What game mechanics when introduced were absolutely hated?

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
*I will continue to state that the only good thing to come from UA is the Pole Arm appendix T, but that is my opinion.
Percentile stat increments (that the Cavalier got) were brilliant once one expanded it to all classes. It's the original ASI system except it had two things going for it that have since sadly disappeared: it was random at what level the stat(s) would roll over and it was very slow.
Garthanos said:
1e had attacks of opportunity and flanking. They didnt call the AOO but I do not think it got into the detail level of standing up causing them.
1e had facing, which determined which sides you'd get your shield AC on; not quite the same as flanking.

The only variant of AOO's I can think of in 1e, other than those houseruled into some fumble tables, is the one @Ralif Redhammer already hit: if someone turned and fled from melee the opponent would get a free shot at the departing back.
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
Percentile stat increments (that the Cavalier got) were brilliant once one expanded it to all classes. It's the original ASI system except it had two things going for it that have since sadly disappeared: it was random at what level the stat(s) would roll over and it was very slow.
Ugh. Once ASIs came into play in whatever form, every game became a race to increase stats. Call me old fashioned (or call me Shirley!) but I preferred the "stats stayed the same but you got better because you leveled up" approach.
 

JeffB

Legend
That needs to come back.
NAI*- I get the fictional element. I do. But I find it "clunky" even as a huge 4E and 13Th Age fan. I think the better designs were the powers and exploits that still granted half damage on a miss- like a failed save in 5E or pre 4E games. Those are sizeable and a bit easier to explain in the fiction than every miss being a minor sort of cut or whatever. That got old real quick for me as a DM. It's also an issue with Binary results and "Fail forward" advice. The 13th Age/D&D binary results do not support the fiction very well for "fail forward"- it's shoehorned into the game and clunky.

Not to mention the HP bloat is so high in 4E and 13th Age, most damage on a miss is like a toothpick attack.

I instead rolled a static damage bonus into Fighters in both systems that increases with Tier of play.

*No argument intended
 

aramis erak

Adventurer
THAC0 was not hated when it came out in 2e. Most of us were already using something very similar by then because it was easier than attack matrix tables, and freed up space on the character sheets to just have a single number. It first showed up in the 1e DMG at the back, so it was a natural progression. And it was an improvement over attack matrix by all but the most purist of grognards.
Many of us hated it from the get go, because it required remembering the flat spots or ignoring the flat spots, and we were good with writing the attack line down the right margin of the Mk1 generic character sheet (a sheet of notebook paper). It also took longer than using the on-sheet lookup.

I was certainly not a grog in 1981, but I disliked THACO from the moment I encountered it.
 

Advertisement

Top