Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[lukelightning]

Ability score checks. Mr. Superbuff with an 18 strength is supposed to be special, but only has a slightly higher chance of breaking open a stuck door than an average person. And, as the Gamers pointed out, a wimpy strength 6 wizard could achieve what an 18 strength fighter couldn't with the right die roll.

And as for turn undead; nowadays nobody actually uses turning vs. undead, they use turning for questionable divine feats to fuel metamagic or whatever.

 

[RangerWickett]

Also, overhaul the skill system. If you want to keep the change simple, just give people more skill points. And eliminate the bonus skill points from Intelligence. It makes figuring out skills when people change their Int score by leveling difficult. I know DMs can wing it, but writers have to make sure they account for those extra few skill points.

Include at least a small sidebar with the paladin class describing its history in the game, and explaining why some players will see it as just a warrior with some divine magic, while others view it as something precious and rare, a class empowered by its own ridiculous sense of honor. Explain that each idea is equally valid, though if you adhere to the second one, your players will probably b**** at you.

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

The big problem I have with iterative attack is that a low level character can move and attack without losing anything. Someone who has more attacks instead has to renounce to something.

 

[RangerWickett]

Stop making every durn thing a feat. I know it works well to sell books, because you can load up Complete Warrior with fighter feats for things that should be easy, but I would like more feats to be like the tactical feats. Dodge is a boring feat. Mobility is almost boring. Spring Attack is what's fun.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This was originally not in the game during 3e playtesting, and playtesters insisted that it be added in as they considered the monk and paladin classes to be special cases with special requirements. You can remove this from your game with absolutely no balance implications.

Yeah, the designers ahve said this a few times. Alignment restrictions, gender restrictions for prcs and even the paladin's code are fluff not intended to balance the class.

I'll second (tenth or whatever) that Turn Undead is annoyingly goofy. I'd prefer to see the turn attempt be opposed with the undead's will save, or something more simple. I hate having to figure out which zombies are turned, and which ones arent.

Grapple bonus by size really is a killer. I'm considering halving it, as it comes up a LOT in our games. The actual mechanics arent super hard for me, but then again, its due to it coming up every other combat. It certainly gave me fits when we first started, and could definately be streamlined. The list of actions you can use during a grapple needs to be refined, as by the exact rules, a grappled beholder cant even LOOK at something, and sadly common sense does not frequently prevail with gamers.

 

[Pants]

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.

Yeah, polymorph needs to be looked at. There HAS to be a way to keep it as a flexible option without having it be a rules nightmare.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Second the unarmed strike thing, just make it a natural weapon for simplicity's sake

Grapple could use some looking at and cleaning up, though I rather like the huge size bonus. I mean would you try to wrestle an elephant? a rhinocerous?

Turn Undead, now there's one that needs streamlining. I do like the CD variant, either way it should mesh instead of being a stuck on mini-system.

Swallow Whole, getting swallowed should be truly lethal with scant chance of escaping but doing so should be maiming to the creature doing the swallowing.



Now there's the mother of all of my pet peeves! Why is it that in a fantasy game every single setting and the rules as written themselves should be artificially stacked against anything but the traditional PHB races?

For being a lot more adaptable? I think there is a good reason for this, especially if you consider the whole OGL/D20 concept. And even if you discount that - after having played every core class and race in the game, I am eager to try out something new - be it one of the new core class, or be it a non-standard race...

 

[Psion]

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

Obviously, my opinion on the matter differs...

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

Funny how these supposed questions never came up in my games in 3.0. But it took one chariot encounter to bring up different issues in 3.5.

 

[lukelightning]

Funny how these supposed questions never came up in my games in 3.0. But it took one chariot encounter to bring up different issues in 3.5.

Easy: make the two horses in front of a chariot share the same space; after all, they aren't "fighting", just pulling a vehicle.

And vehicles should probably have facing, since they are relatively poor at maneuvering.

 

[Psion]

The big problem is the changes that a polymorph makes to stat blocks, which requires massive recalculation.

I think the big problem is that polymorph is only limited by statblocks. All the sudden, all it takes is hunting out the broken creature to turn into to break it.

I think what polymorph needs is a limit on modifiers it can give you; trade away modifiers for special abilities, size, etc.

Here's one I forgot:

Synergy bonuses

Originally, I thought these were a great idea. Much simpler than going the route of GURPS, I thought, but still captures the essence of overlapping areas of study.

But in truth, it's still not simple enough. You have to bounce every skill you have against every other skill you have to see if a synergy exists.

I like the Spycraft 2.0 variant. It gives you an increasing bonus based on ranks in the synergy skill, but only the best applies. This works well, because once you have the best synergy bonus, you are done. Also prevents stacking abuses and works well enough.