Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Teflon Billy]

Weapon Sizes went from very nice and intuitive in 3.0 to nonsensical in 3.5

That was bad. :\

 

[Destil]

Weapon Sizes went from very nice and intuitive in 3.0 to nonsensical in 3.5

That was bad. :\

You know, Bill, I would have agreed with you when 3.5 first came out. I thought this was the worst change....

I still lothe the halfling longsword vs. human shortsword -2 to hit rule...

But overall the weapon size rules make more sense now. Really, they do. Just try writing a class with any specific weapon prof. and you'll notice this:

3.0 - The BLAH is profficent with the shortsword and dagger. Small BLAHs instead gain prof. with the dagger and... a... er... more smaller dagger? Large BLAHs get the greatsword and longsword... or mabye the bastard sword, it's kinda hard to say.
3.5 - The BLAH is profficent with the shortsword and dagger.

So, new weapon sizing started out looking bad and was actually a good change (except the -2 to hit with a miss-sized weapon), though it's made some rather silly holes in the weapon selection more appearant...

 

[Nyaricus]

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. . .

Here are my opinions on these 3 classes.

Paladins are honestly too niche for a base class. A more general 'champion' or 'crusader' class which is a martial servent to his or her church would do much better, with specific PrCs (like Paladins, Blackguards, et al) filling up the whole 'epitome of goodness' sorta stuff.

Bards are on the right track, but there needs to be more music and less magic. Stuff like having a songbook which they cast songs from would be pretty cool to impliment. Really, just some surface re-touching, but the bard is fine for a base class.

The D&D Ranger is essentually based off of the ME Ranger; ie Aragorn. It is to my understanding that in previous editions the Ranger had bonuses versus giants, orcs, goblins, etc, could cast spells, use herbs and such to heal allies, and a few more things - reminescent of ME Rangers.

The thing is is that Rangers were a very specific archetype, and in keeping with that, should really be a PrC. What would be nice in then a 'scout' or 'hunter' class to replace the ranger, combining elements of archers, scouts, rangers, hunters and the like. wilderness warrior that is adept in any terrain. The ranger PrC would be a clear and easy path with this class, presumably, such as a dwarven fighter is for a dwarven defender.

The monk could also use a ninja kick into OA, where he'd be treated better. An acultural Pugilist/Pankrationist base class would replace him.

That's about all my thoughts for now

cheers,
--N

P.S. Jeremy757, I can only hope that 4e R&D, when it comes to be, listens to even 5% of this thread - some rules are just wonky in 3.xe

 

[pogre]

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

Following your logic on Paladins, I assume you do not allow clerics to multi-class either. That would make sense to me. However, if clerics can multi-class - so can paladins I should think. I mostly agree monks in OA are different enough flavor-wise to explain away the restriction in one setting and not in another. I don't allow them at all for purely flavor reasons.

Weapon Sizes went from very nice and intuitive in 3.0 to nonsensical in 3.5

Yep, I was just belly-aching about this the other night.

I think a few spells could be removed and make the game a different, more satisfying experience for many people. Some WOTC columns have made me believe they would like to redo polymorph and time stop.

Grapple, swallow whole, and a few others could be streamlined.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Turning undead

grapple

ECL

one hundred and one types of bonuses that stack / don't stack

 

[Thanee]

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

Metamagic Rods (especially after the FAQ made things even worse ).

How to fix them?

Have them work just like the feats (except for the daily limit of 3/day and no increase in spell level).

To avoid any issues with prepared casters over time, allow only 3 spells to be metamagicaly prepared at any time from a single rod.

To avoid issues with spells breaking the limit of what a character is capable of, restrict them to be used on spells of a spell level equal to the highest the character can cast minus the metamagic modifier of the appropriate metamagic feat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[DarkKestral]

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

And I completely disagree with you. Multiclassing/Alignment restrictions largely need to go the way of the dodo, as should multiclassing penalties, as I'll soon explain. Divine casters need to keep their alignment restrictions for spells, but honestly, I think not allowing multiclassing or penalizing it is pointless and generally forces wasting feats on classes that are already harder to make viable builds with for low-stat characters due to MAD or focuses attention on ways to get around it. (the abundance of multiple PrCs in many optimized character builds is a good example of this problem) I don't like it when core class design forces a single view of the character class, rather than allowing a bunch of legitimate characters that require different views, but can use the same mechanics. Class-based should not equate to inflexible. Multiclassing restrictions and penalties force inflexibility. d20 Modern is how I think a good class-based system should work: it has options, though they are separated by class, and allow for a lot of easy fine-tuning to fit the class to the character.

