What D&Disms have you never liked?

[fba827]

I dislike classes and would in fact prefer a class-less system in order to fit a wider array of concepts. (Of course, that could lead to different effects in the hands of different types of players, but I disgress).

I dislike multiple magic items.. I'd much rather have focus on the PC and their abilities rather than I found this magc sword that makes me hit better and lights on fire. Or, even if I let that one slide, I dislike the disposable-ness of magic items... don't make it so appealing to toss aside this sword +1 that was written in as your family hierloom in order to start using something with a bigger plus and/or property effect. Don't get me wrong, a couple magic items is cool as would be evolving powers on them, and, yes, it can be done with house rules. but it takes a certain group to be able to accept that.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I could say I dislike the slot system spellcasting, but actually what bugs me about it is how you must rest to recharge yet there is no gradual fatigue as you use it or no partial recovery if you only rest part of the required time. The latter being more important as it just doesn't compute for me. If the single-time recharge were kept I'd much rather it be based on something that makes more sense like spells only recharge at one time in the day.

For Alignment what doesn't work is, in any given situation, either the elementalness of it OR creatures made of that elemental alignment bothering with alignment. The former just means Good, Evil, etc. being objective universal forces with tangibility; it's just a philosophical objection. The latter, however, is based on my feeling that morality is done based on a quest for a certainty of the nature of the universe by the possessor of said morality. But a being that's innately connected to a big moral force wouldn't have that uncertainty and thus wouldn't have the need to do the seeking and be moral. They'd actually be less (or even not) Good or Evil compared to a creature not made out of solid morality.

Another thing that bugs me is the amount of different options characters are assumed to rely upon after a certain point. Mages are assumed to know too many different spells, everyone is assumed to be armed with all the proper magic items. Resources have to be properly managed throughout the day and adventure to advance without problem. I just find stories odd that expect this level of obsessive preparedness and competency from their heroes. I'd much rather the system be designed to account for the impulsive/overconfident and half-trained/experienced, who are much more fun to play.

 

[Dykstrav]

I actually dig the cleric class for the most part, in and of itself. I like the archetype of a crusader carrying the word of the deity into the pagan wilderness and all. I think a part of people's distaste for the class is that most every experienced D&D player, at some point in their play career, has had to suck it up and play one for the good of the party.

In previous versions of the game, I used to give groups without a cleric the option to use a free cure spell effect once per encounter, almost like how the second wind works now. Right now, I'm tinkering with a house rule to allow you to spend a healing surge as an encounter power when you're bloodied, as a separate thing from your second wind. Passing out tons of potions with cure effects also meliorates the issue, and without a dedicated healer, becomes power-neutral. But I digress...

Now that I've been thinking about it, one of the big things that has always irked me about D&D (especially the later versions) is the assumption that player characters should stand head and shoulders in power and renown above normal folk, but all that they are better at is stomping monsters into gooey paste. In theory, I think that a 1st-level human commoner is just as valuable to a nobleman as a 1st-level fighter--after all, the fighter may be good at his job, but he isn't going to go out and tend crops so that people in the kingdom can eat. Everyone has a role in society, I think that adventurers should just have a more lucrative (and dangerous) role than others.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Combat-centric mechanics.

Vancian magic.

Black-and-white alignment.

Rampant magic items.

Abstract hit points.

Nonsensical economics.

Fantasy gun control.

Lack of useful, sensible crafting rules.

Character progression in neat little chunks.

The d20.

 

[Crothian]

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

I like this reasoning.

 

[Set]

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

Spell point systems, IMO, are just a grainier version of spell slot systems. It's still, "I cast this X times, which may be the first spell I ever learned, and I've been casting for ten years now, and then it *stops working.*"

Spellcasting in the fantasy genre generally has some other cost, strain on the casters health, sanity, life-force, etc. and weaker effects are assumed to be 'free.' I'd be cool with some variation of the Warlock that got it's lower level Invocations 'free,' but had to take some chances to fire his big guns. You can, generally, get away with this in GURPS (by learning bread-n-butter spells to a high enough skill level that they no longer cost you fatigue for low-level effects), or in systems like Mutants & Masterminds (keep your basic effects un-Flawed, and add Fatigue or Side-Effect or Heroic or Limited Use Flaws to the stuff you want to represent those big fancy stunts you won't be doing all day long), but D&D doesn't really go that route.

It's kinda funny that every single D&D-ism that bugs me (and many of the ones listed in this thread) is a non-issue in GURPS, and yet I still like D&D better.

I think I'm just weird.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I actually dig the cleric class for the most part, in and of itself. I like the archetype of a crusader carrying the word of the deity into the pagan wilderness and all. I think a part of people's distaste for the class is that most every experienced D&D player, at some point in their play career, has had to suck it up and play one for the good of the party.

I've never understood the hate clerics get. In AD&D, the cleric was one of the most powerful characters available. Good weapons, great armor, His attack matrix was just behind the fighter, yet he had spells like hold person, protection from fire, heal/harm, blade barrier, etc. They are only a walking med kit if you play them that way. I generally memorized a couple healing spells to save someone's ass, and loaded up on combat magic. If the party took a beating, we'd retreat, find a safe place, and I'd heal them the next day. I actually think 3es method of swapping out spells for cures forced the cleric even further into the med-kit role. Those wimpy fighters will whine until you heal them if you can swap spells out - and then complain when you don't have hold person available later.

 

[Starfox]

Zero-to-hero advancement. I dislike both ends of it - low level characters are too weak (but this is reasonably easy to fix by just starting out at level 3), the highest levels are way too powerful and can't really be allowed to interact with the world any more.

Gold as xp. Upper level characters spend more on magic items that nations do on their armies. if a player donated 10% of his magic item budget to a nation, that nation could become a major power.

Locking social roles to character class. Class skills. Disadvantaged/nonfunctional multiclassing. I don't mind a class/level system per se, but it needs to be very flexible.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[victorysaber]

I dislike save or die spells.