Things that have bugged you since 1E

[Aitch Eye]

a lucern hammer which was not a hammer or blunt weapon.

And a bohemian ear-spoon that had nothing to do with personal hygiene.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Originally posted by Zander
D&D is a living game in the sense that it evolves and, hopefully, improves....What small things about D&D have bugged you for a long time and never seem to get fixed?

Since 1E? Hmmm...

1. Fire & Forget mechanical magic. Magic should be as random, if not more random, than melee combat.

2. Mages with d4 hit points. The d4 is just too puny. Rolling a 1 or 2 for HPs is not fun.

3. Hit Points. I understand that hit points do not equal "health points", "wound points", or the ability to withstand blows. 3.5 helps explain this (what with the "coup de grace" rules) but it could be made more clear. Too many gamers don't understand that HP and AC are an integrated system. These are the gamers that argue for an AC adjustment for level as a way of modeling skill at avoiding being hit, even though the game already models this by granting HP every level. Maybe a new term is needed.

4. Healing. See #3 above. Given that HP do not necessarily model wounds, it's confusing that HP are replenished by a spell titled "Cure Light Wounds". It also sucks that an entire class (the cleric) *must* function as a battery recharger, and that most adventuring parties can last only 4 enounters before needing rest yet can go through 4 encounters in less than an hour--creating situations where a party wakes up at 9:00 in the morning, and then has to "camp" by noon. Not fun.

5. Elves. Elves are nimble, sure, but they're also supposed to be graceful, beautiful, charming, intimidating, impressive, and awe inspiring. Where is the Charisma bonus?

6. Your equipment is often more important than your character. This was more of a problem in 1E than 3.5, but still--it seems like most of your character's power comes from his or her magic items. Again, 3.5 has helped overcome this problem (most notably with the Monk and Druid characters, and of course spellcasters have their spells).

Those are the most significant persistent problem areas. Maybe 4th Edition will address some of these concerns...

-z

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I'm not really certain how the template concept is all that different from the subraces idea. (It sounds interesting, though.

The way I see it, rather than reading through Gold elf, night elf, high elf, wild elf, jungle elf, etc (ditto for the other races), you would instead have one basic elf race.

Applied to that would be different templates which add or subtract skills, feats, ability modifiers, whatever makes sense for a character from that particular background.

Presumably there's something about living in a jungle which makes jungle elves different in that way, right? Wouldn't that also hold for halflings, or dwarves? Rather than having fourteen variants of each race, have the races simplified and build the variety into the optional templates instead.

Mechanically it's not that different. It just exposes what they're currently building into the subraces and filling books with as mechanics that can be applied more generically. This lets me pick and choose the mechanics I want to allow or tweak, and build my own flavor text as necessary. Don't like the idea of wild elves, but maybe some nature-loving nomadic dwarves appeal to you? Great, just throw the "wild" template onto the dwarf instead!

This is probably more a pet peeve of mine as I read several settings, and discerning just how or why this type of elf is different from that type of elf is beyond annoying after several years of it. It's even worse now that all the human subraces are being introduced and I have to re-read race descriptions several times before I can get a mental image of (for example) the Fhokki as norsemen, the Dejy as american indians crossed with asians, the Kalamarians as Anglosaxons, the Brandobians as Normans and the Reeanarians as Italians (or whatever), when what they're really trying to convey is that one type is more barbaric, one type is more nature-oriented, one type is more diplomatic, etc. It would be much easier to just come out and say that instead of burying mechanics under piles of not necessarily descriptive flavor text.

This isn't a slam against Kalamar - it's just the poster child for subraces causing me endless headaches in trying to capture the "feeling" of what they're about and thus my ability to form a mental picture of them.

 

[Merlion]

Well let me preface this by saying I never actualy played 1st edition. and, that I do love DnD although I dislike certain DNDisms. I realize that DnD started out as Gygax and Arensons personal game that was done how they wanted it. However, it has become more than that...it has become a generic fantasy game in terms of how its used...the design just doesnt always reflect that,

So here goes:

