What D&Disms have you never liked?

[LostSoul]

Clerics.

edit: Of course, I played one over the course of a year-long campaign... but still.

 

[Mercule]

1) Vancian Magic. Even after nearly 30 years, I like slots no more than when I first tried the game. Paradoxically, I love the pages and pages of quirky spells that come with D&D. I don't know what that means, other than I won't ever play the wizard.

2) Clerical magic works exactly like wizardly magic, except for a few restricted effects. There should be very little similarity between the two.

3) The Far Realms. I actually wouldn't have considered this a D&Dism if someone else hadn't mentioned. It wasn't there until sometime in 2e, AFAIK. Unfortunately, it's grafted itself on rather thoroughly. It's an utter mismatch and needs to go. I've never cared for most aberrations, either (beholders? WTF?), so that may be related.

4) Upgrading magic equipment. Heroes don't swap out their iconic weapons.

 

[S'mon]

Um, those aren't D&Disms, S'mon. "Scry-Buff-Teleport" isn't a common assumption, nor is CoDzilla. It's a rules abuse/CharOps problem, a balance issue, not something related to the Game itself. .

I disagree, and I have a slightly higher post count than you, so

 

[Orius]

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.

This to some degree. After a while the pseudo-medieval Tolkien ripoff gets a bit stale. And even if you try to put other cultures analogous to real world ones on the map, realistically you won't see much action in them with travel times by conventional means. Stuff like teleportation networks, airships and the like can get a bigger chunk of the world in play, but it also depends on just how much of the world needs to be in play in the first place.

+1 to +5 weapons and armor. You never see fighters and such who carry weapons (or armor) through their whole career. Instead they dump their weapon (or armor) at the first hint of a new shiny.

I'm moving towards an approach that uses a combination of something like legacy weapons and having most weapons better than +3 be all unique items with various powers in my approach to campaing development. Legacy weapons go a long way towards fixing "dumping my family's +1 longsword for a higher bonus" problem that's long been in D&D. I also feel that powerful weapons aren't just going to have a flat bonus, there's going to be a reason someone crafted them in the first place. I'm not really bothered by vanilla +1 or 2 weapons being relatively common as magic items go, or even have an arms merchant who has an occasional +1/2 weapon, or a +1 weapon with a single power for sale.

Gold for magic items. It just throws any semblance of a workable economy right out the window, and punishes creative use of money - and mundane equipment.

Players need something to spend the money on. If not magic items, then they should have something like a barony, trading company, temple, or whatever for using the money. And something enjoyable for the player instead of the old-school approach of socking them with training costs, taxes or finding various gold sinks to drain away all the gold the party was accumulating the acquire XP.

Most of the other D&Disms don't really bother me too much.

 

[Sadrik]

Chump to god advancement model.

 

[Rechan]

Players need something to spend the money on.

In my experience, rarely are players or characters motivated by MONEY. Aside from the "Gotta steal" rogues, generally the only thing about loot that's exciting is that it is either about loot or getting your class abilities.

In my experience, most adventure motivations are not "get lots of cash". Maybe it was different in the old days (where gp = xp), or Conan style games, but usually adventurers are Adventuring to stop bad guys, make the world better, or are on personal quests. Or even just exploration.

If that's the case... then why is money needed at all? Why have gold at all? Sure, chests full of gold is traditional, but what's the point of it from a story perspective OR a mechanical perspective?

If money is no longer tied to the mechanics system, then money will not be important. Why is that bad?

 

[Rechan]

While we're at it:

We Need A Healer. 4e made a step in the right direction in making many different kinds of healers, and healing not being an all-time-job, but even so, if your party lacks a healer, it seriously impacts your game. To the point that not having a healer is a pain the ass for everyone, so someone has to suck it up and play one.

What's In Your Hand Is Important. No other system I know makes such a big deal of "what you're holding right now"; D&D has a whole economy of actions just to switch what's in your hand. The Swordmage handjive is a travesty.

Combat Is It. Every edition, the lion's share of the rules are about combat. Sure, there are a few noncombat rules, but compare the robust options (feats, powers, spells, equipment) you have for combat vs. what you can do outside of combat. This is predicated by the notion that, to gain XP, you need to kill monsters. RP award Xp has never really had a codified system, nor achieving XP for non-combat goals; that's purely been up to the DM, and thus, rarely touched on in books with a system. Skill challenges are a move in the right direction, but other systems handle it way more elegantly where social situations are an actual mini-game, like combat is a mini-game.

Resource Management. That's really what D&D is about. Managing your loot to get better magical items. Managing your spells. Managing your actions. Managing your HP. I'm a very 'fast and loose and if it ain't relevant to the story I don't give a damn' type of person, so accounting for GP and XP for item crafting and what we want to sell to get GP to buy this, how much ammo I'm down or - AUGH. Book keeping is not fun for me at all.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

...over reliance on magic items.

Seconded. Will we ever get an edition without enhancement bonuses?

Also high on my list are alignment restrictions and many alignment-related mechanics (detect evil, etceteras), though I like alignment for what it was meant to be.

 

[Leatherhead]

I must be the only person that likes Vancian magic, especially when compared to spell-point systems (which I hate).

I dislike mountains of hps, and spells such as "cure light wounds" which only serve to replenish said mountains of hps. Oddly, I like clerics, or at least the idea of them. Paladins seem a bit redundant however.

The idea of a "normal fighter." And doubly so when said "normal fighter" is implied to be on-par with everything else. Even as low as level 5 a character is demonstrably superhuman. At the very least it should be conceded that a fighter is not "normal", even if they started out as a human farmer.

I also dislike overspecialization in characters. But that isn't really system specific.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Wow, I guess I didn't realize how much I loved D&Disms until reading through this thread.

Chump to champ, Vancian magic, D&D clerics, finding better magic items (and selling/trading the old stuff), tracking resources, class roles...love 'em.

I will cop to disliking the reliance on magic items--I like more of a gritty sword and sorcery feel--but a good DM can easily address that.