Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Jeff Wilder]

Class skills are bloody stupid.

Why?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So now, instead of attacking, it has to spend its action bull rushing people out of the way? Or if it is a free action, you're giving it free attacks. And regardless, I think it would severly slow down play. A simple attempt to attack someone or move position turns into multiple bull rush attempts.

What is the problem with using the movement rules and AoO rules as written? That your tactics in closing with a large creature might affect how it fights? How it moves? I notice that you still haven't answered this question -- perhaps you are suggesting that the current rules for moving/AoOs aren't robust enough to handle realistic base sizes? For the record, I would disagree with this assertation.

The default RAW right now suggests that such a turn would be a free action, BTW, because even though you are presumably close enough to attack a creature, you are never actually in its way unless it specifically wants to go through you. If this is the solution you prefer, it is no less realistic because the base sizes better match the creature(s) you are attacking.

Myself, I prefer the idea that your position on the battlefield can affect if and how you are attacked by a given creature. YMMV, and obviously does.

RC

 

[Lanefan]

For "facing", I've always just kinda hand-waved it...if a creature has a specific attack e.g. bite, then I just choose (or randomly roll, depending how smart it is) a target in front of it or close. (I'll say here that we do use mini's, so knowing where things are is relatively easy) For a tail attack, I'll choose someone the tail can reach.

If a long creature with only a bite attack (e.g. Purple Worm) is stuck in a narrow passage and someone manages to somehow get behind it, they've made themselves immune to its attack; I have no problem with that.

In other words, make common sense a house rule; use it, and demand your players use it also.

Lanefan

 

[lukelightning]

Potions (and magic item creation feats in general). You can only make a potion of certain spells, up to 3rd level.

But you can just as easily use Craft Wondrous Items to make an "elixir" that does the same thing...or better.

 

[RangerWickett]

I came up with this option for combat without battle mats. Maybe it could be adapted to minis combat somehow.

You have two actions per round.

A combat 'stage' is roughly 30 feet in radius.

By default, all characters are static, meaning they don't move around much. People in the same stage can attack each other if both of them are static, and you can use both your actions to attack.

If you spend one action, you can become mobile, meaning you are actively keeping your distance from foes. While mobile, you can still attack anyone, whether they're static or mobile, but you would only have one action available per round, which means more attacks.

You can also choose to spend an action to engage a foe, which means that you focus your effort on staying in that foe's face. If he's mobile, you're mobile. If he's static, you're static. Only if you are engaging a foe can you make attacks of opportunity against him, and you can only engage one foe at a time. Disengaging requires . . . I think it was an opposed Dex check, or something similar.

There was a lot more to it, but those are the basics.

 

[Kaodi]

Well... why not double the damage dice of every weapon, and then each +5 in BAB gives an additional damage die? Or Each +5 BAB just multiplies the damage dice as is... Maybe the second method would be easier... in Star Wars, isn't there a class that essentially does this with the lightsaber?

Anyway, Bob the Barbarian, using a greatsword, might do 2d6 at 1, 6d6 at 10 and 10d6 at 20.

Meanwhile, Roy the Ranger, specializing in Dual Wielding, using the second method with a longsword and a shortsword might do 1d8 + 1d6 at 2, 2d8 + 1d6 at 5, 2d8 + 2d6 at 6, 3d8 + 2d6 at 10, 3d8 + 3d6 at 11, 4d8 + 3d6 at 15 and 5d8 + 3d6 at 20.

On average, not accounting for Str, Bob would do 35 damage per attack, and Roy would do 32 damage per attack.

Fred the Fighter, lastly, might do only 5d8 at level 20, but he has probably has a much better armour class, and with weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization, if you were to change the rules, might even be doing 7d8 (with the +2 attack from focuses).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

With regards to Turn Undead, has anyone come up with a better set of rules for it?

Opposed Cha check, with bonus of +1 per cleric level (undead get a bonus of +1 per turn resistance, plus an additional bonus -- either HD or BAB would be easy). Cleric rolls once, each undead rolls individually.

Peronsally, I'd like:


Turn Undead. For all the reasons mentioned. No mechanic should require referencing a table.

Grapple. I don't consider it hard, but it should work identically to all the other special attacks -- AoO, then simply roll to resolve. Drop the touch attack bt, and allow the defender to use Dex bonus as well.

Stacking. Reduce the number of types of bonuses. If I need more than one hand to count them, it's too many.

Metamagic. Surely this system could be more elegant, and more consistent in application.

Actions. They've bloated again ... we now have three types of actions that take virtually no time. Why do we need a "free" action? Why isn't it (like talking) just "not an action"?

Eliminate (or at least better explain) feat stacking. So no more "Can I use Rapid Shot with Manyshot" questions, or duplicating of abilities that are essentially the same (like monks with Flurry + TWF)

Answer "Monks and Improved natural Attack" once and for all -- by eliminating both.

PrCs should be elgible for XP penalties.

Drop monk as a core class -- put it in Oriental Adventures or a splatbook. No ki in my core, please.

Gnome favored class = Illusionist. Half-elf favored class can be fop, er, bard.

 

[SkidAce]

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

We don't use minis (except for looks) and we still use old facing rules (+1 attack/damage from side, +2 from rear etc)

Or pluses to sneak when approaching from the rear, etc. Simple stuff we feel makes sense...no minis "required"

 

[FireLance]

Well... why not double the damage dice of every weapon, and then each +5 in BAB gives an additional damage die? Or Each +5 BAB just multiplies the damage dice as is... Maybe the second method would be easier... in Star Wars, isn't there a class that essentially does this with the lightsaber?

Instead of making it automatic, I'd rather make it an option:

A character with a BAB of +6 or more can choose to take a -5 penalty on his attack roll to deal double damage.

A character with a BAB of +11 or more can also choose to take a -10 penalty on his attack roll to deal triple damage.

A character with a BAB of +16 or more can also choose to take a -15 penalty on his attack roll to deal quadruple damage.​

For dual-wielders, the character deals damage as if he had hit with both weapons. The attack roll penalty is -6 if one weapon is light and -8 if both are one-handed weapons. Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalty by 4.

A character with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting can take an additional -5 penalty on his attack to deal double damage.

A character with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can take an additional -10 penalty on his attack to deal triple damage.​

For flurry of blows and similar abilities, the character can choose to take a -2 penalty to deal double damage. For monks, this penalty reduces to -1 at 5th level, and disappears at 9th level. At 11th level, the damage multiplier increases by one.

 

[FireLance]

The worst mistake 3e made was 1.5 STR damage with a two handed weapon. treating the wielder as if 2 points stronger {An increase of 1 point of damage] would have been enough given that damage dice on two handed weapons were also increased going from 2e to 3e. Hell treating them as if 4 points stronger would give anyone a 'reason' to wield a two handed weapon without sending damage bonuses to rediculous levels.

Two-handed weapons have to stack up against the two-weapon style. Unless you also eliminate the Strength bonus to damage for an off-hand weapon completely, two-weapon fighting will become the top damage-dealing fighting style for high-Strength characters. Not everyone will find that to be intuitive.