizardly animate object.
• Lesser healing unavailable to wizards.
• MAGIC ITEMS: Wands & staff "charges", alignment/class restrictions.

• Presto's magic emporium.

MONSTERS:
• The ridiculous mishmash of unrelated goblinoids.
• No humans in the MM. This discrimination must end.

 

[fuindordm]

RACES:
MONSTERS:
• The ridiculous mishmash of unrelated goblinoids.

I agree with almost all your point--except this one.

I actually love the tripartite goblins with all my heart... it's a unique feature with enormous cultural and psychological ramifications for the race. Or were you speaking of monsters other than (gob/hobgob/bugbear) that I'm unaware of?

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

My problem with them is, beyond the title "Goblinoid" they have next to nothing in common. I don't mind them remaining distinct in some respects, but they really need some cohesion in appearance and cultural roots to show they're actually related.

It might also help to explain why they are distinct from orcs as well... I always mentally group 'em together.

-------------


Oooh... this reminds me of anther thing that they didn't get right... the ranger's Favored Enemy ability. It's REALLY kludgy. One type of PC race, or three goblinoids, or a bunch of giants, or the entire lot of beasts? And it sucks vs. oozes and undead.