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.

Yeah, but there's also examples of paladins who 'lay down the sword' at some point because they finished their commitment (they slew the dragon, stopped the invading horde, yada yada yada) and only come back to kicking butt and taking names after many years. These paladins aren't served by multiclassing restrictions, nor are those who devote themselves to some other holy cause or to life in a monastic order or something similar. If paladins are to be something other than weaker clerics with a free mount and some ability to smite their opposition, they need to be freer to multiclass and clerics made more difficult to multiclass, IMO.

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.

See above. Give me one good (not flavor, but pure balance and mechanics) reason why should paladins NEED a specific line in the mechanics of a class that allows them to allow freely multiclass between paladin and their new class if their new class suits their role in the game, because that's what you're advocating. Roleplay rationale is one thing. Mechanics is another. If it's a suitably fight-y or religious PrC, they should be allowed to do so by the GM, if the GM allows that class, that class's actions fit within the character's code, and the player is willing to RP the class. Plain and simple.

We'll use Bob the Paladin as our example. Bob the Paladin has slain the dragon that beset his town. Now, he's off to live at the monastery in quiet contemplation, and during his time, he picks up a level of rogue because he's the monastery's contact with the locals and needs the skillpoints to be effective as their face to the public, only come to find out, now there is a new dragon he needs to slay, so he picks.. well, he doesn't pick up his sword because he can't be a paladin anymore. Well scratch that, Bob's decided letting someone else go save the world because he can't pick up the sword and actually play his role because his GM said he couldn't pick up levels in the class he wanted to take.

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.

Err, I say let the monk multiclass for the same reason paladins should multiclass. There are literary examples of 'multiclassed' monks who did the monk thing, go to some other profession and become a monk again. In fact, I think the Buddha would be one such. Since the flavor of the D&D monk is meant to recall Buddhist monks of legend, arguably we should consider that when talking about multiclassing restrictions, and that if the Buddha cannot be adequately represented, we're dealing with at least a minor failure of the class design. I'd say scrap the restriction before we scrap the class.

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?

Racial levels ala Arcana Evolved's racial levels are meant for paragons of the race. A mind flayer does 'develop it's full abilities as a matured Mind Flayer' without a single paragon level. It just doesn't take the step towards becoming a Mind Flayer that is an archetypal Mind Flayer. The low LA version would have some of the abilities, but an advanced version might focus on using it's grapples and fight more in melee more than a paragon 'Flayer, because where an archetypal one has levels in the 'Flayer paragon class, it might have it's levels in the Fighter class. It still has it's full adult abilities, but not in the way that a paragon does. This is a way to allow more customizability of PC races and of monsters that are otherwise hard to fit in a campaign due to abilities that significantly change the CR.

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.

Yeah, but a Paragon Minotaur would be a larger/stronger/better fighter in ways that minotaurs classically are than a normal minotaur. This means the low version is 'normal' and the one with a bunch of racial levels is either an elder or simply unusual. Thus, a Dire Wolf would not be a different animal by stats, but instead be a Wolf with maxed paragon racial levels. Thus paragon levels CAN be used for a lot of monsters, especially Humanoids, Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Fey, Outsiders, and Animals. Oozes and other mindless/low-Int monsters would still advance by other means. But for the large part, Paragon levels would be used to allow creatures to be made at varying CRs more easily than they now are and more capable of leveling up abilities more effectively.

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.

You're complicating it too much. Seriously. Why not just say "Generally, creatures that are mature have X number of racial levels up from the base. If a creature has less than 3 Int or are mindless, they advance by HD or by paragon level depending on type. If they have 3 Int, they advance by class. Paragon levels are treated as always favored, always allows free multiclassing with other non-paragon classes, and as a normal character class for class advancement, except paragon classes cannot be taken for classes other than that race's paragon class." Yay. I'm done. Woo.




End of rant... part 1. Now onto part 2! My specific pet peeves few/no people have mentioned in the thread...

