Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vaalingrade" data-source="post: 8519253" data-attributes="member: 82524">Only the ones I've played:3e: Oh what to choose... Alignment is obvious, but more of a problem with D&D in general. Level drain, ability damage, Monster design... all obvious issues.But I will go with 'All characters are incompetent without a feat'. As much as I love feats as a means of customization, the 'guy at the gym' philosophy reached its apex in what appears to be an attempt to justify some feats -- everyone gets a -4 penalty to basically anything they're not proficient with from punching to grabbing people to not killing people with attacks. It is as if the designers thought normal people regularly gnaw their hands off trying to eat sandwiches without Sandwich Training.4e: I've got two that are equal because they go so against what 4e was trying to be. I'm not counting Essentials because that was a bad 'edition', not a bad rule.First, Daily powers whether on classes or on items. We could have slain the Adventuring Day here and now. It could have been done. The nightmare could have been over. And they fumbled on the 1 yard line.Second, Rogue weapon restrictions. Because your knowledge of weak points and anatomy disappear when you're holding a bigger sword. Removing choice and variety is the opposite of what the rest of 4e was about and to do that to the Good Class in that sense from 3e was just plain insulting.5e: Bounded Accuracy. Hands down. This rules philosophy is the core of almost every other bad rule in 5e from the feeling of never progressing and struggling to succeed at anything, to ASIs being forcibly pitted against Feats, to armor and magic items setting your AC/score instead of improving them, to the lack of actual bonuses with Ad/Disad for EVYERTHING, limiting the design space, to the bland monster design, and everything surrounding magic items. Bounded Accuracy, The Fun Slayer.</blockquote>

Verification