Small but annoying things D&D never got right

[Clavis]

One thing that I never liked was how shields were handled.

I never had a problem with the abstract nature of combat otherwise, but shields bugged me.

Shields simply adding +1 or +2 to AC doesn't model well how one uses a shield in combat. There are many historical example of warriors whose primary, or only, armor was a shield. If used correctly, having a shield can be almost as good as wearing armor. Also, medieval fighters preferred wooden shields, so that an enemy's weapon would get stuck in them. This isn't modeled at all in any edition as far as I know.

The problem is that I'm one of those who hates having to roll too many dice and add up too many numbers. I fear that any realistic shield system would slow down combats significantly, just like the AoO rules do. Fast and thrilling combats means more to me than tactical realism. So while I've always just used the abstract handling of shields, I've only accepted it as the lesser of two evils.

 

[howandwhy99]

"OD&D is the one true game. All other are pale imitations of...

Or IOW, they got it right in 1974 with 3 small pamphlets, and they've been getting it wrong ever since.

This position may seem impossible and utterly incredulous... until you've played the game. It takes years to learn, but minutes to begin play.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree: Whenever I DM, I allow Intimidate to be attempted either with Strength (adjusted for size) or Charisma, whichever is higher. There was an optional rule like this in one of the 3.0 splatbooks. I hope they allow either in 4E.

I think Cha is correct, but that is debate for another thread. Indeed, for many older threads.

 

[pawsplay]

D&D never seemed to understand that armor is a trade-off. Sure, when you're in the front lines, you want it. But one on one? It's heavy, it's restrictive, it makes you a little slower. You might be better off fighting naked, and relatively fresh, than trying to pull yourself together for a battle after lugging fourty pounds of metal around for a few hours.

 

[vic20]

The axis of Law vs. Chaos is also present in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Andersen.

as well the chronicles of amber by roger zelazny (my all-time fantasy universe).

 

[WarlockLord]

- While I like the original idea of alignment, it's become more of a straitjacket psychology for characters.

- If wizards can do powerful things such as stopping time, teleporting, crafting illusions, etc, why can't they heal?

- Where the heck did divine magic come from?

- Level adjustment: Screws casters, 100% of the time

- Way too many bizarre monsters (digester?) I've never used

- Um, dinosaurs?

- Despite the fact that casters have to sacrifice parts of their soul or some other ardous thing to craft items, one can still fill a barrel with +1 swords in under 30 minutes

- Vancian spell slots should go away and be replaced with spell points, like psionics has.

 

[Abstraction]

The fifteen minute adventuring day!

The overal blah over gnomes and halflings. The elves, humans and dwarves have mighty nations and long histories. Oh yeah, there's also some small guys running around.

As for Rangers, I've explained it in my game that Rangers don't really actually cast spells, it just that those spell slots and the spells that Rangers have on their list really represent the kind of things a Ranger might be able to do once in the course of a day. But, yeah, divine spells go away and class abilities replace, please.

 

[Clavis]

The overal blah over gnomes and halflings. The elves, humans and dwarves have mighty nations and long histories. Oh yeah, there's also some small guys running around.

Yeah, I always felt like Gnomes got the short end of the stick. In my current campaign they and the giants are the oldest inhabitants of the continent, and all the others are invaders from various other lands. And the Elves DON'T have a particularly long or glorious history, just long lifespans.

 

[BASHMAN]

Wayne, armor makes you 'harder to hurt,' not 'harder to hit.' Or rather, it makes your flesh harder to hit, since that's what matters. It's still easy to hit your armor, but high AC means the stuff that can bleed is protected.

Strength gives a bonus to hit, fitting with this idea that armor makes you harder to hurt-- strength makes it so you can pierce the armor... But then, the argument falls apart, because you still get your strength bonus to hit a completely unarmored monk, who is only dodging your attack. There is no armor to pierce.

IMO Armor should reduce damage, and being hard to hit is its own reward [though when you do get hit, you'd probably wish you had some armor...]

 

[Gundark]

The Economy.

Oh yes...a thousand times yes