Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Nyaricus]

We are currently in the third-and-a-half incarnation of the D&D game (well, except for Diaglo, but he's special ) and the question is: what are some of the worse rules in 3.5e? Were there ever better versions of these rules? Why are these rules so bad? What could be done to fix them?

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. I think that this needs to be revised moreso than any other element in 3.5e. It's silly that a monk may or may not benefit from Improved Natural Attack, depending on one's reading of the feat. Honestly, we just need to swipe the table clean and redo this awkward section of D&D.

2). I'd also like to put forward grappling. I have a player in my group who's playing a earth genasi pugilist (an acultural alt monk/fighter hybrid class) who likes to grapple, and nothing causes combat to slow down and books to be opened to reference rules than that. I hate it; it's over complicated when it really doesn't need to be, and the sequence of how it plays out is unclear both in layout and options presented. A closer attention to detail and clarity needs to be brought to this subject in order for grapple to be viable.

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

cheers,
--N

 

[Piratecat]

Turning undead. It uses a non-standard and unintuitive system. We have to open to the rules every time it happens, and that's just annoying.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) I have to agree with Nyaricus' peeve #1 100%- the designers just got too cute with the language and messed it up. Collapse the weapon categories into manufactured and natural. Just like you can have manufactured weapons that do non-lethal and others that do lethal, you can have natural weapons do likewise.

2) I'd like to see them be a little clearer & more consistent on things like LA, ECL, and CR...especially for helping people do their own critters.

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.

If they're really trying to get people to try out races other than the PHB ones, that's a good mechanic to try.

4) A general gripe- avoid complex and/or unclear sentence construction, especially if there are certain rules interactions that one can reasonably expect. Some of the rules discussions I've seen on these boards would melt into nothingness if the sentences were simply better constructed. The classic one for me was the huge discussion on Flaming Whips. :\

 

[Destil]

Grapple I actually don't mind the rules for, but I know I'm in the minority (I lothe the way the rules give about an 8-1 return for grappling based on size, though. An unfair size bonus to grapple checks, large creatures = more HD = highter BAB and large creatures are always horridly strong. It's unfair to PCs and I'd like to think that the larger creature may have a hard time holding a smaller one who may slip out of their grasp).

Paladin & Monk multiclassing is by far the worst rule, though. There's no reason for it to be there. Why do we keep seeing feats (FEATS!?!? A pure paladin gets 7 and has to split them between melee, smiting and horesmanship) that remove it?

Sorcerers being unable to quicken spells is also rather high up there. It's a pretty big balance factor when every other caster can throw out 2 spells / round at need at high levels. The really inconsistant FAQ rulings on metamagic rods of quicken make this much worse, too...

 

[Psion]

Grapple I actually don't mind the rules for, but I know I'm in the minority

I'm with you. I have a hard time how they could be simpler, and still balanced and effective and representative at all.

Paladin & Monk multiclassing is by far the worst rule, though.

Yeah, that's a stinker.

I remember a third party supplement that had a section about a contemplative class that allows the character to not have an alignment...

 

[MerricB]

I'm with you. I have a hard time how they could be simpler, and still balanced and effective and representative at all.

Ditto.

It's just the huge grapple bonuses of large creatures I protest at.

Cheers!

 

[Piratecat]

Paladin & Monk multiclassing is by far the worst rule, though. There's no reason for it to be there.

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.

 

[Pants]

Worst Rules?

1) Swallow Whole - I hate this mechanic. It makes absolutely no sense (you can cut your way out, but doing so doesn't hurt the creature? BS) at all.

2) Turn Undead - For one, it uses a nonstandard rule system and two, it seems nigh useless at certain levels. Sure, it's good for smoking mooks, but it's rarely useful against anything else, especially with the high volume of undead sporting turn resistance.

3) Gotta agree with the unarmed strike issue, then again, the monk needs to be looked over in general. Make it a generic unarmed fighter and make the ki-based abilities of the monk either feat driven or a PrC.

4) Grapple - It's ridiculously complex and it needs to be presented in a clearer manner. Redoing the rules would probably cause more problems than it would solve.

 

[Destil]

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.

I know and I have. But that's why I hate it, it shouldn't be there. And stuff like the feats in the Eberron setting that remove it really me from a balance perspective....

 

[Piratecat]

I know and I have. But that's why I hate it, it shouldn't be there. And stuff like the feats in the Eberron setting that remove it really me from a balance perspective....

I hadn't noticed...

No, I'm with you. The fact that people no longer clamor for it shows that it's outlived its usefulness.