Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[BryonD]

I never had a particular problem ignoring facing and using non-square bases. Yeah, you sort of have to assume you can turn the mini as a free action, but that was the justification for not using facing in the first place. It makes more sense to me than creating virtual force fields that the figure is assumed to take up.

It doesn't have to be a big problem for another way to be better.
And the exact quote you replied to, in context, was referring to PC's "issue", not mine. An issue I was pointing out as probably not significant.

I certainly ignore the implications of square facings any time they conflict with common sense.
But they avoid issues such as you can not reach the monster big it can reach you instantly (the mini free action as you called it, which really can have significant impacts).

OTOH, I never had a particular problem needing to see it as a "virtual force field", rather I just see it as the creature moving during the quasi 6 seconds which make up a round. Yeah, there are issues there as well, but if you don't accept the 6 second rounds with a lot of hand waving and loose narrative work, then you'll have issues no matter what. (Wizard buffs my sword, then I move and attack monster, then monster attacks me and hurts me, then cleric heals me, all in sequence and all in 1 "round".... )

But the bottom line is not at all that working with or without squares is a problem, but that, to me, facing and non-squares is preferable.

 

[Aaron L]

The big problem I have with iterative attack is that a low level character can move and attack without losing anything. Someone who has more attacks instead has to renounce to something.

That I completely agree with. High level spellcasters can move and do their thing from 1st level to 100th level. High level warriors have to give up moving to get full effectiveness. It isn't iterative attacks I have a problem with (Ive never experienced even the slightest trouble with them; spell adjudication takes 10 times as long as making 4 attacks) it's the division between full attack and standard action single attack. Let Fighters move AND attack.


Oh, and I'll add that making weapon proficiencies part of racial benefits is a bad idea. As if elves learning to use longswords was some kind of in-born genetic knowledge or something. What if my elf is raised by dwarves?

And Weapon Familiarity. Hasn't it been specifically said that Exotic Weapons were exotic because they required harder training to use, and not because they were from different cultures? So why then are exotic racial weapons easier for certain races to learn merely because they come from their culture? If it's because those of that specific culture are more used to them then why don't all races with exotic racial weapons get Weapon Familiarity with them; why is it just dwarves? Either give it to all races equally or give it to none.

 

[Benben]

One action, one attack. Get rid of iterative attacks, but give people two actions per round, which could be move and attack, or two moves. Having two weapons improves your damage, so one 'attack' would use both weapons.

I would expand this by having the damage die increase at BAB 6, 11, and 16. So a dagger is a 1d4 weapon wielded by a 1st level fighter, a 1d6 weapon by a 6th level fighter, a 1d8 weapon when wielded by an 11th level fighter, and a 2d6 weapon when wielded by 16th level fighter.

Weapon Specialization, Two Weapon fighting, and other feats like Rapid shot would all increase the damage die too.

 

[Qualidar]

I would expand this by having the damage die increase at BAB 6, 11, and 16. So a dagger is a 1d4 weapon wielded by a 1st level fighter, a 1d6 weapon by a 6th level fighter, a 1d8 weapon when wielded by an 11th level fighter, and a 2d6 weapon when wielded by 16th level fighter.

Weapon Specialization, Two Weapon fighting, and other feats like Rapid shot would all increase the damage die too.

I like this a lot (I'd keep weapon spec as is, though).

~Qualidar~

 

[Mouseferatu]

I would expand this by having the damage die increase at BAB 6, 11, and 16. So a dagger is a 1d4 weapon wielded by a 1st level fighter, a 1d6 weapon by a 6th level fighter, a 1d8 weapon when wielded by an 11th level fighter, and a 2d6 weapon when wielded by 16th level fighter.

Hmm...

I like that as a start, but it's not nearly sufficient, by itself, to equal out the loss of iterative attacks.

