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

[FrozenNorth]

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

Yes. Though I disliked more that barbarians can’t be lawful (so the Viking that is extremely traditional, conservative and dislikes changes is Neutral then?), monks must be lawful (sucks to be a folk hero devoted to helping the people overthrow a tyrant then) and bards can’t be lawful (because heralds that work for the Crown aren’t a thing).

 

[payn]

Yes. Though I disliked more that barbarians can’t be lawful (so the Viking that is extremely traditional, conservative and dislikes changes is Neutral then?), monks must be lawful (sucks to be a folk hero devoted to helping the people overthrow a tyrant then) and bards can’t be lawful (because heralds that work for the Crown aren’t a thing).

As much as I loved 3E/PF1, its true some of the alignment restrictions are headscratchers. They are just in place to stop potent multi-classing pairs and have little to do with actual RP.

 

[Stormonu]

No one mentioned this one. AD&D weapon speed factors rule... use it for one combat, abandonned it immediately after.

Worse was the weapons vs. AC charts of 1E. I tried and tried to use them (I mean, they took up pages and a lot of work obviously went into them), and just finally gave up. What a headache.

 

[Mezuka]

Worse was the weapons vs. AC charts of 1E. I tried and tried to use them (I mean, they took up pages and a lot of work obviously went into them), and just finally gave up. What a headache.

We tried implementing both (speed + weapons AC) at the same time! But soon dropped them.

 

[Irlo]

I used to like D&D. This thread makes me realize how many rules I really do hate.

 

[Cadence]

I used to like D&D. This thread makes me realize how many rules I really do hate.

Ultimate example of the sum being greater than the parts?

 

[Irlo]

Worse was the weapons vs. AC charts of 1E. I tried and tried to use them (I mean, they took up pages and a lot of work obviously went into them), and just finally gave up. What a headache.

Oh, I remember! Some players in my group (including me, I guess I have to admit) were painstakingly choosing a variety of weapon proficiencies to give them the best array of options to handle a foe in any particular type of armor. "Wait -- he's wearing ring mail?!! I attack with ... uh ... my halberd. That's +2 to hit!"

Edit: that phase lasted maybe two weeks before we ditched the rule.

 

[Malmuria]

I used to like D&D. This thread makes me realize how many rules I really do hate.

forgetting/changing the rules is the best part!

 

[abirdcall]

Women can't have high strength.

 

[LordEntrails]

1e rules about maximum strength scores for women.

While we're on early strength rules, the way strength and only strength had a d% if you had an 18 and only if you had an 18. A lot of space wasted on a special rule for 1/216 of characters.

I don't know, I mean half the fighters I payed back then had a 18/xx score. I swear I rolled them naturally....

Or maybe it was that if I didn't have an 18 I didn't bother to play a fighter?

But still not as bad as weapon vs AC, or female ability limits, or racial level limits, or Tasha's rules that remove any meaningful distinction on race choice (but like the other bad rules, just don't use them).