Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[lukelightning]

The idea that monsters all occupy square areas, no matter how long and thin they are.

You prefer to have facing and "where is the dragon's head" and "I can't turn my horse"
problems?

 

[Particle_Man]

A lot has already been mentioned, but I don't like "cascading effects" and the big offender here is buffs that affect ability scores, since their modifiers in turn affect almost everything else.

For example, I would much rather have fatigue just give penalties to hit and damage, rather than affecting str and dex, which affects AC, encumbrance (and thus perhaps AC again, if one is not a dwarf), reflex saves, a number of skills, and then to hit and damage.

It is one of the reasons I avoid taking classes with Rage (though I am happier with the Whirling Frenzy option in UA).

I would also like to see the demise of "generalist" wizards and a return to more specialization in spell lists. In 1st ed, illusionists were actually different because of their different spell lists, but not so in later editions.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

1). I think my #1 pet peeve in 3.5e is how unarmed strikes and natural attacsk are two different things, and how it is so silly how some things stack and some don't and so on and so forth.

Definitely in agreement with this one. It doesn't make sense to me that unarmed attacks provoke AoO's but someone trying to claw or bite you wouldn't do the same?

 

[sjmiller]

You prefer to have facing and "where is the dragon's head" and "I can't turn my horse"
problems?

In all the years I have played D&D, under all the different incarnations, I cannot say that I have ever had those sort of questions crop up. The questions I get today are along the lines of, "can I sneak up behind him," or, "Is that guy facing me, which way is he looking?" Those sort of questions never came up before the removal of facing.

Don't get me started on the stupidity of square horses and snakes.

 

[Psion]

Let's take your two replies together...

Then again, I don't want facing to return, too big of a hassle to deal with. Square areas work fine for a semi-abstract combat system like D&D.


Not when you have something that is, say, 10 ft. by 60 ft.

Your latter replay sounds like you are making a case that facing should return.

 

[Pants]

I would also like to see the demise of "generalist" wizards and a return to more specialization in spell lists. In 1st ed, illusionists were actually different because of their different spell lists, but not so in later editions.

That would be cool. I could see basing the system off of the way psions are currently built.

In all the years I have played D&D, under all the different incarnations, I cannot say that I have ever had those sort of questions crop up. The questions I get today are along the lines of, "can I sneak up behind him," or, "Is that guy facing me, which way is he looking?" Those sort of questions never came up before the removal of facing.

Don't get me started on the stupidity of square horses and snakes.

In every edition of D&D those questions always came up.... outside of combat. I ignored the facing rules even in 2e.

 

[lukelightning]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of square horses and snakes.

Have you ever seen a horse fighting? It's staying in one direction for 6 whole seconds. The "square" isn't a square, it represents the area around the creature that it requires in order to fight effectively, and in which it is perilous for other creatures to enter.

"Rectangular" creatures lead to big problems like "what happens when a horse tries to turn when there are people next to it"

 

[Pants]

Let's take your two replies together...



Your latter replay sounds like you are making a case that facing should return.

Nope, well not exactly...

I never had a particular problem ignoring facing and using non-square bases. Yeah, you sort of have to assume you can turn the mini as a free action, but that was the justification for not using facing in the first place. It makes more sense to me than creating virtual force fields that the figure is assumed to take up.

When you have something that is 10 by 60 and it has a definite front and back, unless you are using a facing system, having the creature reposition itself during combat raises all sorts of questions. If the creature is facing one way, how can it bite a character that is positioned on its side or near its back? Does it reposition itself as a free action or can it not reach said creature?

Most of these questions are answered if facing is a part of the rules, but in 3.0 D&D, there was no facing and thus the oblong space areas were just too much of a hassle to deal with. Now maybe, as you say, you used a free action to allow the creature to turn, but how is that any less of an abstraction than saying 'this creature needs a 15 ft. square to adequately fight in?' (although this rule is kinda weird for creatures like snakes, which are just assumed to be all coiled up)

Not that the 3.5 way is perfect, but, IMO, it makes a lot more sense in a facing-less system than the 3.0 method. Then again, if facing returns for 4.0, the oblong sizes should probably return.

 

[Kerrick]

My picks:

The Epic system. The entire thing.

Turn undead. (DragonLancer: Try this out.)

Crafting.

Multiclassing XP penalties (we never used them, but it's still a stupid rule).

Immediate and swift actions. WTF? Why do we need MORE actions (which are really just free actions anyway)? This isn't a CCG; get rid of this crap.

I rather agree, though, that facing should come back, because it would eliminate a huge amount of problems, especially for folks who use minis (we usually do, especially when there's a lot going on in combat - we've got 8 PCs, and with a lot of enemies, it makes it really hard to keep track of what's going on without them). Mike Mearls' beholder makeover article pretty well convinced me on this point.

Undead BAB: Why do they get the worst progression? This also creates the problem of zombies with ludicrous amount of HD.

Good question, that... I never really understood why zombies' HD are doubled - it makes zombies with lots of HD (but low CRs) impossible to turn by a cleric of equal level.

 

[Psion]

Nope
(...)
When you have something that is 10 by 60 and it has a definite front and back, unless you are using a facing system, having the creature reposition itself during combat raises all sorts of questions. If the creature is facing one way, how can it bite a character that is positioned on its side or near its back? Does it reposition itself as a free action or can it not reach said creature?

To me, that reads an awful lot like nope... yep.

You are only getting around facing by enforcing an artificial "zone of combat" that really doesn't represent what should happen in the setting.

I'm quite a bit more comfortable bringing in a corner case rule for long creatures in confined spaces that creating an abject unreality on the mileu.