D&D General What rule do you hate most from any edition? (+ Thread)

[Jack Daniel]

I've given this one a lot of thought before responding. I think I'm going to have to go with feats. They're fiddly, they're inherently restrictive (in that they define what you can't do as much as what you can do), and they're just plain indicative of a level of mechanical character customization that I'm not at all on board with.

But forget all of that. The real reason to despise the concept of feats is their bloody godawful name. A "feat" isn't a skill you possess or a trick you know. It's an action — a deed! Call these abominable prepackaged abilities "perks" or "knacks" or "talents" — but whoever named 'em feats deserves to play an elvish bard in @Snarf Zagyg's campaign.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I've given this one a lot of thought before responding. I think I'm going to have to go with feats. They're fiddly, they're inherently restrictive (in that they define what you can't do as much as what you can do), and they're just plain indicative of a level of mechanical character customization that I'm not at all on board with.

This is why I prefer the half-feats. Less likely to be overpowered or broken and they have more flavor. And because each gives a +1 to a stat, they can also replace ASIs.

 

[Raith5]

In 5e the choice between ASI and feats drives me nuts - hey do you want to character to be more powerful or more interesting!

I wish ASIs and feats were separate and that feats were more interesting and more choices made in order to promote greater character customization.

 

[Faolyn]

Oh, alignment restrictions, especially druid as true neutral. Hated that.

Especially since druid/ranger multiclassing became an Allowed Thing, and rangers had to be good aligned.

 

[Blue]

Cross class skills. Let me decide what my character is good at. Not the writers

I'm confused by this. Before them, you had class skills only. Cross-class was exactly what you are asking for - a way for you to chose what skills your character was good at. It was a step in the direction you wanted.

I'm not debating your hate, I'm just looking for clarification because your reasoning seems the opposite of what it did.

 

[Seramus]

I'm confused by this. Before them, you had class skills only. Cross-class was exactly what you are asking for - a way for you to chose what skills your character was good at. It was a step in the direction you wanted.

I'm not debating your hate, I'm just looking for clarification because your reasoning seems the opposite of what it did.

Wasn't the maximum capped at 1/2 and cost 2 points for every 1? So you could never be as good as someone who had it as a class skill?

 

[Blue]

Wasn't the maximum capped at 1/2 and cost 2 points for every 1? So you could never be as good as someone who had it as a class skill?

Yes. But the option before was "you couldn't have anything your class didn't offer".

So it is absolutely a step in the direction of letting the player decide what skills their character is good at, going from an absolute NO to system where you could do something, even if it wasn't as good as those who specialized in it.

Again, cross class skills sucked as a mechanic, I wasn't debating that. Just that their complaint was the opposite of what they did, which was open up taking any skill.

 

[Seramus]

Again, cross class skills sucked as a mechanic, I wasn't debating that. Just that their complaint was the opposite of what they did, which was open up taking any skill.

Oh, gotcha. Maybe they meant in comparison to future editions as opposed to comparison to earlier editions? (Or even comparison to PF1)

 

[SkidAce]

Not so much a hate as an annoyance, but... randomly chosen properties for fully detailed artifacts. The Crown of Destiny, forged by seven angels to give the Immortal God-Queen of Perivale power over all animal life, also increases your speed by 10 feet and contains a death slaad.

Truth!

 

[DeviousQuail]

I don't mind that dual wielding uses the bonus action for the offhand attack in 5e (bonus actions are dumb but I'm working with what I got). It let's anyone dual wield if they want at a cost. But the Dual Wielder feat not making the offhand attack part of the attack action, like the beast barbs claws, is the one rule that bugs me the most. That one change would make dual wielding so much better and free up the action economy for a number of builds if you're willing to pay the cost.

There are rules that have already been said here that I would want to change first but this one certainly bugs me more than anything else.