Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Psion]

The way to minimize single level dipping is simply to say a character cannot function in more than 2 base classes, period; and no more than one prestige class, period.

I disagree. That's a poor way. That get's us back to the "arbitrary restriction" world of 1e & 2e level limits. I think it's much better to make some races good at some things and give costs than to put a hard limit that ends up tying my hands as GM (different design allowances for PCs and NPCs of the same race is also not something I care to go back to, either.)

 

[lukelightning]

IME, this hasn't harmed rogues or other skill-using classes at all,

Heck, my rogue would love it if anyone else in the party could max out open lock. Despite all their skill points, rogues are hard pressed to actually be good at anything, since they have to spend all their points in a wide range of skills.

One compromise houserule I've seen is that all cross-class skills are only one point per rank but still have a limit of half the ranks as a class skill.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Maybe I'm just a lazy DM. But I dislike the CR/Exp system in place. Specially if your group has 2-3 different leveled PCs (which mine currently does).

I'd like to see objective XP values for monsters return, calculated like the original AD&D game (perhaps without factoring number of hit points). Keep the CR listing in the statblock as an additional tool for determining difficulty and EL, etc.

 

[Gentlegamer]

And right there is where you lost me.

I've ditched the entire concept of "cross-class skills" in my campaigns. If a wizard wants to take Climb, or a fighter wants to take Open Lock, I let 'em (as long as it somehow fits the character, either in terms of background or recent study). As it is, they're already at least potentially hurting themselves by taking skills that don't synergize well with their class abilities; I see no reason to penalize them further by charging them double, and I like people to be able to model their vision of a character as closely as possible.

IME, this hasn't harmed rogues or other skill-using classes at all, because they still have far more skill points than anyone else. So what if the fighter can open locks almost as well as the rogue can? He still can't sneak down the hall to get to the door, check it for traps, listen to make sure there's not an orc with a skillet waiting to bash his head in on the other side, and then bluff said orc into letting him pass as well as the rogue can.

Maybe "skill based" classes should have the ability to exceed the "level + 3" ranks rule for some skills, as well.

 

[Fishbone]

Level or HD+3 as a skill point cap is a lousy idea.
Never liked it. So, if a Rogue chooses to double up on Hide and Move Silently because those are the money skills what is the harm in it? It has a built in balancing mechanism:The more specialization the less utility over all. No reason to punish it even further. I'd say twice level is a better way to limit skills than level +3

 

[The Grackle]

Level or HD+3 as a skill point cap is a lousy idea.
Never liked it. So, if a Rogue chooses to double up on Hide and Move Silently because those are the money skills what is the harm in it? It has a built in balancing mechanism:The more specialization the less utility over all. No reason to punish it even further. I'd say twice level is a better way to limit skills than level +3

Imagine trying to write an adventure where a 3rd level rogue PC might have 6 ranks in move silently or 40. How would you set the DCs for traps, locks, etc.? What would the NPC's sense motives be set at? What about prestige class requirements?

I don't like it either, but I understand the reason behind it.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree. That's a poor way. That get's us back to the "arbitrary restriction" world of 1e & 2e level limits ...

Absolutely. Without arbitrary restrictions you're going to end up having to allow stupidities like 6-class characters, or lesser evils such as single-level dips that make sense only from a numbers perspective and characterization be damned.

And the analogy to level limits doesn't work, in that those varied by race and class. What I'm suggesting applies to everyone equally.

Lanefan

 

[The Grackle]

I don't like how multiclassing rules currently work. Esp. since 3.x encourages weird builds where characters dip into five different classes for one or two levels. I think a base class should encourage players to stick w/it by giving better stuff at higher levels, rather than xp penalties for multiclassing.

It's by no means the "worst rule," but I'd like to see it cleaned and streamlined. I like d20 modern's set up better than D&Ds.

 

[iwatt]

Maybe "skill based" classes should have the ability to exceed the "level + 3" ranks rule for some skills, as well.

You mean like the Thief in iron Heroes? level +5 is the cap and it's awesome

 

[delericho]

I think a base class should encourage players to stick w/it by giving better stuff at higher levels, rather than xp penalties for multiclassing.

Agreed. Spellcasting classes already do this, by restricting access to the higher level spells (although we really need an end to PrCs giving "+1 spell level" at every level - even every level except 1st works reasonably). We need less front-loading of other classes, and a slight boost to the upper-level abilities to make them more attractive (in particular, we need more feats with "Fighter level X" as a prerequisite).