What rules don't work?

[Kid Socrates]

I also dislike all the different categories of actions - it's just too complicated. I have to keep a note card to remind me what I can do in a round. I'd much prefer a system that said simply, "You can do two things in a round, and they can be any two of these: move, attack, defend, cast a spell", etc.

I actually distilled one player's actions to this, and we haven't had any problems. My girlfriend's into gaming and loves the setting we game in, but isn't fantastic with the rules and if I expected her to remember what the bull-rush modifier is when attacking someone in the prone, well, we wouldn't be having a game. So she's got, written down on her sheet, Options: Move, and Move Again, Attack (+6, 1d8 damage), a list of the spells she can cast, and the summoning she can do. When it's her turn, she picks one, makes the rolls required, and we continue on. It's greatly sped combat up and no real problems with it, period. However, I run a really rules-light game, focusing more on story, so in a tactical game this wouldn't fly at all. I don't think d20 would be hurt by moving to this more, but it also could be restrictive, which I think we'd want to avoid.

 

[Storm Raven]

2. The CR system. I mean sure - some monsters will do better in certain situations, and you can't take every possibility into account, but have you ever looked at the stats of an erinyes and an 8th level fighter? Let's look at just the combat stats - 21 in all physical stats, all good saves, good BAB, more hit dice, resistances, DR, SR, flight. Add in the SLA's, and you're not even in the same ballpark. I'm not even paying any attention to the mental stats, or skill points, or stuff that's not directly contributing to a fight.

In fact, the only way in which the erinyes isn't vastly superior to the fighter is that it has 2 feats less.

This isn't exactly an uncommon thing either - most outsiders are the same. Many giants are the same. A lot of monstrous humanoids are too. Not only that, but the designers KNOW it - just look at some of those LA's.

Except that the 8th level fighter is being compared to the erinyes while the fighter is properly equipped with magical gear appropriate to his level. That evens things up a fair bit.

 

[gizmo33]

Lol hating other pathetic milatary branches goes beyong etiquette. We play a real game of life and death. Being polite is umimportant

One rule change I would like to see - I think fighters should be given more class skill options (not skill points). Fighters are usually backed by a culture, and all but the dumbest fighters would probably have some skill in diplomacy, for instance, seeing as how historical fighter cultures put such a premium on courtesy and formality - those who didn't probably got killed in duels. I'm not saying all skills - such as spelling - just the ones that make sense for the culture. And innuendo? I'm sorry they took that away in 3.5, I'm not sure if I would have given it to fighters anyway.

 

[der_kluge]

I think in reading through this thread, the thing that seems to be paramount in D&D thinking and design is that the higher level you go, the more and more immune you become to the effects of "lesser" beings. The sleep spell is a perfect example of something that has effectiveness ranked by hit dice, and ceases to become effective after a certain level. So, even a 30th level wizard with spell focus (enchantment), spell penetration, maximized, and whatever-else-he-can-stack-onto-it still can't put a 5th level farmer to sleep. No way. No how.

That is, in a word, ridiculous.

In HARP, a 1st level fighter with a long sword could, with a couple of good rolls, totally and completely kill an unarmored 20th level fighter.

It's a game, I recognize that, and I recognize that the game should introduce fun first and foremost. It's no fun to die just because of bad luck, but I think D&D has created a nice puffy little world in which dragons can never be put to sleep magically, or you can't assassinate anyone in the middle of the night because that would ruin too many DM plans.

HARP is still "unrealistic" in that I can stab someone with a dagger, deal a moderate amount of "damage" and the guy could still walk away, go grab a bite at a restaurant, maybe chat with his buddies at the bar, hit the sac, and by fine by morning. I'm not sure I want to play a game written for and by medical doctors. That would be a little overwhelming. But a little realism goes a long way in my book.

 

[gizmo33]

So, even a 30th level wizard with spell focus (enchantment), spell penetration, maximized, and whatever-else-he-can-stack-onto-it still can't put a 5th level farmer to sleep. No way. No how.

That is, in a word, ridiculous.

What's ridiculous? The idea of a 5th level farmer? The idea that a 30th level wizard would try to kill a 5th level farmer? Perhaps the idea that a 30th level wizard would use a sleep spell against a 5th level farmer? Or the lack of realism provided by DnD in situations where a 30th level wizard is trying to kill a 5th level farmer?

 

[Voadam]

Grappling, complications and poorly written rules lead to confusion.

Flying maneuvers, yuck.

I dislike the no iteratives for natural weapons, it means big cats do not strike as fast as high level warriors, and conversely ancient war dragons have the same number of attacks as wyrmlings.

lots of skill check issues, particularly diplomacy.

Invisibility should be easier to adjudicate.

Polymorph and wildshape, poor definitions for exactly what you get and don't get.

Paladin code and alignment restrictions, bleah.

 

[boredgremlin]

Just sticking my head in here about the White Wolf system -- while I do like that things get harder when you get hurt, those negatives KILL in White Wolf. It didn't really make combat more intense for me, it felt like if I got even nicked, things would escalate into a dead character in one round. Granted, this is with my WW knowledge being before the recent revamp, but being reduced to one die on a Dex + Dodge versus a healthy guy's five successes, and one die to try and soak that damage, it's very hard to stay alive if you get hit once. In running White Wolf, I found myself very often lying about the damage successes my villains had because the players took two hard hits and were scrambling to get away with a -5 dice pool penalty.

Now, if they've changed this and cleaned it up in the recent books, feel free to completely ignore me.

Lol yeah thats how i remember it too. Kept trying to get my GM to up the armor effectiveness or make the save to soak damage easier. I have heard they improved the problem some in the new version. I havent checked it out yet though. That game is designed more for storytelling then heroic fantasy. Lol in fact i remember in the mage WW book they say sometimes a good session doesnt roll a single dice, including the combats.
It is an interesting idea for a base though.

 

[Ds Da Man]

I think there is a feat for that in the 3.5 MM.

Yeah, see the prob there? Fifteen foot tall, 20something strength, and has to take a feat to knock someone back?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, see the prob there? Fifteen foot tall, 20something strength, and has to take a feat to knock someone back?

So add a little superscript "B" to it.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Oh yeah, can do, just complaining about some things that don't make sense. I also have the most rules-lawyering players imaginable (well, I'm sure some actually play with lawyers )