What D&Disms have you never liked?

[shadow]

We've all played and enjoyed D&D, but let's face it, there are certain assumptions inherent in the core game that we don't like. For me, it's the Vancian magic system and the cleric class. (Thankfully the Vancian magic system is considerably less prominent in 4e.) I never liked the cleric class because it always seemed like a weird admixture of pre-Christian paganism, Catholicism, medieval martial traditions, and wizardly spell casting. Other minor things I dislike about core D&D include the extremely high level of magic inherent in the default settings and the over reliance on magic items.

Perhaps that's why I can't really get into D&D derived rpgs such as Pathfinder - rather than trying to steer away from the core assumptions, they actively embrace them or even try to up them. When I create my own settings, I like to tinker with the rules and try to get away from the standard "vanilla" D&D fantasy.

What default assumptions and D&Disms do you dislike?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

clerics

Like you, I dislike the cleric class. However, I like the enormous lists of magic items and spells -- I think they give D&D its unique flavor.

I also dislike alignment, though it's way better now that PCs dont get punished for changing alignment. I also dislike the fact that armor doesn't absorb damage.

Ken

 

[jaerdaph]

I never cared for the Eastern-flavored monk. I want monks to be more like Friar Tuck.

 

[Trihelios]

For me, D&D is not a generic fantasy game capable of running anything, the rules and assumptions make it its own setting fuelled and inspired by the rules and quirks.

As such I'm fine with most of the things, however...

Hit points bug me, without special abilities coming into play all damage is generic and has no effect until it brings you from completely healthy to dead. You can't shoot someone in the leg or get blood in your eyes from a headwound. I mean you can describe it and roleplay it, but it still doesn't affect the system on a game level.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I dislike the Vancian magic. Clerics I'm ok with, but I'd prefer that Wizards got some healing spells too. Armor not absorbing damage irks me. I'm tempted to say hit points as well, for the reasons given above, but I just ignore how silly they are and work with them.

Edit: Oh yeah, Alignment. Never could stand it.

 

[SKyOdin]

1: The Far Realms. I just plain hate the Far Realms. It muddles up perfectly good cosmologies, and I don't think it is even remotely necessary if you want to have Lovecraftian horror.

2: The utter dominance of medieval western fantasy. Most campaign settings fit into this mold, with few significant alternatives. I wouldn't mind having more Asian themed settings, completely fantastic and over-the-top settings, settings with lost technology, and even Final Fantasy-like modern-magitech settings.

3: Fantasy gun control.

 

[Set]

Alignments. Never really cared for the concept.

I don't mind Clerics, but it would have been interesting to see a non-spellcasting cleric that had the ability to channel energy in different ways, similar to more cinematic depictions of 'holy power,' to ward off foes, heal wound, smite the wicked, etc. in the form of 'miracles.' Each priest would have the ability to channel divine power, and a series of class-level-acquired feats that allow him to channel that power in a different way, to heal, smite, ward, call up outsiders, etc.

Vancian spellcasting. I love the concept of the warlock, for that reason (the sorcerer, with spell slots, was just another completely missed-the-point concept). I read tons of fantasy (and watch it on TV, etc.) and the concept of a 'wizard' who reads a book in the morning, casts a spell and then forgets it, just seems crazy specific to me. I know that D&D was never meant to be simulationist of anything, but it bugged me that the 'magic-users' felt nothing like any sort of magician that I'd spent a lifetime reading about, being shackled to the writing of a single writer, whose paradigm never really caught on.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hit points bother me; but more fundamentally the underlying assumptions that damage is not hindering or painful, health is merely a resource to be used, and that full recovery from injury is assumed and takes place extremely quickly. In this regard, all editions of D&D are "video game-y". Obviously, they make the game easier to play, but at a great cost in verisimilitude. As someone who's spent time in in physical therapy and rehab and is trying to go into medicine, the untruth of these assumptions is glaring to me.

 

[nightwyrm]

Vancian magic. Speaking as someone who had never read any of Jack Vance's stuff, the system made no sense to me when I first picked up D&D during 2nd ed.

 

[Set]

I never cared for the Eastern-flavored monk. I want monks to be more like Friar Tuck.

Dark Ages of Camelot has a staff and robe fighting 'cleric' that really fits that Friar Tuck mold well. It could be interesting to see a D&D class that followed that theme.