Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[solkan_uk]

I don't think its massively complicated to have different uses of a skill working of different attributes.
Sorta like how World of Darkness works, instead of asking for a Climb check, ask for a Strength + Climb check or a Dex + Climb check in no-gravity etc.

 

[delericho]

I don't think its massively complicated to have different uses of a skill working of different attributes.

It's not. But, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, they'd be better linking each skill to only a single attribute. That way, the player can pre-calculate all his total modifiers ahead of time, and eliminate one calculation that would otherwise be needed every time he rolled a dice.

In fact, ideally, the game should try to reduce situational modifiers to a minimum for this same reason. Thus, Synergy bonuses that apply all the time are fine, but Synergy bonuses that only apply occasionally are a pain (Characters with 5 ranks in Tumble gain +2 on Balance checks vs. characters with 5 ranks in Search gain a +2 bonus on Suvival checks used to follow tracks).

I would prefer to see either the removal of 'situational' synergies, so that the only non-permanent modifiers that apply are circumstance bonuses (and maybe equipment bonuses), or the removal of all 'permanent' synergies, and the removal of the stated 'situational' synergies in favour of a statement that "expertise in some skills renders a character more likely to succeed with related skills in certain circumstances. As such, a DM may choose to award a +2 synergy bonus if he deems the situation warrants it" or something to that effect.

Similarly, a lot of the Dwarf benefits (+1 to hit orcs and goblinoids, +2 on Craft and Appraise with stone or metalwork, +4 AC vs Giants) are a pain to deal with. Cleaning these out would make the game a bit simpler, reign in the overpowered Dwarf race, and generally be a good thing IMO.

(Note: I'm not advocating a total removal of situational modifiers. That would be foolish. However, I would argue that they should be removed unless a compelling reason existed for keeping them.)

 

[lukelightning]

Here's one of the top bad rules of all times, from 1st edition:

PCs have to roll a check to open any door in a dungeon (based on strength), but any monster, even the wimpiest kobold, can open the same doors with no problem.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't think its massively complicated to have different uses of a skill working of different attributes.
Sorta like how World of Darkness works, instead of asking for a Climb check, ask for a Strength + Climb check or a Dex + Climb check in no-gravity etc.

Like say, DMG 3.5, p. 33. . .?

 

[iwatt]

Likewise, assigning Dwarves a -2 Cha for being gruff and insular,

That's a bad rule right there. Dwarves should get +2 Con, -2 Dex. The -2 Cha is a sacred cow that should go the way of the dodo.

And that's from someone who liked playing dwarfs even before they got the 3E powerup.

 

[Shade]

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I think the enlarge person spell is one of the worst rules in 3x. Beyond the fact that granting reach to 1st-level fighters is problematic, why on earth would only humanoids be interested in growing larger? And why only one size category?

The expansion psionic power is much, much better. Its range of personal helps balance it at lower levels, augmentation allows growth by more than one size category, and most imprortantly, any creature type can use it.

 

[the Jester]

PrCs should be elgible for XP penalties.

Why?? You can't avoid xp penalties with prcs, since you have to be level 6+ to take them.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Why?? You can't avoid xp penalties with prcs, since you have to be level 6+ to take them.

Not so! You could have 2 levels in 3 base classes first. Either that or suck up the xp penalty; that could be a mechanic for balancing the power of the prestige class.

 

[delericho]

Either that or suck up the xp penalty; that could be a mechanic for balancing the power of the prestige class.

Personally, I'd much rather see the XP penalty for multiclassing (and the favoured class rules) dropped. For the most part, multiclass characters (particularly spellcasters) suffer enough as it is.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Agreed. Favored classes either should provide a bonus, rather than negating a penalty (as per Conan, for example), or should be dropped altogether.