Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[lukelightning]

Spell Resistance. There already is a mechanic for resisting spells...it's called a saving throw. If you want something to be immune to fireballs, give it fire resistance. It's ridiculous that alchemist fire will hurt an iron golem but a fireball won't.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Ability score checks. Mr. Superbuff with an 18 strength is supposed to be special, but only has a slightly higher chance of breaking open a stuck door than an average person. And, as the Gamers pointed out, a wimpy strength 6 wizard could achieve what an 18 strength fighter couldn't with the right die roll.

Castles & Crusades has a rather elegant solution to this, in my opinion.

 

[blargney the second]

Some simple nod to woundedness in combat (while still above 0 HP), maybe as per the 'clobbered' variant from the DMG, or something equally easy to implement and remember.

I agree. Not a full death spiral, because those can be a serious PITA, but just a condition that sets in <50% hps.

 

[Nyaricus]

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.

That's exactly what I've switched too, after loathing normal advancement after my year and a half worth of DMing. Being able to have that edge as a DM to control the storyline that much more is an indispensable tool which I likely will stick to in future campaigns.

Of course, I'm only a handful of sessions into a campaign I expect to last for ~2 years of RL time, so things are looking busy in my scedual as of late

cheers,
--N

 

[Nyaricus]

Castles & Crusades has a rather elegant solution to this, in my opinion.

Well, don't tease! Tell us more

cheers,
--N

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, don't tease! Tell us more

cheers,
--N

All characters have a certain number of prime attributes. Humans may choose three. The SIEGE Engine skill system has two basic Target Numbers (TN) that are basically DCs: 18 for non-prime attributes, 12 for prime attributes (or +6 if you prefer).

The fighter will almost certainly (but is not required to) have Strength as a prime attribute, giving him a TN of 12 (or +6) to Strength related feats/skills/tasks. A wizard will probably focus his prime attributes among mental abilities.

So even though in C&C a 18 Str is +3, the addition of the +6 from it being a prime attribute for the fighter makes the difference in ability more pronounced between the fighter with 18 str and a wizard with 8 str (or even a fighter with a 18 prime str and a wizard with non-prime 18 str).

 

[whydirt]

% Chance of Spell Failure - Make this into some sort of d20 check, preferably using the Concentration skill with an armor check penalty.

Condensed Skill List - Rather than increase skill points, I'd much rather have fewer, but broader skills. It would speed up character creation and also eliminate most of the need for skills synergies. Include an optional rule for subskills or specialties for people who want more distinction between skills.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Turn Undead - Heck we don't use it anymore we just fight or run.
Grapple - Talk about a combat momentum killer.
HP - You can have a thousand Hit Points but your not hurt till you lose your last one ?
Swallow Whole - Gut a creature and not hurt it ? Puhleeze.

 

[PwrMnky]

Condensed Skill List - Rather than increase skill points, I'd much rather have fewer, but broader skills. It would speed up character creation and also eliminate most of the need for skills synergies. Include an optional rule for subskills or specialties for people who want more distinction between skills.

NO!
I love the skill list. I just think the fighter should have more access to it, and more PRC's should have specific needs regarding it. I like have three basic characters: melee, skill, magic

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of square horses and snakes.

But you're okay with square humanoids?

A horse occupying a 10'x10' space is no more "square" than a humanoid occupying a 5'x5' space ... the space simply represents the amount of territory the creature controls in combat. (And "in combat" is all that matters as far as spacing goes. If your DM won't allow two horses to ride abreast on a 10' road, the problem lies with your DM, not with the facing rules. Similarly, if your DM won't allow your rogue to sneak up on a distracted or inattentive opponent, the problem is with your DM.)

It's amazing that folks can accept hit points as an abstraction for damage of nearly every kind, but then balk at the concept of "controlled space." Anyone who thinks that an agitated horse doesn't control (at least) a 10'x10' area hasn't been around enough horses.

The only arena in which facing is a minor issue is in flying rules, and even then it's only important to remember direction of movement; it's entirely possible (and desirable, as far as I'm concerned) for flying rules to remain faceless. The "realism" of facing is simply not worth the hassle of the added complexity in play.