Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Zelda Themelin]

Misc order list:

- Undead turning rules are bad. Especially bad is part where you have have to throw d20 to know whatever turning is this time between -4 to +4 cleric levels. Rest of it is rather possible to remember without checking it each and everytime.

- Creating sorcerer class, then trying to give wizard all the cool things. Why not just give wizard spontanious casting spezialization and not make it cool sounding new class, and then go weakening it so that precious wizard is safe.

- Skills tied to only level progression. Yep, everytime I want to make master cook, I also must give levels to that character, I really woudn't want to give them. Why there is no alternative system for npc:skills.

- Lame feat-prereqs for prestige classes. Dogde, toughness, iron will etc. Which are there just because they are "weak feats". Not nearly enough because they had anything to do getting into class. Feat preqs are generally sucky idea. Unless they are "must know at least one metamagic feat".

- Bad power-curve after lv 10. Saves get easily way better than DC:s. IMC always, no exception.

- Horrible "epic" rules

- Overbalancing things, which leads to boring stuff, or eventually makes some things too weak to bother with.

 

[Nyaricus]

- Lame feat-prereqs for prestige classes. Dogde, toughness, iron will etc. Which are there just because they are "weak feats". Not nearly enough because they had anything to do getting into class. Feat preqs are generally sucky idea. Unless they are "must know at least one metamagic feat".

Actually, this is a game balance factor which the designers of PrCs use to balance out a powerful PrC. Taking a powerful PrC with weak feats taken means that there is better game balance.

While I realise that this runs against your following statement "Overbalancing things, which leads to boring stuff, or eventually makes some things too weak to bother with." I'd rather have a balanced game than not - as I'm sure would the majority of gamers.

cheers,
--N

 

[blargney the second]

Class skills are bloody stupid. I'm hopeful that Fourth Edition will do something to eliminate this nonsensical holdover from earlier editions' overly-strong niche protection philosophies.

Every game I've played in for the last 3 years has eliminated cross-class skills. I'd sort of forgotten they existed.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Actually, this is a game balance factor which the designers of PrCs use to balance out a powerful PrC. Taking a powerful PrC with weak feats taken means that there is better game balance.

Yes, and I hate they choose to balance it with feats. Balance would be better served to set entrance requiment with skills required or with spells of x level to cast, or with BAB of x requiment.

I've seen way too many Toughness and dodge or skill focus, or iron will requiments. All things that skill ranks or character level automatically affects anyway.
Sometimes they make sense too, most often they don't. Sometimes they get as worse as to not only ask skill ranks, but skill focus too for a skill, that is not listed as skill for that prestige class. Maybe more common with 3.0, but anyways.


Despite nameing few feats here, I don't think they all are bad, in fact as feats I like their minor game effect and pick them at times, if it suits the consect. Iron will is my favourite for warriors after all.

Balanced game has nothing whatsoever to do with prestige classes. They are something special. DM can disallow those that don't fit, it's not part of basic rule-set. And reason it for overpower with prestige class is maybe allowing player to take any number of one level dips, or prestige classes one can enter too soon, or those that make unintended combos with other abilities.

No powergamer runs from good stuff because of one or two "waste-feats". But it's irrating for those who a) don't plan their character from lv 1-20 b) those that want personal characters

When I actually need to use prestige class intended to be specially powerful, I don't want to be forced to pick some lame feat that doesn't fit the theme.

I don't want too much balance to ruin my imagination. I don't want all spells to be born equal, or all prestige classes equal, or magic items. Not all monsters are born equal after all. Some cr 4 is much better than another cr 4, and sometimes it's very situational.


This thread is about worse Rules that game designers have made. This is most certainly design choice, and imo bad one.


Oh, and let's add to my list cross-class skills. I dislike them and I haven't even ruled it out yet. I really should have.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You prefer to have facing and "where is the dragon's head" and "I can't turn my horse"
problems?

Absolutely.

I never had any problem with facing in any previous edition; I expect that facing therefore wouldn't be a problem in future editions. The trick would be, as it has always been, to consider facing only when it is appropriate. Getting behind a giant slug, for example, was good tactics in previous editions. It is impossible in the current edition to "get behind" anything.

And whyever should a horse or giant serpent be able to turn around if the passage is too narrow?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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 agree.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Unless they were replaced by something else.

