Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Pants]

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.

That's fine, the zone of combat works better than the 3.0 method. If facing comes back, I'll deal with it, or I'll join the ruckus on the internet and complain about it like everyone else.

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.

And the corner case rule (ie allowing long creatures to turn as a free action) wouldn't be an abject unreality at all would it? Obviously no, not at all.

 

[Psion]

And the corner case rule (ie allowing long creatures to turn as a free action) wouldn't be an abject unreality at all would it? Obviously no, not at all.

Are you going to stop the purple worm from turning? No, I don't thing so.

 

[Mark CMG]

It always boils down to the unreality that people find most comfortable, on a case by case basis, but the system that doesn't address what some folks like breeds countless variations while the system that does address a common situation and allows for some to ignore it breeds two, one with the included system variation and one without. Sure some will still tinker but those are the exception that prove the soundness of a common inclusion.

 

[Pants]

Are you going to stop the purple worm from turning? No, I don't thing so.

How is it going to turn if PC's are surrounding it and what are the ramifications of it turning? Does it push characters out of the way? Does its head just switch with its back?

If it doesn't turn, am I stabbing it in the side, the head, or the back?

All easily answered if facing were in the core rules, but since they're not, it just creates too many headaches.

 

[Aaron L]

Iterative Attacks is one of my favorite rules. Limiting a high level Fighter to one attack a round would make them [/]extremely[/i] weak compared to a spellcaster.

I despise the crafting rules. The time it takes to craft expensive items according to the rules bears absolutely no resemblance to reality, and it isn't fun, either.

Paladin and Monk multiclassing restriction are just simply retarded.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Iterative Attacks is one of my favorite rules. Limiting a high level Fighter to one attack a round would make them [/]extremely[/i] weak compared to a spellcaster.

Unless they were replaced by something else.

I've been toying with the idea of a damage multiplier, rather than extra attacks, since I, too, have found that iterative attacks slow the game dramatically at higher levels. But I've yet to come up with something I'm happy with.

 

[Psion]

How is it going to turn if PC's are surrounding it and what are the ramifications of it turning? Does it push characters out of the way? Does its head just switch with its back?

If it doesn't turn, am I stabbing it in the side, the head, or the back?

All easily answered if facing were in the core rules, but since they're not, it just creates too many headaches.

The only way you were getting around this before was assuming it was continually whirring and spinning preventing your from getting close to it. "Free turning" was already an assumption. You seem to be living with it now, and this assumption has its own host of impossible situations... if the purple worm is being stabbed in one corner by a fighter and another by a rogue, how is it being stabbed in a third corner.

It all comes down to which implausible situations you choose to accept or gloss over. I can conjure up as many as you can. I merely choose to accept those that make the representation on the battlemap more accurate.

 

[Pants]

The only way you were getting around this before was assuming it was continually whirring and spinning preventing your from getting close to it.

An exaggeration.

"Free turning" was already an assumption.

An assumption maybe, not a well-thought out assumption when considering the oblong bases of 3.0.

You seem to be living with it now,

Because I use the 3.5 method.

and this assumption has its own host of impossible situations...

Maybe, but it's an abstraction, but IMO, a better abstraction than the 3.0 method.

if the purple worm is being stabbed in one corner by a fighter and another by a rogue, how is it being stabbed in a third corner.

Yeah, but what are those corners? On the battlemap it looks like I'm stabbing it in the side and the rogue is stabbing it in the back, but the worm just bit me then it bit the rogue, but it didn't move at all? Is the rogue stabbing it in the head or the back? Where is the head in relation to me.

It all comes down to which implausible situations you choose to accept or gloss over. I can conjure up as many as you can. I merely choose to accept those that make the representation on the battlemap more accurate.

Accuracy is fine and all, unless it raises a bunch of problems that the system wasn't intended to deal with adequately. IMO, it'd be easier just to reintroduce facing than to deal with questions raised by the 3.0 method and since I'm in no hurry to bring back facing, I'll just live with total abstraction.

 

[RangerWickett]

My envisioning of 4e would be a large rules overhaul.

Base attack bonus is good, so we'll also have a base magic bonus. Only magical classes actually give you MP, though. For the sake of fun, a fighter 19/wizard 1 ought to be able to cast at least 4th level spells, though maybe just one a day, instead of being limited to practically useless 1st level spells. Or heck, maybe use this as a system for monks to use their ki abilities, and sword sages to use their supernatural weapon techniques.

One action = one attack.

Make magic items unncessary for balanced gameplay. I would love it if magic items were rare, and even high-level characters had only one or two magic items.

To go with that, get rid of enhancement bonuses for magic items. I think numeric bonuses are simply boring. A magic sword should be able to shoot fire, or cut through steel with ease, or deflect attacks, or deal bonus damage against dragons. A +1 sword would be a masterwork weapon, but a magic sword doesn't need a bonus to attack and damage rolls. Likewise, if things were balanced better, high-level characters would not need two rings, an amulet, a belt, a cloak, a vest, a pair of boots, a pair of gloves, goggles, bracers, a fanny pack, and a headband.

If you have a belt of giant strength, you don't get a bonus to attack and damage; you get to wield weapons as if you were a large creature, and lift things as if you were larger. So no attack bonus, but your damage dice go up, and you can throw, like, wagons and stuff. But not every high-level fighter would be expected to have a belt of giant strength.

Too drastic?

There should be three basic conditions. Fine, disabled, dying. And I guess dead, but we can ignore that one. Fine is when you've got more than 0 hp. You get a little wounded, but you can ignore the pain. Disabled is from 0 to -9 hp, gives you a -2 penalty to attacks and AC, and limits you to one action per round. If you take two actions, you take a point of damage. Dying is from -10 on down. Each round you make a Fort save to stay alive, and it gets harder the longer you go. When you first fall to -10, you can make a Will save to stay conscious (or you can automatically do this if you have Diehard).

All other conditions would be derivatives of those. Fatigued = disabled, only it doesn't cause damage. Exhausted is like dying, and you have to make Fort saves to avoid collapsing. Sickened is like disabled, nauseated is like dying. And so on.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A couple of these rules are easily patched by house rules (monk and paladin multiclassing, say). Grapple and turn undead are a bit harder. There are a fair number of feats, and special abilities (both from prestige classes and monster descriptions) that reference them- especially the grapple rules. And so changing them has all kinds of ripple effects. A minor example: What do you do for a prestige class, one of whose benefits is to allow free multiclassing between paladin and monk classes? Or what do you give an NPC who has a feat allowing him to do this?

Polymorph is still a mess, although WotC has attempted to patch it somewhat with the polymorph subschool and alternate form special abilities. The big problem is the changes that a polymorph makes to stat blocks, which requires massive recalculation.

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.

QFT

The multiplication of bonus types is also a problem.