Those Quirks, Those Quirks

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't DM 3e anymore, but I find myself thinking about its quirks. This thread is NOT a dig at 3e, it's me asking if its quirks bother current 3e players and DMs like they bother me. Do you house rule them out, or live with them? (Feel free to add things that bug you, if you'd like.)
--The CR/EC system assumes that PCs pack magical bling, but there are no clear guidelines for exactly how much or how gaudy.
--CR is supposed to provide a yardstick for a DM to build encounters, but there are no clear guidelines for judging CR. Monster advancement rules are absurd.
--Certain very unique character concepts like spellthief, LG paladin, bard, ranger, druid are base classes while other equally unique concepts are not like the evil & CG paladin.
--Barbarian illiteracy. So the hippy-tree-hugger who was raised by wolves knows how to read and write, and the street punk pickpocket graduated from the Head Start program, but barbarians are categorically illiterate? What's the deal?
--Anyone can pick up Improved Initiative, Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus, but Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and speed boosts are somehow worthy of restriction.
--We roll for random abilities and HP, but not for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level.
--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.
--Smaller and larger size categories modify attack rolls and AC exponentially, but all other stats linearly. Categories modify Hide, but not MS or any perception skills. Apparently that giant is easy to spot but his footsteps are just as soft as mine.
--Half-orcs are a standard PC race, but orcs aren't.
--Alignment and multiclassing restrictions. I don't like game mechanics telling me how to role play my character, or which life path he would or would not take.
--The morningstar and mace are the same except one is heavier and more expensive. Out of a thousand weapons scattered throughout a dozen splatbooks, your weapon choice basically comes down to: weapon & shield, two weapons, big weapon or bow. So why do we need a thousand stats for what should be mostly a descriptive decision?
--We roll to attack with a sword, but we name a DC to attack with a fireball.
--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.
--It's okay for everyone to have dozens of HP at high levels, because everyone has a 5% chance to die every time they take 50 damage. How exactly does this simulate anything?
--Dual wielding is great for a ranger or rogue, but categorically sucks for anyone else.
--Some schools of magic are defined by their means, others by their ends. Forcecage is evocation, mage armor is conjuration and shield is abjuration. Inflicts are necromancy, but cures are conjuration.
--Power Attack & other options that allow PCs to trade accuracy for damage are required to survive at high levels, but they're optional.

 

[FEADIN]

I live with them, nearly no house rule, when you've played 1st and 2nd edition the "quirks" are only rules (sometimes strange or laughable) where they were none before.

 

[green slime]

I don't DM 3e anymore, but I find myself thinking about its quirks. This thread is NOT a dig at 3e, it's me asking if its quirks bother current 3e players and DMs like they bother me. Do you house rule them out, or live with them? (Feel free to add things that bug you, if you'd like.)

Wierd, but I'll try to humour you.

--The CR/EC system assumes that PCs pack magical bling, but there are no clear guidelines for exactly how much or how gaudy.

Um, IMO, there is. We have the expected wealth by level guidelines, the ability for players to create their own magical items, and PCs are expected to purchase magical items. What exactly where you expecting?!? It is all going to vary according to player & DM tastes anyway!

--CR is supposed to provide a yardstick for a DM to build encounters, but there are no clear guidelines for judging CR. Monster advancement rules are absurd.

Is this a huge problem? Makes it impossible to run a game at all? Or is it merely a minor inconvenience? Coming from 1e / 2e, I think the 3.x system is "more than adequate". Any more detailed/involved, and its going to get bogged down.

--Certain very unique character concepts like spellthief, LG paladin, bard, ranger, druid are base classes while other equally unique concepts are not like the evil & CG paladin.

Um... I disagree. Spell thief is not a base class that is available in the core three, and there are books covering the evil & cg paladin, for those who feel that is a shortcoming of the core 3. Personally, I agree with Gygax original comments regarding the inclusion of paladin and the lack of a blackguard back in the day of 1e.

You don't need WotC's approval to create and include a character concept base class for your game, if that is what you wish for.

--Barbarian illiteracy. So the hippy-tree-hugger who was raised by wolves knows how to read and write, and the street punk pickpocket graduated from the Head Start program, but barbarians are categorically illiterate? What's the deal?

