Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Mark CMG]

But you're okay with square humanoids?

Square? In my game, they're positively medieval!

 

[Gentlegamer]

Touch AC: If the only factor to consider in "touch attacks" is ability to dodge, then such attacks ought to require a Reflex saving throw. Also eliminates the "need" for including Touch AC in statblocks.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Touch AC: If the only factor to consider in "touch attacks" is ability to dodge, then such attacks ought to require a Reflex saving throw. Also eliminates the "need" for including Touch AC in statblocks.

Intriguing. How would you go about handling deflection bonuses? Do they not help anymore (in which case, deflection bonuses to AC are overpriced)? Do they apply to all Ref saves (in which case, deflection bonuses are underpriced)? Or do they only apply to Ref saves caused by a touch (which, while closest to how the game works now, is a bit cumbersome)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pooh-poohing the idea. I actually rather like it. There's a few rough edges to be smoothed off, though.

 

[Thurbane]

Just a quick question: do the majority of people think that rules that are largely flavour based (monk & paladin multiclassing restrictions, racial favoured classes) should be dumped?

I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of what makes D&D for me is represented in these kind of flavour based rules. If you dump most of the flavour based stuff, or leave it "in the realms of the DM to institute", you might as well be playing generic d20 fantasy.

I realise I'm probably in the minority...

 

[Pants]

Obviously, my opinion on the matter differs...

We wouldn't be having an argument if it were otherwise.

Funny how these supposed questions never came up in my games in 3.0.

I ran an encounter with, I think, a tendriculous in 3.0 which resulted in the players asking these very questions.

But it took one chariot encounter to bring up different issues in 3.5.

Yeah, neither one is perfect. 3.5 kinda hoses cavalry charges, but I still prefer its simplicity to the stupid, pseudo-facing questions I'd get with 3.0.

 

[Odhanan]

1). I think my #1 pet peeve in 3.5e is how unarmed strikes and natural attacsk are two different things, and how it is so silly how some things stack and some don't and so on and so forth. I think that this needs to be revised moreso than any other element in 3.5e. It's silly that a monk may or may not benefit from Improved Natural Attack, depending on one's reading of the feat. Honestly, we just need to swipe the table clean and redo this awkward section of D&D.

2). I'd also like to put forward grappling. I have a player in my group who's playing a earth genasi pugilist (an acultural alt monk/fighter hybrid class) who likes to grapple, and nothing causes combat to slow down and books to be opened to reference rules than that. I hate it; it's over complicated when it really doesn't need to be, and the sequence of how it plays out is unclear both in layout and options presented. A closer attention to detail and clarity needs to be brought to this subject in order for grapple to be viable

I agree on both counts. I actually played several characters who used Grapple, Unarmed and/or Natural Attacks, or a combination thereof, and both these rules suck. The separation between natural and unarmed attacks is understandable for balance reason, but that's really annoying to see all these neat tactical combinations that would be cool in-game and just don't work because of that artificial divide. The Grapple checks have no excuse to be that complicated however. It's not that it's especially "hard" or "complicated", it's just that it's so many-freakin' steps and re-roll of the same stuff over-and-over-again... GEEZ! Come on already! Do I grapple the guy or not? Period!

 

[Razz]

1). I think my #1 pet peeve in 3.5e is how unarmed strikes and natural attacsk are two different things, and how it is so silly how some things stack and some don't and so on and so forth. I think that this needs to be revised moreso than any other element in 3.5e. It's silly that a monk may or may not benefit from Improved Natural Attack, depending on one's reading of the feat. Honestly, we just need to swipe the table clean and redo this awkward section of D&D.

It's official, Improved Natural Attack works with unarmed strikes according to a recent Sage Advice.

2). I'd also like to put forward grappling. I have a player in my group who's playing a earth genasi pugilist (an acultural alt monk/fighter hybrid class) who likes to grapple, and nothing causes combat to slow down and books to be opened to reference rules than that. I hate it; it's over complicated when it really doesn't need to be, and the sequence of how it plays out is unclear both in layout and options presented. A closer attention to detail and clarity needs to be brought to this subject in order for grapple to be viable.

So, what are, in your opinion, some of the worst ruels for D&D?

cheers,
--N

I agree grappling rules need to be less complex and more concise.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Gack! No thanks. I want rules that are less minis-dependent, not more. Adding mandatory facing is something I have no interest in.

Amen! Facing stinks!

 

[Pants]

I've got to agree with those saying that polymorph needs an overhaul, because unless you're well-prepared with statistics for the forms you're going to assume using the spell the game grinds to a halt. The same goes for Druids using wild shape.

I rather like the Shapshifting variant in the PHBII and I'd probably consider using it as a standard replacement for druids. The mechanics are static, but it's freeform enough that 'predator form' can mean almost anything. Plus, it'd be much easier to churn out a pre-made statblock for it.

 

[RangerWickett]

Intriguing. How would you go about handling deflection bonuses? Do they not help anymore (in which case, deflection bonuses to AC are overpriced)? Do they apply to all Ref saves (in which case, deflection bonuses are underpriced)? Or do they only apply to Ref saves caused by a touch (which, while closest to how the game works now, is a bit cumbersome)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pooh-poohing the idea. I actually rather like it. There's a few rough edges to be smoothed off, though.

How about getting rid of deflection bonuses? Why do we need more than armor, dex, shield, and maybe dodge?