It's definitely something to build from, though.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I would expand this by having the damage die increase at BAB 6, 11, and 16. So a dagger is a 1d4 weapon wielded by a 1st level fighter, a 1d6 weapon by a 6th level fighter, a 1d8 weapon when wielded by an 11th level fighter, and a 2d6 weapon when wielded by 16th level fighter.

Weapon Specialization, Two Weapon fighting, and other feats like Rapid shot would all increase the damage die too.

Perhaps some melding of the existing weapon damage with the Weapons as Special Effects system that showed up on these boards last year? You could tie the extra damage to feats that have a certain BAB as requirements and give certain ones to specific classes automatically as a bonus feat and require others who meet the prerequisites to take the feat normally thus maintaining the damage difference between combat oriented and non-combat oriented classes.

I have the weapons as special effects system PDF on my HD if it was one of the things lost in the Great Crash I can repost it just to make sure it's available.

 

[Retreater]

As I think it's been mentioned before, turning undead is a pain.

We've figured out grappling and attacks of opportunity, but it took a few years of gameplay to get it right.

I dislike the Challenge Rating, Encounter Level, and XP system as it is now. You can't DM without that chart. Other editions had that much easier.

Retreater

 

[Mouseferatu]

I dislike the Challenge Rating, Encounter Level, and XP system as it is now. You can't DM without that chart. Other editions had that much easier.

I DM without that chart all the time. But then again, I haven't given XP "by the book" since 1E. I much prefer a fully freeform, story/objective/RP-based advancement.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Another vote for Turning Rules and for dropping Multiclass Resrictions for Paladin and Monk.

A couple things I have not yet seen mentioned:

The difference between Regeneration and Fast Healing. Make them the same thing! It is a real pain when a critter has both of these at once.

Orbs: I hate how the entire suite of spells are handled. Most spells require you to get two of the following three defenses: AC, Saves and Spell Resistance. Orbs only have to get past one - and it's touch AC at that. Get rid of the whole lot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why would, for instance, a Mind Flayer never develop its full abilities as a matured Mind Flayer?…

Its not that. Its that certain abilities reflect an archetypal lifestyle that a PC may or may not be a part of. Think of it this way- if you use an ability, you improve it, if you don't it atrophies.

Personally, I have a powerlifter's basic build, and while I was working out regularly, I could pack on muscle like it was being given away for free. In one semester, I took my bench from 150 to 300lbs, and my squat over 700lbs. But I got a law degree, and later entered earned an MBA- much of that mass is gone because the time I spent in the gym was turned into time spent hitting the books.

A Mindflayer with so-called "substandard" abilities would have his race's normal base abilities...accounting for suboptimal use. The Mindflayer of the MM would be one who uses his racial abilities regularly, pushes boundaries, and actively works to improve those abilities.

Likewise the Minotaur who, because he is an adventurer in a human city, might not fully develop his sense of direction, or because he studies magic, might not develop the fearsome strength typical of his race.

But the real point is that a PC using the AU/AE would not have to get ALL of his racial levels before taking class levels. If your PC concept is a Minotaur Druid, for example, you'd have to wait to 9th level before taking a level of Druid under the current system. In an AU/AE style system, that 9th level PC could be a Mino5/Druid4.

Weapon Sizes went from very nice and intuitive in 3.0 to nonsensical in 3.5

I used to feel much the same way until I saw real world examples that changed my opinion.

I own a letter opener that is a scale replica of a sword (a basket cutlass) in a Toledo, Spain arms museum that is the same size as one of my daggers.

The 6.5" dagger has 3.5" of blade, 3" of handle. The blade is 1.5" across, and its handle is about 2.5" in circumference.

The letter opener has 5.75" of blade, .75" of handle. The blade is .25" across, and the handle is less than .25" in circumference.

The dagger weighs several times the mass of the letter opener.

Were a human to try to use the cutlass as a weapon (assuming it was an actual blade for a tiny creature, and thus sharpened), he would cut his hands to shreds.

Were a tiny creature to try using the dagger as a cutlass, he would be significantly outmassed by the blade, and would have difficulty using it even 2 handed.