Small but annoying things D&D never got right

[Zander]

What are the small but annoying things that D&D never got right in any edition - and should be fixed in 4E? I don't mean big questions such as Vancian magic vs non-Vancian; I mean details that D&D has always got wrong and that really bug you.

Here's my pet peeve: Since 1E, Animate Object has only ever been a clerical spell, not an arcane one as well.

I know about golems and have no problem with divine casters being able to cast this spell but why can't arcane spellcasters have it too? There are plenty of examples of wizards or sorcerers animating objects in literature and film. Der Zauberlehrling by Goethe, sometimes known as The Sorcerer's Apprentice, is one in which a neophyte sorcerer/wizard brings a broomstick to life to do his chores. Another example, IIRC, is the film Jack the Giant Killer when the evil warlock animates statues of arms mounted along a corridor wall that attack the hero. In the film The Golden Voyage of Sinbad "the bronze statue of Kali is brought to life by Kora the magician... Kora, the magician, causes the large figurehead on Sinbad's ship to come to life" (quote from Film Fantasy Scrapbook by Ray Harryhausen. There are no doubt lots of other examples, so why can't sorcerers/wizards cast Animate Object?

NB: Please take this opportunity to vent your own enduring pet peeves about D&D, especially if they've been around since before 3.x. Avoid attacking other posters' peeves and please don't suggest that "if you don't like it, you can change it in your game".

Also, how can we draw these pet peeves to the attention of the 4E designers?

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

 

[The_Gneech]

Elves are short.

Orcs and hobgoblins are not the same thing; also, orcs are not goblinoids and have pig snouts (which varies a bit by edition).

Multiclassing has penalties or restrictions of any kind.

Most of my other peeves are edition-specific.

-The Gneech

 

[WayneLigon]

I mean details that D&D has always got wrong and that really bug you.

Short elves.
Armor 'making you harder to hit'. (Yes, I know it's abstract. Yes, it still bothers me).
Certain dragon breath weapons - slow gas, lightning, and repulsion most specifically.

 

[RangerWickett]

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.

Me, I hate that you can't climb on the backs of monsters.

 

[vagabundo]

Charging didnt take the size of the beast you were riding into account.

HP and AC, both annoy me. I wish they were changed to Combat points and Dodge(parry)/DR respectively.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Me, I hate that you can't climb on the backs of monsters.

You mean without house-ruling?

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

The spell Enlarge.

Grr...I, like totally hate it. HATE IT.

Spells that change time, or events that have happened in the past.

Limited Wish and Wish spells. They should not be spells; they should be special occurences within the game.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Bards. Of course, you'd probably get a different idea of what 'right' for a bard is from anyone who plays one, but they've yet to hit something that feels 'right' IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

Armor 'making you harder to hit'. (Yes, I know it's abstract. Yes, it still bothers me).

It's not abstract, it's real: armor as cover.

But I see your point. Could be both cover and absorption to be more realistic.

edit: and by the way, HP and AC made perfect sense in OD&D. Then gamers started to have things more explained and more defined, and we created our own problems about HP and AC