Fire and forget magic as the only option. the Vancian stories are the only ones I know of that have magic working this way. Related to this, the way that magic and the classes are dealt with, in several respects. Wizards supposedly gain ALL there power from study and learning. No innate gift, no nothing. Its all simply because they learn how to do it. I cant recall a story offhand wherein magic was like that...no innate spark no nothing like that. This also leads to the whole spellbook thing...a wizards power is tied entirly to there spellbooks.
the Arcane/divine magic divide, and clerics. Again this is something not seen in fantasy and mythology...there are often different forms and discplines of magic, but rarely are they as exclusive as arcane/divine is in DnD. In most things magic is a ohesive whole, even if there are different discplines or even forms of it. The division of what each kind can do in DnD is also rather steep. Arcane magic isnt allowed to heal(aside from bards for some reason), it purely the domain of the divine. same with spells dealing directly with good and evil. I think magic should just be magic.
the cleric class, first has balance issues and second(and linked to the arcane/divine divide) is a role that I dont really feel fits into high fantasy. Really I dont see the need for a priest CLASS at all since anyone can really fill the role. However, I can see having one perhaps, although having the priest class also automaticaly be a strong combat class to me seems odd, and also makes the Paladin class redundant. And since the Paladin, in my mind, fits the things that the cleric is based on(templars etc) better, its the cleric that needs fixing.
There shouldnt be one healing class. generaly, anyone who can use magic in literature can use it to heal, at least somewhat.

The dependency on magic items is unpleasant on a great many levels.

Short elves are annoying.

The alignment system is annoying. I dont having one, and having mechanics with it, but as is said before a more definite stand should be taken on it. I also find the Law/Chaos part of it entirly absurd.

I dont mind subraces. And yes other than humans there are at least 2 or 3 of most of the common races. Some are somewhat redundant however.

Linked to my whole arcane/divine magic thing, I find many spells to be drasticaly misplaced. the fact that wizards dont get animate objects, spell immunity, spell resistance, find the path, air walk, and various other spells that just seem like basic magical effects to me, is very strange.

Alignment restrictions, and especialy the paladin's and the fact that a Paladin must be Sir Galahad or loose his or her powers.

The fact that no matter how much you practice you cant fight with any 2 weapons without penalty.

I do like the current bard but I agree that the fop image is overdone and it should be easier to have a bard who's truly an imposing figure

To an extent, the whole hp/ac/abstract combat thing. I dont see that as being core to the nature of DnD, I think a better system could be designed and used, and only improve the flavour.

I think that pretty much covers the biggies course theres lots of little details here and there but most are unimportant.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Healing magic being solely the domain of divine casters. I'd say that there's plenty of books, movies, and other fictional sources with the equivalent of arcane casters healing people. Feels very "game-y" to me.

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

Oh! So EVERYONE is completely happy with the way there is no appreciable difference in spell casting ability or anything else at all (!) between regular wizards and specialists!

then i must be wrong if everyone else likes it . . .


(goes home to pout...)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oh! So EVERYONE is completely happy with the way there is no appreciable difference in spell casting ability or anything else at all (!) between regular wizards and specialists!

then i must be wrong if everyone else likes it . . .


(goes home to pout...)

Well, back in 1e it wasn't a problem, because the only specialist possible was the illusionist who had - gasp - their own spell list with several spells unique to them. Sadly they ditched this and went with the current simplistic system from 2e onwards.

So strictly speaking this isn't an issue that has bugged me since 1e, because I think they were doing it right at that point...

===

In terms of issues that always have bugged me:

Fire and forget magic which always works perfectly. Almost all stories include the possibility of magic going awry, and it just doesn't happen in D&D (unless you try a scroll to big for you, when there is a vague chance it might).

Separation of clerical and divine magic, with different spell lists and different rules for how it works/can be cast/etc. I'd prefer one big spell list with classes getting preferential access, like Monte has done in AU.

Alignment.

No basic campaign world in the game. One of the reasons why we originally decamped to Runequest from D&D was the lovely campaign setting that came with it, which was very evocative. "Greyhawk" is the setting by default in terms of spell names (always) and gods (in current editions), but apart from the proliferation of names which sound as if they've been made up by a 12 year old, there was nothing that you could base a campaign on. Not even a map.

Cheers

 

[Tonguez]

PowerWordDumb: I'm not really certain how the template concept is all that different from the subraces idea. (It sounds interesting, though.

IMHO (if I may comment) Templates are superior to subraces because of where they place control - into the hands of the DM.
The DM can take an 'base race' applies a template and kewl - brand new campaign specific Arctic Dwarf.

To put it simply
A subrace means that the DM takes an axe and cuts things out, a template means he takes a brush and colours things in ...

 

[diaglo]

750+ Years old people who don't sleep...

i suck at the rules. but i don't remember this from 1ed.


2ed and the novels yes. but not 1ed.

 

[Scarbonac]

Hmmm, customizeable ''racial'' or ''environmental'' templates as explained herein in place of subraces sound like a very good idea; definitely something to think about.

Danke.