Those Quirks, Those Quirks

[Keith Robinson]

I have to say, of the many criticisms thrown at 3ed, these rank as amongst the most bizarre and don't really merit a point by point response. I wouldn't bother playing any other edition of D&D either - they're just more of those wierd games where you don't get to roll...

for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level

I mean, really, what on earth does that actually mean?

Everyone has their pet peeves about whatever system they play as no system is perfect, but 'peeves' don't mean there is anything wrong with the system. People have argued long and hard about the flaws in 3ed and I have to say, none of the points the OP mentions fall into that category. It's just a random list of 'stuff I don't like'.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Doesn't Combat Expertise do that already?

Feats :: d20srd.org


Apologies if I missed any sarcasm in that.

He meant, you can still Fight Defensively if you don't have expertise. There is no free method of doing more damage for less attack bonus.

I houseruled Power Attack to help with that. Basically, without PA, anyone with a 1H or 2H weapon can subtract -1 to hit for +1 damage, up to a max of 5 (and can't exceed BAB). Taking PA gives 2H weapons the 2-for-1 value, allows off-hand and light weapons to get +1/2 damage per -1 attack, and allows you to subtract/add any value you want, up to your BAB.

Thus, if you're a Sword and Board Fighter, you can always take up to -5 to hit for +5 damage without ever needing to spend a feat. Only 2H fighters and possibly TWF would bother with the PA feat. I also houseruled that if you have PA and Oversized TWF, then 1H weapons in your off-hand count as such for PA attack/damage trade-off, but that might already be the RAW.

 

[Ahnehnois]

He meant, you can still Fight Defensively if you don't have expertise. There is no free method of doing more damage for less attack bonus.

I houseruled Power Attack to help with that. Basically, without PA, anyone with a 1H or 2H weapon can subtract -1 to hit for +1 damage, up to a max of 5 (and can't exceed BAB). Taking PA gives 2H weapons the 2-for-1 value, allows off-hand and light weapons to get +1/2 damage per -1 attack, and allows you to subtract/add any value you want, up to your BAB.

Thus, if you're a Sword and Board Fighter, you can always take up to -5 to hit for +5 damage without ever needing to spend a feat. Only 2H fighters and possibly TWF would bother with the PA feat. I also houseruled that if you have PA and Oversized TWF, then 1H weapons in your off-hand count as such for PA attack/damage trade-off, but that might already be the RAW.

Yes, what I meant is that it's strange that you can fight defensively without a feat but not 'fight powerfully' (trade attack for damage) without a feat, agreeing with the original point.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thanks for the replies everyone! To expand on a few ideas:

Easy House Rules: Yes, I realize most of this stuff can be fixed with three second HRs. I have a whole Tome of them. No, I never used nearly all of them, they're just a demonstration of amateur design.

Random Starting Level: I got the idea to roll for random level from a friend. I'd kill to play in his PF campaign if I could, even if I don't agree with some of his ideas. He thinks it'd be great to roll for starting level, and I can't think of an argument against him so long as we're also rolling for abilities and HP. We might as well also roll for feats (33% chance to get one each level), skill points (1d4, 1d8, 1d12 or 2d8 + Int per level), ability boosts (25% chance to get one each level, or for added randomness a 10% chance to get 1d4 boosts each level), etc...

Other Accuracy-for-Damage Options: Multishot, Empower/Maximize Spell. The combination of HP scaling geometrically and AB scaling faster than usual AC makes PA and MS important to high level play.

WBL: I would have appreciated simple guidelines like "martial PCs should have a weapon with an enhancement bonus equal to 1/4 their level." WBL alone is much too vague of a guideline. The first game I ever DMed got to about 10th level, but all the PCs were glass cannons because I didn't realize that I had to make sure they got AC and save boosters.

Illiteracy: It's just inconsistent. It's like the designers said "All PCs need to be able to read those ADVENTURERS WANTED tavern notices, so screw realism, everyone can read and write. Except for one class." I wouldn't mind illiteracy if it was a Flaw, or even if it was a standard rule to get 2 extra skill points, but the way it is now is just bizarre.

Dual Wielding: The heavy duty dual wielding warrior is a favorite concept of mine, but it takes some serious system mastery to handle well. It just bugs me, because it's pretty simple to tweak the TWF mechancis to make it viable for warrior types without overpowering sneaky types.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Illiteracy isn't a flaw, it's a trait!

 

[Runestar]

--Small size is more like Small Lite: you get to be cute and furry, but you don't have to suffer the logical drawbacks of being short [like reduced Reach]. You're effectively a Medium character that does a little less damage.

The idea is so that small PCs aren't at a disadvantage compared to medium PCs. In fact, for some classes, it would actually be more of a boon.

I wouldn't say that power attack is crucial to surviving at higher lvs, but it is just so useful that few would mind blowing a feat slot for it. Your attack rating is likely to increase faster than the foe's AC, so you will typically have excess bab left over, so might as well funnel it into extra damage via PA.

--We roll to attack with a sword, but we name a DC to attack with a fireball.

I guess the idea is that the fireball simply floods the area with fire, so there is no need to attack - it would automatically hit whoever is in its radius. But you do get a save to see if you can react quickly to mitigate the damage from the fire.

--Most of the game follows the simple 1d20 + modifiers pattern, except Turn Undead. And it's not even a better mechanic. Standard attacks require a roll vs. a DC, but special maneuvers require opposed rolls.

Not only that, but you would have an easier time turning a vampire than a zombie (cr-wise), and story-wise, who do you think should be harder to repel?

 

[Darklone]

About rolling the fireball DC: That´s simple.

The designers wanted ONE roll for everything. So you might set fixed saves like AC and roll for the DC... but that´s no real difference.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I find saves vs. spells quirky from a consistency standpoint, more than from a 'realism' standpoint. Although you can make the realism argument for static defenses too, if you think of spells as more of a direct manifestation of the caster's will rather than as a medieval grenade. Anywho.

About rolling the fireball DC: That´s simple.

The designers wanted ONE roll for everything. So you might set fixed saves like AC and roll for the DC... but that´s no real difference.

Technically, there is a difference but it's minor. Whoever rolls the d20 has a 2.5% edge over the bloke with the DC.