Small but annoying things D&D never got right

[CleverNickName]

Turning Undead. I have always hated this forced-retreat mechanic; it was a pain in the arse to have monsters retreat only to come back later. It only got worse in 3E. A monster that is immune to fear is somehow forced to flee? And the turning undead attempts can now be used to turn plants and animals, or to make your shield magical? What?

WotC, if you are listening, please rethink this lame cleric power. It might be a sacred cow, but that doesn't mean it was ever cool.

 

[Gold Roger]

Creature Types. Specifically creature types that have mechanics attached.

Ok, they only didn't get this right in 3.X.

The creature types work fine most of the time if you stuck to the implied setting, though even there where screw ups like the magical beast roper.

But once you start homebrewing, things fall appart quickly. What if I want my genies to be fey? What if my mindflayers or sphinxs are actually extraplanar servants of gods in my setting? Just look at the terrible way spirits are handled in OA.

Sure, you can handwave this stuff and use clunky fixes such as the native outsider subtype (don't get me started on that abomination). But that ends up quite messed up.

As homebrewer, I want to be able to change creature types without unintentional mechanical repercussions.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Creature Types. Specifically creature types that have mechanics attached.

I've never wanted to switch creature types around, like fey genies. A fey genie is, to me, a Leprechaun. However, it seems like you're in luck, since Creature Types seem to be going the way of the dinosaur...

Incidentally, the first place I saw Creature Types was, before 3e, in the CircleMud code. There were the usual suspects: Humanoids, animals, automata (constructs), bestial humanoids (like satyrs, minotaurs and centaurs), the whole works. So I guess Creature Types are videogamey?!

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Try to rationalize it however you like, but the notion that armour does nothing to reduce the severity of a wound is just counterintuitive and absurd. There is absolutely no reason that a weapon should have the opportunity to do full damage to you if it has to pass through armour first.

I've never liked that D&D has always portrayed orcs as being bigger and stronger than humans. Tolkien, from whom the orc is cribbed, always said that even large orcs were "almost man-high."

Also, I've always rabidly detested the D&D Druid. It has nothing to do with druids--it just stole the name, and now when modern people think "druid," they think "eco-terrorist nature priest" which isn't accurate at all.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I second you on Animate Object, one of the very first things I noticed I didn't like in 3.0.

For me a pet peeve is Poison. I don't know how it was done in previous editions, but in 3ed poison is exactly the opposite as a poison should be.

In previous editions they were save-or-die. You even had a special Save vs. Poison, just to hang the sword of Damocles from your character sheet.

 

[WhatGravitas]

- wizards who can't heal
- wizards who can't animate objects- certain powers coming into play too early

My two main beefs. I still cannot wrap my head around that: A 7th-wizard can transmute a man to a monster (polymorph), but cannot transmute a scratch into untouched skin? While I can see that "transmutation"-healing isn't pleasant, and much less effective than clerical healing, the wizard should still get some healing spells, even if they're only converting lethal to non-lethal (they mend the organs and flesh, but lack that divine spark to make it "as good as new").

And for the animated objects: That's just a strange thing: Being able to manufacture homunculi, but not animating stuff for some minutes.

Fix that, 4E, and you get from promising to *great* stuff!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I hate the way that getting larger does not make you move faster. You are forced to take tiny little baby steps so that you continue to have a 30 foot movement, despite the fact that one step is 30 feet long.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

That's not the way it works now.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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

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

Hrm, you're right.

I'll have to look and see if the diseases were as egregious as I thought. (Not counting the weird ones that adventurers get)

Brad

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

Except it's harder for the monk to dodge or slap away, because it's moving with more force and therefore more speed.

No problem there.

Brad