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

[Helldritch]

Of course the real "I won the lottery" result for 3d6 rolled in order wasn't the 18 strength, but simply meeting the prereqs to play a paladin at all. 12 strength, 9 constitution, 13 wisdom and 17 charisma made sure paladins were super rare under Method I.

I saw, in 10 years of AD&D about 5 maybe 7 paladins rolled in my groups? And I had quite a few of them. Yep they were super rare.

 

[Quartz]

Building monsters using PC rules in high level 3.x play. It just took so long to customize monsters

Bah! Just jot down relevant details. No one needs to know that the critter has +37 to Climb if that skill is not going to come into play. No one cares if the HP or saves or AC aren't strictly correct.

As for what I most hated from edition to edition?

1E - Tables.
2E - Bards being better wizards than wizards.
3E - The creeping addition of types. It went from KISS to bloat. Fortunately it was possible to keep them in check by classifying many as the same family (e.g. Holy, Sacred, Blessed, Good, Axiomatic, etc all = Divine) so they didn't stack.
4E - Didn't play but AEDU.
5E - That Fighters as written aren't actually better fighters than other fighting classes until 11th level unless you mandate that Action Surge is combat-only.

Overall: the creeping bloat of races with the concomitant encouragement of the menagerie.

 

[Blue]

Bah! Just jot down relevant details. No one needs to know that the critter has +37 to Climb if that skill is not going to come into play. No one cares if the HP or saves or AC aren't strictly correct.

At least try to follow the rules of this thread. From the opening post:

No nit-picking on responses, or contradicting the person who hates it, this is a + thread. Feel free to make a better joke or commiserate with an experience showing why you agree.[/quote[

And plus, as skill ranks (and at which levels) was quite important in determing eligibility for Prestige Classes.

So you're (a) wrong, (b) rude, and (c) not following the rules of this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

Bah! Just jot down relevant details. No one needs to know that the critter has +37 to Climb if that skill is not going to come into play. No one cares if the HP or saves or AC aren't strictly correct.

As for what I most hated from edition to edition?

1E - Tables.
2E - Bards being better wizards than wizards.
3E - The creeping addition of types. It went from KISS to bloat. Fortunately it was possible to keep them in check by classifying many as the same family (e.g. Holy, Sacred, Blessed, Good, Axiomatic, etc all = Divine) so they didn't stack.
4E - Didn't play but AEDU.
5E - That Fighters as written aren't actually better fighters than other fighting classes until 11th level unless you mandate that Action Surge is combat-only.

Overall: the creeping bloat of races with the concomitant encouragement of the menagerie.

How was the 2e bard, who couldn't specialize and gain extra spells to cast, had a max of 6th level spells, and didn't even get those 6th level spells until after a wizard had 8th levels spells a better wizard than the wizard?

 

[Lanefan]

Word.

I do Max HP for PCs both for leveling and healing. About the only thing that sucks more than rolling a 1 for hit points is rolling a 1 on a cure whatever spell.

Do you have damage be auto-max as well? If not, do you find this makes your combats drag out a bit?

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. I'm not saying that it never happened, but how often did you see an 18 strength rolled and it not end up a fighter, ranger or paladin.

How often? Every time it ended up as a Cavalier instead.

 

[Lanefan]

We rolled the 4d6 and players would make the class in which their highest stat was. The few 16s we could see justified the 2nd level strength spell by a huge margin. Enlarge was also used a lot. Lower than 16 in strength meant that if you were a martial, it was a multiclassed character.

Or a light-armour archer, if you had high Dex and moderate Str yet still wanted to be a warrior-type.

 

[Lanefan]

How was the 2e bard, who couldn't specialize and gain extra spells to cast, had a max of 6th level spells, and didn't even get those 6th level spells until after a wizard had 8th levels spells a better wizard than the wizard?

Probably because a Bard could cast pretty much at will where a Wizard only had x-number of spell slots.

 

[Maxperson]

How often? Every time it ended up as a Cavalier instead.

I think I saw all of 1 cavalier. The DMs I played with didn't go in for much in the UA.

 

[Quartz]

How was the 2e bard, who couldn't specialize and gain extra spells to cast, had a max of 6th level spells, and didn't even get those 6th level spells until after a wizard had 8th levels spells a better wizard than the wizard?

Because the Bard gained levels more quickly up to a certain point. 5th or 6th level IIRC.