What is, by consensus opinion, obviously broken?

[Stalker0]

Hey guys, that money as a skill idea sounds really great...but can we move it off to the houserules forum I think its starting to take this thread off track.

 

[Turtlejay]

(STUFF)

Regardinng 37. Personally I think the Stealth rules are just too complex. A 20 page discussion on this forum on the errataed stealth should be a clear indication of that.

I don't like how the Paladin with 8 str and 20 cha can use full plate armor. It just feels wrong. Game mechanically it works fine.

If you read that thread, you'll find 10 pages of one guy insisting that his broad and erroneous interpretation of the rules is correct, and 10 pages of the best rules lawyers in the thread correcting him. Not a good example. IME, the stealth rules work just fine.

As for the strength/plate problem, since when did stats mean anything so absolute? I have no recollection of my 3.5 characters being required to have minimum strength scores to do things like that, or minimum dex scores to be able to skip, or minimum intelligence to be able to read, etc.

I'm kind of sad this thread has gone from a good resource of things that are legitimately unbalanced to a list of dislikes by folks who don't like they game. It happens far too often.

Jay

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think what it comes down to is that a lot of rituals just aren't very good. They cost too much and take too long for the effect you get. It's not worth casting 'em.

That's kind of the point. It should always be vastly superior to actually have someone on hand who can speak languages, pick locks, build a camp, etc. Its a step away from the mentality of older editions where the best fighter/rogue/diplomat/whatever was always a wizard. I'm grateful.

What needs to be implemented is an element of risk for failure.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Stacking save penalties, since they can make an effective save or die, which the designers said they were trying to avoid.

On the other hand, I've got to the point where I think controllers without stacking save penalties are broken, in that there's nothing that role can do that the other roles can't do just as well.

This I agree with. Controllers to me, are the weakest class. They focus on the same push/pull/slide/daze stuff everyone and their dog gets. I'd replace a controller with a leader in a heartbeat to maximize party effectiveness. Debuffing an enemy, healing the party, or increasing damage output just seems much more effective than a daze or knockdown, which is only a minor inconvenience for the most part. Compared to powers like moment of glory which offers great protection or iron to glass which can neuter a solo without even a save ends, who cares if their attack options for the round are slightly limited? The damage most zones inflict is so trivial compared to how fast monster HP scales, that they dont do much to discourage anything but minions. Controllers seem to have to work harder for their payoff, and it rarely impresses me. Not every battle can take place in a room filled with buzz saw traps, pits (which even allow a second save anyways) vats of acid and other hazards to shove them into.

The save ends mechanic is glaringly out of place compared to the rest of the system. The far more elegant method would simply be to have the attacker roll another attack against the defense to see if the effect continues. Its feels only there to keep the D&D term "saving throws" in the game.

 

[tuxgeo]

(double post. disregard)

 

[tuxgeo]

The save ends mechanic is glaringly out of place compared to the rest of the system. The far more elegant method would simply be to have the attacker roll another attack against the defense to see if the effect continues. Its feels only there to keep the D&D term "saving throws" in the game.

This I disagree with. Encounters in 4e can contain monsters that are far enough above the party's level that many of the PCs can only hit on a high roll, such as 16-17-18-19-20 (or worse); in such situations, the "(save ends)" mechanic allows a (usually) 45% chance of continuing the imposed condition instead of a 25% chance (or worse). That is considerably different, and was probably a conscious design decision at WotC.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This is such a brilliant idea that I want to marry it and have its children. No, really.

Yeah, it reads like it is right out of Fantasy Craft. One of the things that I find most inspirational about FC and one of the things I would love to import over to Pathfinder and Trailblazer most. I think any RPG, such as 4e, should go that route.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Stacking save penalties, aka orbizards. Blatantly, inarguably broken.

Can't argue that. But they aren't broken so much that liberal errata/updates couldn't fix that fairly quickly.

DS

 

[Dausuul]

That's kind of the point. It should always be vastly superior to actually have someone on hand who can speak languages, pick locks, build a camp, etc. Its a step away from the mentality of older editions where the best fighter/rogue/diplomat/whatever was always a wizard. I'm grateful.

I agree, but it's stupid to have rituals nobody uses because mundane skills can do them faster, better, and cheaper. IMO, the problem is the mindset that envisions rituals as tools for things like speaking languages, picking locks, and building camps.

If the designers would think outside the dungeon more, they'd come up with much more interesting rituals.

 

[Mercule]

Interesting. I liked 4E mutliclassing (pick up some minor abilities) much more than 3E multiclassing. I guess I prefer single classes over blends and hybrids the basic building block is a class based system.

I think this one actually comes to my peeve: What are feats for? Are they for tweaking character builds for flavor or are they to increase your power? Some feats can be found on either side of that line, and that's a problem. If feats are for flavor (even if a +1 with fire comes with it), then I don't have an issue with the 4e multiclass-by-feat system. If feats are for actual power (switch your basic attacks from an ability with a +1 to one with a +5), the multiclass system sucks.

Personally, I prefer feats as flavor, but I'd also like to see some noteworthy customization outside of powers. If I were to write 5e, I'd solve two issues at once. First, split the feats into minor (call them perks) and major (feats). Perks are awarded on the current schedule, or something resembling it. Feats are awarded, singly, at the same levels stat bonuses are, currently. Make a feat that grants a +1 bonus to a single stat. Lots of opportunity to tweak your character, but the significant power-ups are less frequent -- and you have to decide between raw potential (stats) and learned skill (feats).

Of course, along with all that, I'd remove the basic human stat bonus and set most other races to a single +2. Personally, I don't see why every non-human race needs stat bonuses, anyway. It's just too rote.