Like Nyaricus, I'm not a fan of the Natural Attacks/Unarmed Strike system of 3.0/3.5, however, I also want Primary Natural Attacks to be able to have iteratives, and to be able to do so without requiring a feat. However, this does mean some monsters may need the number of their natural attacks taken down a notch.

Polearms and other reach weapons should be capable of attacking close-in OR at reach, but not both during the same round in core rules for polearm-class weapons. This makes armor spikes less necessary in reach weapon character builds... (which I dislike enough that I'll talk about that below.)

Weapon Groups should be core, IMO. They make paying for proficiencies with feats not suck so bad for characters whose schtick is that they know weapons that are unusual for their profession/race. When combined with weapon sizes, I feel they can add a lot of streamlining of weapon descriptions and special rules, as you could define entire classes of weapons without needing a bunch of text on each, except to note special abilities unique to a weapon within a group.

Armor spikes. I hate them. I think they're just meant for rules-lawyer cheese. Spiked gauntlets and shield spikes are OK as they're used with limbs that actually... attack. But big spikes on your plate armor? Not really, they're not something you ATTACK with, IMO. I'd be more willing to live with them if they only gave damage on attempts to do damage in grapples and other situations where flesh hits armor. Essentially, they're reactive damage. You don't threaten with them, they just sort of sit there helping to make attacks against you seem less appealing.

Finally, Animated Shields and the current dual-wielding rules. Sorry. They need to go. Flat out. There's no way to adequately balance them out in the current rules. They're bad mechanics on their own, before you add all the cheese that goes along with them, generally.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

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.

Either this, or design monsters from the ground up to be equivalent to a certain character type at a certain level, with "monster classes" which spread the creature's abilities out in a balanced fashion.

Half of the difficulty of playing monstrous characters would vanish if there was no need for Level Adjustments and Effective Character Level - if monsters simply were genuinely on par with standard characters at whatever level you chose.

Take the minotaur: 6 Hit Dice of monstrous humanoid, +2 Level Adjustment, for Effective Character Level 8. Ideally, a well-designed minotaur as I envision it would be presented as a single monster equivalent to an 8th-level warrior type, and as a monster class (probably in a new edition of Savage Species) with a standard-race equivalent "base minotaur" and eight monster class levels, each of which would be roughly equal to a level of a warrior class.

I would back this up with a ruling that you don't have to finish your monster class, or perhaps build in "exit points" that explicitly represent different varieties of the same monster - "young minotaur", "adult minotaur", "heroic minotaur". Heck, you could even build in half-breed creatures this way: the first three levels of the minotaur monster class could be applied to a standard race (or even another creature's standard-race equivalent "base monster") to create a half-minotaur. No need for templates and their attendant (necessary) Level Adjustments.

Alternatively, templates could have proper monster classes of their own.

 

[Shades of Green]

The CR/EL system. Looks like a brilliant idea on paper, but suffers from the fact that it is based on many playing-style assumptions:

1) You have 4 members in your party, all of similar level (this pitfall could be circumvented by dividing the total sum of levels in your party by the number of members to get the party's CR).

2) Magic (including magic items) is common in your game.

3) Monsters are overcome by combat (physical and/or magical) and not stealth or diplomacy.

4) Your party has a balanced mix of abilities (tank, divine magic, arcane magic, skills).

5) All classes are of equivalent power at the same levels.

So it works OK with strictly "by the book D&D", but the more you deviate from this model, the less accurate the CR/EL system is. Also, when creating your own monsters, you'll have a hard time gauging their appropriate XPs. I generally prefer XP per adventure goals rather than per monster/trap, but, on the other hand, XP per monster/trap does have its appeal, especially with more Gamist groups who'll want to be rewarded for defeating challenging opponents.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Iterative attacks.

I think systems with one action = one attack tend to run much more smoothly, and there are interesting and simple options to cater for multi-limbed opponents, dual weapons, ganging up etc.

Bonus stacking.

I'd like to see pretty much no stacking (or at least a dramatic reduction in the number of bonus types. Do we really need to distinguish between deflection, resistance, sacred, profane, enhancement, luck, etc. etc.

Turn undead

for reasons already adequately explained

Swallow Whole

for reasons already adequately explained (IMC I change it to 'chew' in almost all cases, which works nicely).