I've been toying with the idea of a damage multiplier, rather than extra attacks, since I, too, have found that iterative attacks slow the game dramatically at higher levels. But I've yet to come up with something I'm happy with.

Spycraft goes a similar route. You get two actions a round. So you could move twice or attack twice, or do certain things that require both actions, but you dont get iterative attacks. I havent gone through the book in a while, but I know they handled dual wielding somehow, might be worth taking a look at.

I never really liked the idea of differentiating between move actions and standard actions and felt it was a bit more complex then it needed to be, so I liked the simplification involved with just 2 actions per round, but my players didnt want to get rid of a full attack option. I DO remember they added feats that let players add attacks at the cost of penalties (And players get more feats to compensate), but that doesnt help matters with DND if you dont want to mess around with the character classes that much.

 

[Herzog]

-Spell-specialization.
In earlier editions, I (as DM) would look with awe and wonder at all the tricks my players could wrench out of their spells. With 3.x, all effects formerly wrapped into (for instance) 'light' now are spread over 3 or 4 different spells. Some (like darkness) at rediculous high levels. I like my players to get creative. 3.x spells ruined that for them.
-Front-loading.
I encountered this term here on the boards, and while it hadn't bothered me up to then, I recognized it immediately, and found that that was exactly what had been bothering me about some of the classes and PrC's. Class benefits should be gained progressively. Worst of all is, of course, the 4x skillpoints at first level, which makes everyone who is planning to take a level of rogue to take that at first level. Better would be to have every character get 3x4 skillpoints at character creation, and only after that start with class-based skillpoints.
-Balancing mechanics with (fluff) requirements.
Some of the PrC's are just too good. The game designers recognized it (in some cases at least) but instead of trimming down the PrC, they added requirements. Sometimes these are reasonable (they fit the PrC, like requiring ranks in craft skills for a PrC that specializes in crafting), sometimes they are silly (same PrC, requires crafting feats AND use magic device... Why would I take use magic device as a wizard? why do I NEED it other than for balance?) and sometimes they have nothing to do with the mechanics at all. (requiring to 'slay a dragon singlehandedly', 'lost a level to an undead creature', 'be recognized by secret organization as potential candidate') This last requirement not only is silly (if I want to provide access to the PrC as DM, I will grant the player in question the oppertunity to meet this requirement, if not, the PrC is simply off-limits) but also provides me, as DM, with the requirement to fit this fluff in my campaignworld!
Bottom line: if the PrC is too powerfull, trim it down!

And, of course, grappling. It's not that it is too complicated. It's not that it illogical. It's simply not written down very well. Too much text for something that could have been written down in 1 paragraph (quarter to half a page?) and 1 table.
The only thing you need to know is:
1. What can I do each round, depending on my current grapple status, and how much time does that take.
2. What are the bonusses and penalties to my attack, damage, AC, etc. depending on my current grapple status.
3. How do above mentioned facts change when more people enter the grapple.
4. How do above mentioned facts change depending on size, BAB, armor, etc.

Last but not least, my undying pet-peave about 3.x:
There's too much (core) classes, and too little information about how too change them to your own liking without breaking balance too much. One example in the DMG just doesn't cut it. I guess with the introduction of skillpoints and feats I expected the classes to lean more to customization as well. Oh well. Guess I have to play GURPS again.... or wait for 4e.

Herzog

 

[lukelightning]

I have an ongoing gripe about the balance skill. In my opinion it's redundant with reflex saves, and in just about every "balance" situation (e.g. grease) reflex saves are used anyways.

And whyever should a horse or giant serpent be able to turn around if the passage is too narrow?

The rules address this. When a horse is in a narrow corridor, it is squeezing and has a penalty to hit. And you could easily say that the corridor is too cramped to maneuver effectively.

 

[Particle_Man]

huh?

Paladins need empowering to be rebalanced: it has to do with the number of key abilities required for the class to work... Str, AND Wis, AND Cha, AND preferably Con and Dex makes for a tough balancing act. The old 1e "spellcasting as a Cleric two levels lower" was good.

1st ed AD&D does not give paladins the ability to cast as a cleric two levels lower, though it does allow them to turn undead as a cleric two levels lower. A 20th level paladin could cast three 4th level cleric spells. An 18th level cleric could cast more than three 7th level spells.

I think B/X/C/M/I allowed the "prestige class" paladin to cast as a cleric of 1/3rd their level.