Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Dannyalcatraz]

RE: Monk multiclassing penalties- OA removed much of it. I didn't see much of an impact.

Multiclassing penalties for Paladins...I can see it somewhat.

I agree, however, that there should be game mechanical ways around it...

 

[Aus_Snow]

Turn Undead (see CD, for one reasonable variant).

The Monk (chuck it in OA, with more style and options, and scrap it from core). Have an unarmed combat feat chain, or more than one - whatever. Fighters should rock in this area if they pour some of their many feats into it. More than anyone else in core. They're Fighters: they fight.

Paladin should be a prestige class, as per Blackguard (kinda). It's not something you "just do" as a very low level advanturer. Not IMO, anyway. Also, they shouldn't be limited to LG. That's just sanctified beef animal. At least go for the 4 extremes, as per UA. It was already a holy (or unholy, etc.) fighter/cleric anyway - why not make it official.

Same goes for the Ranger (the D&D-type Ranger, that is). Prestige class, thanks. In this case, already a fighter/druid anyway. . .

Bard, too. And here we have the rogue/sorcerer, or fighter/rogue/sorcerer. . .

See UA for some basic ideas, if not great implementations, for all the above PrC versions of those core base classes.


I agree that the unarmed vs. natural attacks thing is a mess, too.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Second the unarmed strike thing, just make it a natural weapon for simplicity's sake

Grapple could use some looking at and cleaning up, though I rather like the huge size bonus. I mean would you try to wrestle an elephant? a rhinocerous?

Turn Undead, now there's one that needs streamlining. I do like the CD variant, either way it should mesh instead of being a stuck on mini-system.

Swallow Whole, getting swallowed should be truly lethal with scant chance of escaping but doing so should be maiming to the creature doing the swallowing.

3) I'd also like to see PCs with monsterous races handled more like AU/AE Litorans, Mohj, and others than the Monster classes of Savage Species. The key difference is that, while both spread racial abilities across several levels, in AU/AE, the PC need never take a single level increasing his racial abilities- in Savage Species, you must take ALL of your race's species levels before taking a single class level. Essentially, each PC-usable race would have a +0LA version that was improvable.

Now there's the mother of all of my pet peeves! Why is it that in a fantasy game every single setting and the rules as written themselves should be artificially stacked against anything but the traditional PHB races?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Swallow Whole, getting swallowed should be truly lethal with scant chance of escaping but doing so should be maiming to the creature doing the swallowing.

I agree!

My very first PC and his last partymate (1977 or so) were both swallowed whole by a Purple Worm...seperate attacks, of course.

Being swallowed whole should be a something truly frightening to the PCs...high lethality, limited options on getting out...every bit as scary as a dragon's breath.

 

[Jeremy757]

Hey knock it off.

If 4e shows up next month, I'm blaming you guys for giving all this free market research.

You should at least charge for it.

lol

 

[BRP2]

Turn Undead (see CD, for one reasonable variant).

The Monk (chuck it in OA, with more style and options, and scrap it from core). Have an unarmed combat feat chain, or more than one - whatever. Fighters should rock in this area if they pour some of their many feats into it. More than anyone else in core. They're Fighters: they fight.

Paladin should be a prestige class, as per Blackguard (kinda). It's not something you "just do" as a very low level advanturer. Not IMO, anyway. Also, they shouldn't be limited to LG. That's just sanctified beef animal. At least go for the 4 extremes, as per UA. It was already a holy (or unholy, etc.) fighter/cleric anyway - why not make it official.

Same goes for the Ranger (the D&D-type Ranger, that is). Prestige class, thanks. In this case, already a fighter/druid anyway. . .

Bard, too. And here we have the rogue/sorcerer, or fighter/rogue/sorcerer. . .

See UA for some basic ideas, if not great implementations, for all the above PrC versions of those core base classes.


I agree that the unarmed vs. natural attacks thing is a mess, too.

While I agree with you with Paladin, I think Ranger and Bard are a little complex, as is, than some multiclass combo. If you throw in feats(like Favored Enemy or using Perform to inspire), then I guess it works out a little more... but if you are going to be picky about classes, you are better off just making everything a prestige class except a sterotypical "Melee", "Expert", "Arcane Caster", and "Divine Caster".

 

[Brian Gibbons]

This was originally not in the game during 3e playtesting, and playtesters insisted that it be added in as they considered the monk and paladin classes to be special cases with special requirements.

I've heard this explanation since the beginning, and it's always perplexed me.

Of all the things for playtesters to rise up en masse and demand, a restriction on how PCs can multiclass with the paladin and monk classes seems a bit improbable.

I've always thought it a bit more likely that one or two people with the ear of one of the senior R&D people were vehemently in favor of this restriction, and most of the designers just didn't care enough to argue about it.

Clearly not all of R&D liked this rule--the multiclass restrictions were essentially gutted for the Forgotten Realms at least as early as three months after the 3e release, when the RPGA got a look at the FR-specific character creation rules.

 

[Turanil]

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

I tink that economics in D&D, especially when it pertains to magic, is totally ridiculous.

 

[blargney the second]

1) Polymorph et al.
2) Anti-magic.
3) Too many buffs that stack.

 

[Arkhandus]

Have to disagree on the paladin and monk fronts to a certain extent, and the monstrous races issue.

1) Paladins should be able to start as such, so no Paladin PrC thank you very much; there are examples in literature of people becoming paladin-esque at a young age, including Arthur Pendragon if I recall correctly (would Mordred have been an antipaladin/blackguard in his youth though? hrmm...). Don't need to be an experienced knight before receiving a higher calling, to fight the forces of evil.

2) Paladins have sufficient roleplay rationale for not multiclassing; it would mean they are not really as devoted to Paladin ideals as they should be, if they were to pursue training (or further training) in other fields after receiving their call to Paladinhood. There are few organizations or religions in D&D worlds that could justify having more diversely-trained Paladins without violating their utter devotion to the oaths and methods that make them Paladins.

3) Monks also have sufficient reason to maintain their alignment and multiclassing restrictions, as long as you're not just trying to turn them into bland, vanilla Fighters with an unarmed combat focus. Then you may as well do the same exact thing with Paladins and Rangers and Blackguards, and destroy the whole point of having a class-based system, rather than a needlessly-complex mix-and-match smorgasboard of different rules elements. Plain-old unarmed combat feats can be added for any boring, mundane, Fighter monk-wannabes.

With the flavor and settings they are already designed for, Monks fit just fine with their restrictions as far as I'm concerned. Oriental Adventures assumes a different, broader role for Monks in an oriental campaign setting and, as such, has an appropriate lessening of monkish restrictions.

4) Why would, for instance, a Mind Flayer never develop its full abilities as a matured Mind Flayer? Let alone a Minotaur or other mundane critter? If it never took its full racial levels, then it would never actually grow into its full natural abilities. You don't see bears, snakes, or lions just stop growing after childhood, and then live the rest of their lives as underdeveloped runts with no chance of survival on their own. How could such a creature go on adventures for years and never grow older during that time, never reach maturity or whatnot?

You could perhaps devise an explanation for certain kinds of creature, but most things in the Monster Manual won't really be subject to an artifical halting or limiting of their natural development. Awakened dire wolves will not stop developing to full size and strength; minotaurs will not stop growing either before maturity; neither will trolls. You could get away with some kinda explanation for Outsiders, Fey, and perhaps certain specific races, but most others would not really make sense like that.

A compromise or somesuch would have to be in order, at the very least (i.e. no less than 1/3rd the critter's levels can be racial levels, until all racial levels are acquired, for instance). More likely, any rational solution would be more complicated.