Hippy tree-hugger? Not aware of that base character class. Nor the street punk pickpockets class. Either of those two concepts could be barbarian class characters.

--Anyone can pick up Improved Initiative, Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus, but Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and speed boosts are somehow worthy of restriction.

*Shrug* Your perfectly free to change this in your games. Any game will have similar seemingly arbitrary restrictions somewhere. Speed boosts exist in multiple forms: feats, magical items, and spells. Then there is a ring od Evasion. I'm not seeing this as a hindrance to my ability to immerse into the game, and have fun.

--We roll for random abilities and HP, but not for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level.

You want to roll for starting level?!??!

--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.

there really isn't that much difference between medium and short. Given that everything is modulised in 5' increments, would you have small characters have no reach?

--Smaller and larger size categories modify attack rolls and AC exponentially, but all other stats linearly. Categories modify Hide, but not MS or any perception skills. Apparently that giant is easy to spot but his footsteps are just as soft as mine.

Elephants walk pretty quietly.

--Half-orcs are a standard PC race, but orcs aren't.

? I'm not understanding your problems here.

--Alignment and multiclassing restrictions. I don't like game mechanics telling me how to role play my character, or which life path he would or would not take.

I agree with your reservations surrounding the multiclass restrictions: the designers themselves suggested they had only been included as a kind of last minute salute to certain phalanx of conservative types. I do agree with the alignment restrictions. I'd have no problem altering those if I felt it was called for in a campaign, but I have yet to have a campaign where I thought chaotic monks or lawful barbarians were appropriate.

--The morningstar and mace are the same except one is heavier and more expensive. Out of a thousand weapons scattered throughout a dozen splatbooks, your weapon choice basically comes down to: weapon & shield, two weapons, big weapon or bow. So why do we need a thousand stats for what should be mostly a descriptive decision?

I disagree in part. There are some redundant choices, I agree. But on the whole, you get to choose:
same damage die, different critical threat (18-20, 19-20, 20), different critical multiplier (x2, x3, x4).
larger damage die, exotic weapon
smaller damage die, simple weapon

Which all affect the flavour and reflect the temperament and desires of the player: Do I want to do more damage on a critical less often, or crit more often, and do slightly less damage?

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

That is a problem?

--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.

Turn Undead is clunky, and should definitely be rethought to a degree.

--It's okay for everyone to have dozens of HP at high levels, because everyone has a 5% chance to die every time they take 50 damage. How exactly does this simulate anything?

I think you are placing the horse before the cart in this case. Would you prefer characters to have less hp?

--Dual wielding is great for a ranger or rogue, but categorically sucks for anyone else.

Really? Perhaps. Maybe that is why it wasn't so common in the real world.

--Some schools of magic are defined by their means, others by their ends. Forcecage is evocation, mage armor is conjuration and shield is abjuration. Inflicts are necromancy, but cures are conjuration.

There is some inconsistency here. I don't let it bother me too much, except when the introduced new spells that broke the mold.

--Power Attack & other options that allow PCs to trade accuracy for damage are required to survive at high levels, but they're optional.

Required?!? Don't know about that. I don't see any scenario in which a DM decides a character must die, that Power Attack will prevent that character death. So, the obverse is also true: We play with a DM. The DM moderates the game. Players are challenged. Fun ensues. Power attack or no. You can't claim that there is a high level monster that the DM must include, that can only be handled by Power Attack!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You have a funny idea of quirks--some of these are flat-out wrong and others don't strike me as quirky at all. I didn't house rule very many of these--my house rules were focused in other places.

I don't DM 3e anymore, but I find myself thinking about its quirks. This thread is NOT a dig at 3e, it's me asking if its quirks bother current 3e players and DMs like they bother me. Do you house rule them out, or live with them? (Feel free to add things that bug you, if you'd like.)
--The CR/EC system assumes that PCs pack magical bling, but there are no clear guidelines for exactly how much or how gaudy.

Sure there is. The expected wealth by level guidelines tell you how much magical bling the PCs are expected to pack. Now, it can be as gaudy as the PCs want, but assuming the players make reasonably rational choices as to what bling to pack, the system works fairly well on that basis.

--CR is supposed to provide a yardstick for a DM to build encounters, but there are no clear guidelines for judging CR. Monster advancement rules are absurd.

