Worse Rules that game designers have made?


log in or register to remove this ad

ehren37 said:
And the non-casters are once again banished to uselessness, as envisioned by papa Gygax. no thanks. A palty increase of 1 point of damage on average is laughable.

I think I'm going to play with this some, but the increase in speed at higher levels, and removing the penalty for moving seems nice to me.
 

Brimshack said:
Missiles in general: It's not that i can point to a specific rule that is obviously broken, but I do find it frustrating to build a missile specialist. Working the system for all its worth, you end up with something that is not as useful as a pourly designed meat shield. And I would much rather that it was harder to get a missile off in melee, so you have to protect your missilers, but let them be more dangerous when firing. Multishot boes me. I would much rather characters could make a regular missile shot more effectively than that they can do stunts like that.

I see the question of balance at work here, the idea being that a missiler that is truly dangerous at range would be out of balance with comparable characters specializing in melee, but I'm inclined to think someone with no cover at range against a competent missile specialist should be in trouble. And as it stands, missile specialists are always a disappointment.
Arrows allowsomeone who could likly afford a +4 weapon to;

+1 frost, Merciful, Shocking Composite bow greater magic weaponed to +3
Multiple sets of +1 Bane arrows also greater magic weaponed to +3.
[Seperate the bane arrows in 5 groups of 10 each, then GMW them for a nice variety pack based on what is showing up in the dungeon]

Against a foe you have a Bane for that is +5 enhancment to hit [under some of how bane works] 1d8+STR +5 enhancement + 1d6 frost + 1d6 shock + 2d6 bane + 1d6 mercy. That is about 25 + Str per hit with a good chance you will be rapid shotting or many shotting. Against mooks or those you do not have bane for, 17+STR per hit at no arrow cost just using the bow and mundane arrows

If evil foes are common, drop mercyful and shocking and make the Bow holy.
 

Aging. People do not get smarter or inherently wiser or more charismatic as they get older. As you age your brain deteriorates. If old folks really were wiser and smarter they wouldn't fall for real estate scams.

A wise old man is a 6th level commoner, with more experience than the rest of us level 1 commoners.
 

lukelightning said:
Aging. People do not get smarter or inherently wiser or more charismatic as they get older.

Plus, as Rich so brilliantly pointed out in the Order of the Stick, the aging benefits mean that the older you are, the better your hearing and vision get. :D
 


Olgar Shiverstone said:
I'm there on skill consolidation:

...
I'm not. I just don't understand why people want so many skills consolidated. If it has to do with the amount of skill points (or lack there of) that the classes get, I say up the skill points.
 

Nyaricus said:
My question is: what's the skill to smell something?
See Denizens of Avadnu (from The Inner Circle) for one answer to this question. Great book anyway, as it happens.


I'm not. I just don't understand why people want so many skills consolidated. If it has to do with the amount of skill points (or lack there of) that the classes get, I say up the skill points.
I am totally in agreement, on both counts.

The more one looks at skill consolidation, the more cracks appear (for most cases) - take the spells Blindness, Invisibility, and Silence. . . just for example.
 

1. placing cultural aspects (e.g., weapon familiarity, skill bonuses, bonuses vs a specific race/monster) into the races.

2. giving absolute immunity to poisons, disease, etc. to races/and or classes; Unless, a race absolutely doesn't need to sleep, breathe, is a construct, undead, comprised of a particular element etc., give them a strong save bonus. This was one of the few changes in my pre- 3e questionaire that did not get implemented (well, at least Sean Reynolds, finally came around to the idea in his Fewer Absolutes web articles.)

3. Rage, sneak attack (or precise strike/sudden strike), turn undead, etc. as class abilities. a) Rage can fit characters from a variety of backgrounds not just those of a particular breed of wilderness warriors; b)Sneak attack/Precise Strike is something that anyone with proper training (e.g., fighters should be able to do) and c) In vampire movies we see individuals, who are not priests, turn vampires by the strength of their faith.

4. Turn undead mechanics

5. The current diplomacy rules

6. Dividing weapons into Simple, martial, and exotic weapons. Weapon groups have been around since the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook and, imo, much better.

7. The grappling rules

8. Spells that automatically succeed at tasks which the rogue or another class spends skill points upon.

9. Detect Evil for reasons stated. We limited it to detect Evil outsiders and undead as well as evil divine casters and people, places and things under the effects of spells with an evil descriptor.

10. spells that have different affects based upon hit die of a creature. Why not base the effects on how much someone failed the save? Creatures with higher HD or level have better base save bonuses.

11. Charging experience to create items or cast certain spells.

12. The multiclass rules. I dislike how easy it can be done-even with the optional rules in the DMG. Furthermore, how individuals can get +2 save bonuses from multiclassing (so this is also an issue with the good save progression as well)

13. Making clerics and druids more powerful so that people would want to play them. Here is a thought balance them and individuals that want to play them will and those that do not will not.

14. The UA based class defense rules. Instead of designing the rules to work with armor, the designer gave us a system designed for not wearing armor.

15. UA Wound/Vitality. Cool idea, but not fleshed out enough for handling high damage spells. When asked why it was not fleshed out more, one designer (who will remain nameless) said, "We left it for others to flesh out" . My response to said designer, "Then, what are we paying you for?"

16. UA injury system. Just a horrible implementation.

17. Monk and Paladin restriction on multiclassing

18. Spiked Chains, Mercurial swords, urgosh's etc.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz said:
Str-based is exemplified by the bouncer (former college lineman/weightlifter) who throws your buddy 15 feet and asks you to leave.

Cha-based is the 5' tall Asian bouncer who, when he's called, asks you to leave...and everyone around you evaporates.

That's intimidation by seeing what someone is capable of doing. If a 24 Strength raging barbarian throws someone through a table and tries to intimidate someone else in the bar, as a DM I'd definitely add a circumstance bonus. I don't know why Fighters and Barbarians don't just have that as a class ability. +X bonus to Intimidate checks when using brute force.

And another thing, I'm not big on all the homebrew feats I see that allow you to swap out Strength for Charisma when using Intimidate. You should still keep your Charisma bonus. Your Strength should just add to it.
 

Remove ads

Top