Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Aus_Snow]

Oh OK then, I may as well keep going. What the hey, in for a penny and that.

Facing - this is a must, for sanity's sake. Please. Again, see UA for the basics of one way of doing this. And once again, this is a WotC variant, so maybe there's hope.

A base defence bonus (e.g., based on BAB) would be nice, but here I know I'm probably dreaming.

Epic rules, CR, ECL, etc. done right - see the Immortals Handbook line. The creator knows his stuff.

Some simple nod to woundedness in combat (while still above 0 HP), maybe as per the 'clobbered' variant from the DMG, or something equally easy to implement and remember. At the very least, that is. Not just "fa la la, take hundreds of HP in damage and be for just about all intents and purposes absolutely fighting fit and unblemished, then suddenly fall unconscious at -x HP."

That last one might not be much of a crowd pleaser though. Dunno. It's a pet peeve anyway, to be sure.

 

[Piratecat]

Facing - this is a must, for sanity's sake. Please.

Gack! No thanks. I want rules that are less minis-dependent, not more. Adding mandatory facing is something I have no interest in.

 

[Mark CMG]

Coup de gras rules could use some rethinking.

 

[wingsandsword]

Turn Undead and Grappling: Every time these come up, the rulebooks come out so everyone can look up what the heck the rules are.

Swallow Whole: Nonsensical, especially assuming that "muscular action" seals every breach of every character that escapes.

Paladin/Monk Multiclassing issue: Just dump it if it has no balance issue, really. Why have it in the core as supposedly player wanted flavor, if both of the supported settings put right in the main book workarounds. FR has loads of orders for Paladins and Monks that let them multiclass, while Eberron made it a feat.

Favored Classes: They don't make much sense, why is elf Wizard in instead of Ranger or Druid for example? Favored classes are like the Paladin/Monk multiclass restriction, just a hobble that is a legacy of older D&D.

 

[Mark CMG]

Gack! No thanks. I want rules that are less minis-dependent, not more. Adding mandatory facing is something I have no interest in.

If someone doesn't use minis in their game, and a game doesn't require them but does accomodate their use, than how could a rule that addresses their use be mandatory?

 

[RangerWickett]

One action, one attack. Get rid of iterative attacks, but give people two actions per round, which could be move and attack, or two moves. Having two weapons improves your damage, so one 'attack' would use both weapons.

Have one core spellcasting system, and one spell list, then make some classes with limitations as to which spells they get, or how they cast spells. Each class would provide a caster level bonus, like a base attack bonus. You would get magic points (MP) based on your total caster level, and your maximum spell level would likewise be limited by the total caster level.

Wizards could learn any spell. Sorcerers would be able to learn groups of spells, so you could be a fire sorcerer, or a teleportation sorcerer (as opposed to a wizard, who would pick and choose a few spells here and there). Clerics would similarly get domains.

(more thoughts later)

 

[BryonD]

Gack! No thanks. I want rules that are less minis-dependent, not more. Adding mandatory facing is something I have no interest in.

I betting that if you don't use minis, then the square facings are also a non-issue to you because you just go with the narrative anyway. I think facing rules would fade out of the equation the same way.

 

[Psion]

I betting that if you don't use minis, then the square facings are also a non-issue to you because you just go with the narrative anyway. I think facing rules would fade out of the equation the same way.

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.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Most of my gripes have been brought up already too.

1) Turn undead is bulky (I prefer a system that deals damage to undead, sort of a positive energy burst, but haven't had time to work out details).
2) Grapple is time consuming.
3) The idea that a round is 6-seconds is kinda goofy, when some people with two weapons can get 9 attacks in a round, and someone else can yell the Gettysburg Address as a free action, etc. Not sure how to deal with this except through DM judgment though.
4) Facing is interesting. I like that we don't have it, in terms of the grid. But, it was a nice element in role-playing circumstances. "I sneak up on him," was once such an important part of being a rogue; and, while the sneak attack still covers much of it, there's room for some movement here. I don't want facing rules put back in fully, but some sort of nod in the DMG would be nice. (I think having the DM rule, on a case-by-case basis, whether it's relevant to assume that the particular facing of a particular combatant in a particular circumstance covers it, and the DM can, on the fly, assign whatever advantage or penalty he deems appropriate.)
5) Swallow whole sucks (pun intended). Digging back out makes even less sense.
6) I'm not sure I'm happy with the way nonlethal damage and regeneration and all that works either, but I wouldn't classify it as "worst ever" territory.

Dave

 

[Pants]

Which is simply a requirement of the bad rule that a monster has no "front" no matter how long and thin they are. I'd prefer non-square monsters, but only if they have facing. Which I'd also really prefer.

Yeah, you can't really have one or the other.

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.

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.

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