In general, the monster advancement rules worked pretty well as long as you did not set out with the intention to create something that was tougher or weaker than its CR would otherwise indicate.

--Certain very unique character concepts like spellthief, LG paladin, bard, ranger, druid are base classes while other equally unique concepts are not like the evil & CG paladin.

This one does seem a little funny, now that I think of it. I never houseruled it, but there is a lot further you could go along these lines--particularly with prestige classes. Spellsword, eldritch knight, and duskblade, for instance, all cover the same conceptual ground with different mechanics and different degrees of success.

--Barbarian illiteracy. So the hippy-tree-hugger who was raised by wolves knows how to read and write, and the street punk pickpocket graduated from the Head Start program, but barbarians are categorically illiterate? What's the deal?

I house-ruled this one. Depending upon where you chose your character to be from, you could be illiterate.

--Anyone can pick up Improved Initiative, Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus, but Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and speed boosts are somehow worthy of restriction.

Speed boosts were actually available through feats as well--dash, for instance.

Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are also definitely better than the feats you have listed. You might as well complain that there was not a feat that allowed you to cast haste.

--We roll for random abilities and HP, but not for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level.

Hardly a quirk unique to 3.x. It's been true of D&D from the beginning. I also house-ruled it. Point buy and fixed hp. (It is also necessary for the game to be playable. Rolling for stats produces some imbalances but, on the whole, tends to produce characters who are in a similar range. On the other hand, rolling for level or class would produce unplayable characters or unplayable parties--but you know this, don't you).

--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.

You also generally had lower speed and reduced carrying capacity. The small-lite aspect of the rules seems more the norm in role-playing games than a quirk of 3.5. Seeing how much further both previous editions and 4th edition took this aspect, it's not really a quirk of the system--the quirk is size having non-cosmetic effects at all.

--Smaller and larger size categories modify attack rolls and AC exponentially, but all other stats linearly. Categories modify Hide, but not MS or any perception skills. Apparently that giant is easy to spot but his footsteps are just as soft as mine.

I would advise you to read the tracking rules. It is easier to track large creatures than small ones. (Also, you will note that changing size does produce larger increases in statistics (strength, grapple, etc) as the size categories become larger or smaller).

--Half-orcs are a standard PC race, but orcs aren't.

Not too surprising given the source material. (In LotR, saruman's half-orcs were able to blend in in places like Bree and become a part of the local community but true orcs were not). I suppose this was another house rule of mine in some games. One game I ran was human only; another had humans, orcs and half-orcs.

--Alignment and multiclassing restrictions. I don't like game mechanics telling me how to role play my character, or which life path he would or would not take.

I take it you mean paladin and monk multiclassing restrictions? Regardless of those, 3.x had the most robust multiclassing system of any class based RPG before or after.

As for alignment restrictions, they are essential to certain concepts--particularly the paladin--whose abilities primarily made sense within a context of behavior and ideals that fit the lawful good alignment as commonly described.

--The morningstar and mace are the same except one is heavier and more expensive. Out of a thousand weapons scattered throughout a dozen splatbooks, your weapon choice basically comes down to: weapon & shield, two weapons, big weapon or bow. So why do we need a thousand stats for what should be mostly a descriptive decision?

One is also p/b (and thus able to become keen and potentially defeat a rakshasa's DR) while the other is only b. As for the rest, there is a long tradition in D&D and most mainstream RPGs that tie specific stats to specific weapons making mechanical distinctions between, for instance, a battle axe and a war-sword. It would be quirky if 3.x had followed a few indie-RPGs and discarded all differentiation between weapons.

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

Nothing particularly quicky about that. The conceptual difference is that with the sword you are trying to cut through something, but with many (most) spells, you cast the spell and it happens--you don't have to hit. The question is whether the other guy can resist. Admittedly, this is more clear conceptually with spells like finger of death than fireball, but there is a conceptual distinction.

--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.

Turn undead was always a wacky mechanic. I never house-ruled it, but I'll admit it was odd.

--It's okay for everyone to have dozens of HP at high levels, because everyone has a 5% chance to die every time they take 50 damage. How exactly does this simulate anything?

Death by massive damage. That's hardly the "OK for everyone to have dozens of hp" mechanic. (Really, at level 15, dozens of hit points could go away just as quickly as a handful of hit points went away at level 2). It was a bizarre rule though and one that I house-ruled.

--Dual wielding is great for a ranger or rogue, but categorically sucks for anyone else.

Not quite true on either count. (It's not always great for rangers and there were corner cases that could make it worthwhile for others). I must say, however, that I greatly preferred that quirk to the 2e and 4e versions where everyone wanted to dual wield all the time.

--Some schools of magic are defined by their means, others by their ends. Forcecage is evocation, mage armor is conjuration and shield is abjuration. Inflicts are necromancy, but cures are conjuration.

Can't say those particular ones ever bothered me. Now, there were quite a few splatbook spells that did bother me--blast of flame, orb of force, etc should have been evocations.

--Power Attack & other options that allow PCs to trade accuracy for damage are required to survive at high levels, but they're optional.

What "other options" are you talking about? Pretty much, it's just power attack. And it was optional in the sense that you could be effective without using it (in fact, you would be more effective if you were not a good judge of how much to power attack for in what situation). Also, there were a number of classes or concepts that had no use for such mechanics. Archers, for instance, did not have one and did not need one. Spellcasters likewise had no comparable mechanic.

 

[Rhun]

As an avid roleplayer since the days of 1E, and having played many, many game systems, quirks are just something I've come to accept. I either live with them, or I houserule them if it is something I just can't live with. To this day I've never had a quirk in any system that I couldn't work around.

 

[aboyd]

--The CR/EC system assumes that PCs pack magical bling, but there are no clear guidelines for exactly how much or how gaudy.

Wealth table on page 135 of DMG solves this for me.

--CR is supposed to provide a yardstick for a DM to build encounters, but there are no clear guidelines for judging CR. Monster advancement rules are absurd.

This and this make building balanced encounters a snap. Non-issue for me.

--Certain very unique character concepts like spellthief, LG paladin, bard, ranger, druid are base classes while other equally unique concepts are not like the evil & CG paladin.

I'm fine with that.

--Barbarian illiteracy.

I'm fine with that.

--Anyone can pick up Improved Initiative, Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus, but Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and speed boosts are somehow worthy of restriction.

I like feat trees, where you have to "unlock" a feat by buying into prerequisites. To me, it's a feature not a bug.

--We roll for random abilities and HP, but not for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level.

At character creation, I don't want any rolls at all. My players use average HP and point buy for stats. I like it.

--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].

Untrue. Others have noted various drawbacks that one must indeed suffer. However, if you're fixated on reach, I would note that tiny creatures do have the reach issue you hunger for. Making small size characters use the tiny size rules would take all of a few seconds to house rule, so I'm not sure why something that quickly solved would ever be worth a bullet point.

--Smaller and larger size categories modify attack rolls and AC exponentially, but all other stats linearly.

I'm fine with that.

--Half-orcs are a standard PC race, but orcs aren't.

I'm fine with that.

--Alignment and multiclassing restrictions.

I'm fine with that.

--The morningstar and mace are the same except one is heavier and more expensive. Out of a thousand weapons scattered throughout a dozen splatbooks, your weapon choice basically comes down to: weapon & shield, two weapons, big weapon or bow. So why do we need a thousand stats for what should be mostly a descriptive decision?

As with some of your other points, other posters have pointed out that you are actually wrong; those "thousands of stats" are actually statting out material differences that affect gameplay. In addition, I don't buy the assertion that we have such limited weapon choices. I've played characters using spiked bolas, nets, flask-chuckers, whip & spiked chain trip builds, and so on. I like this.

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

I'm fine with that.

--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.

I house-ruled that.

--It's okay for everyone to have dozens of HP at high levels, because everyone has a 5% chance to die every time they take 50 damage. How exactly does this simulate anything?

I can't tell what your problem is here. You don't like the massive damage rule? I house-ruled it away. It took all of 5 seconds to post "no massive damage" to the house rules forum of our private game site. Or is your problem with characters having dozens of HP? It's an abstraction to simulate survival in combat. I'm fine with that.

--Dual wielding is great for a ranger or rogue, but categorically sucks for anyone else.

I disagree. However, even if it is true, I'm fine with that.

--Some schools of magic are defined by their means, others by their ends.

I'm fine with that.

--Power Attack & other options that allow PCs to trade accuracy for damage are required to survive at high levels, but they're optional.

Because they're not actually required. I don't have the problem you experience.

 

[Jhaelen]

Umm. I pretty much disagree about most of these 'quirks', of the remaining few almost none really bother me, except these:
- Rolling for stats: we use point-buy exclusively
- Rolling hp: pcs have the option to get average hp, rather than rolling.
- Yeah, the turning rules suck. It doesn't matter much, though, since turning attempts can be used more effectively with divine and domain feats

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I thought quirks would be...not this.

For example, a quirk of the 3E rules system to me would be the difference between wearing and carrying armor.

If you're wearing full plate, custom-designed for your body shape and measurements, you suffer an armor check penalty to movement skills and cannot tumble (unless a dwarf).

If you're carrying a suit of full plate (layed flat and stacked up, let's say) in your arms,, assuming you have a decent str score ot keep it as a light load, you suffer no acp and can tumble as much as you want.

As to what to do about it, I don't care enough to do something about the acp issue. It can remain a quirk. I don't think I'd allow a PC to roll around on the ground carrying all that metal, though. It's just...too stupid to allow.


Most of what you list are features or not actual problems.
-There is a wealth by level table, and CR system is decent enough for advancing monsters. What's challenging will vary based on the party, anyway.
-Don't mind some obscure things being prestige and others being base classes. And you could always expand a prestige class into a base class. Assassin is popular for doing that.
-Barb illiteracy is more about cultures that don't keep much or any written language and pass things down orally. And it is very easy to get rid of -- 2 skill points or multiclass. I think Illumian Barbs don't suffer that penalty, iirc.
-Evasion, UD, and speed boosts are better than Weapon Focus, etc... There's a ring of Evasion, many items, feats, and classes for speed boosts, and...uncanny dodge is just REALLY nice.
-A lot of groups use the optional rules for fixed hp and point buy. And why would you want more randomness that affects the entire lifetime of a PC? Starting level?!
-Small has many other problems compared to being medium, and it's very hard to make a viable small warrior type. They may still have reach, but they also pay the same for armor, weapons, and items. Small also affects carrying cpaacity, mods on many combat maneuvers (bull rush, grapple, trip...), can sometimes be the difference between whether you can be Snatched or eaten, how strong winds affect you... And the fact that you'll seldom find small weapons in dungeon treasure blows chunks.
-What do you mean? The attack/AC mods remain fairly linear until you get really far from medium: +/- 0/1/2/4... Few things will be more than 3 sizes different than medium.
-Orcs are right in the MM if you want. And so what? The base game assumes orcs don't typically get along in normal society. Same reason Drow, Goblins, and Gnolls are in the MM.
-Alignment's been around from previous editions. If you don't like it, get rid of it. I like it, myself, so no change. Multiclass restrictions are to prevent abusing the otherwise completely open multiclassing system. And to me, if you do get a level disparity between classes, aside from favored, it sort of makes sense that you've lost focus and gain xp slower. In any case, if you know how to build a character right, this should never be a problem. Sometimes, it's not even so bad. I never got him to high enough level, but i had a Goliath Martial Rogue / Barbarian. After 8 levels in each, I planned to jump into Warblade to prove multiclass xp penalties weren't so bad -- more wealth vs. levle means more relative power, and if in a fixed party, the extra xp from being lower level will eventually offset the penalty. That character was partly devoted to proving commonly held beliefs about what's good and bad (build-wise) to be wrong. And he became my most broken character!
-Morningstar is actually strictly better than a mace -- two damage types. There are a thousand different weapons because they never just made a points sytem to design your own. But there are a lot of features besides damage and crit range. My group makes up weapons as we like, and STILL find things the multitude of printed weapons haven't covered. We also make up our own stuff. For example, one ability that can be applied mostly to spear and polearms lets you switch grips to alternate between reach and non-reach as a swift action (because the feat that allows it is too weak to be a feat ). Another is wide-sweeping, +2 attack on whirlwind attacks, cleave attacks, and the IH maneuvers that are similar (Scything Blade, Mithral Tornado, and Adamantine Hurricane, iirc). Weapons with that property are very good for clearing a cluttered battlefield at early levels. Coming up with more and more weapon properties makes choosing a weapon more fun.
-Fireball isnt a weapon-like spell, it spreads out over the entire area. It's only an attack in 4E, and in regards to ending spells like Sanctuary and Invisibilty (and even then, I think it'd be more appropriately called an "aggressive action").
-Turn Undead is weird. But it lets my evil Cleric control undead to make a smal larmy, so it stays! And why would bull rush, grapple, etc... be against a DC? It makes sense for them to be opposed. I guess AC would make sense as an opposed roll, and there's a variant for that, rolling a d20 instead of "taking 10 on your AC roll," as they call the normal situation. But that'd mean A LOT more dice-rolling, which many wouldn't like in their games.
-It simulates a single, traumatic injury, shocking the system. That sad, I don't really like DfMD, and don't think it's hould be enforced at high levels, or ever, maybe. Because it's not fun, more than the realism thing.
-So what? Why should dual wielding be such a great idea for most people? And if you used a second weapon to rack up special abilities like defending (+x AC), it might be totally worth it to take a -2 when you full attack, just to cash in on those benefits. And lots of other classes can do well with TWF, if they take the right feats and maybe prestige classes.
-So what? [Force] is a subschool that transcends any one school of magic. And yeah, I never liked the heal/harm divide. My groups have long thought it should all fall under Necromancy.
-Many melee builds are viable without Power Attack. Only two-handers really should even bother taking it, since +1 attack is worth more than +1 damage. And if the 2H warrior is using something like a spiked chain, he might not even want PA, if he's relying on tripping and other combat tricks rather than sheer damage. I've built many S&B, TWF, and 2HF w/o PA, and they've survived quite well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

--The CR/EC system assumes that PCs pack magical bling, but there are no clear guidelines for exactly how much or how gaudy.
--CR is supposed to provide a yardstick for a DM to build encounters, but there are no clear guidelines for judging CR. Monster advancement rules are absurd.

Personally I just ignore the CR system. Who needs it?

--Certain very unique character concepts like spellthief, LG paladin, bard, ranger, druid are base classes while other equally unique concepts are not like the evil & CG paladin.

what's a base class and what isn't is inconsistent; the paladin is by far the worst example.

--Barbarian illiteracy. So the hippy-tree-hugger who was raised by wolves knows how to read and write, and the street punk pickpocket graduated from the Head Start program, but barbarians are categorically illiterate? What's the deal?

Stereotypes.

--Anyone can pick up Improved Initiative, Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus, but Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and speed boosts are somehow worthy of restriction.

Why evasion, UD, and various other class abilities can't be feats is puzzling.

--We roll for random abilities and HP, but not for any of the other two dozen PC stats, like starting level.

We roll nature and roleplay nurture.

--Half-orcs are a standard PC race, but orcs aren't.

Fine by me.

--Alignment and multiclassing restrictions. I don't like game mechanics telling me how to role play my character, or which life path he would or would not take.

Dumb rules. Easily fixed.

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

Turning is bizarre. Not rolling AC saves time, but there is inconsistency as to what's flar and what's rolled (though one could easily houserule that).

--It's okay for everyone to have dozens of HP at high levels, because everyone has a 5% chance to die every time they take 50 damage. How exactly does this simulate anything?

Massive damage rules are bad. A nice vp/wp system (UA) cures most of that.

--Dual wielding is great for a ranger or rogue, but categorically sucks for anyone else.

It ought not to be good because in RL it isn't. The exceptions to that are the strange thing, but people likee D&D characters that can do crazy stuff.

--Some schools of magic are defined by their means, others by their ends. Forcecage is evocation, mage armor is conjuration and shield is abjuration. Inflicts are necromancy, but cures are conjuration.

What, you expected magic to make sense? Yes the schools are somewhat arbitrary-a sacred cow from earlier editions.

--Power Attack & other options that allow PCs to trade accuracy for damage are required to survive at high levels, but they're optional.

That one's a head-scratcher, yeah. There ought to be some PA version of fighting defensively so everyone can do it.

 

[Theroc]

That one's a head-scratcher, yeah. There ought to be some PA version of fighting defensively so everyone can do it.

Doesn't Combat Expertise do that already?

Feats :: d20srd.org


Apologies if I missed any sarcasm in that.