Worst...Idea...Ever


log in or register to remove this ad


Okay, my turn:

1- "Me too" on making the soulknife as a core class. Or any core (meaning 20 level) class that it wouldn't make sense to have an apprentice teenager.

2- "Anything can cross-breed." I don't mind the existence of half-whatever templates... the idea of magical crossbreeds is a fine fantasy tradition. But the mere idea that not only would random disparate creatures couple ("hey baby... what's a slime like you doing in a place like this?"), but that such coupling would result in offspring is... annoyingly stupid, and it strips an otherwise intriguing fantasy concept of its luster.
 


The nerfing of the yugoloths, especially the ultroloths. And what's worse, they did it TWICE! Some of the greatest schemers and manipulators of the multiverse and have Int 16, Wis 15, Cha 19? They are barely smarter than a vrock, and not much more charismatic. For shame!
 

Jyrdan Fairblade said:
You have got to be joking! Please tell me that these haven't been published somewhere....

Necromentals - Monster Manual 3, I believe? And I kinda liked the idea, because I thought it was just actual elementals suffused with negative energy.

"Rise from the grave, oh, dead campfire!"

Turanil said:
Can you take seriously a mimic or gelatinous cube?

Strangely, I can, because I can conceive of an amorphous multi-celled creature with control of body cohesion. The Gel-cube I admit is sillier than the mimic, but I like the idea of the mimic. But the idea of a Penanggelan was ruined for me by the original Fiend Folio.
 

1st edition: level limits, distinct and non combatable mechanics to be stealthy (and surprised) or listed at a door, the need to give treasure for advancement (XP) and then drain it away with training, weapon speeds, a weapon vs. armor chart in the PHB that no one used, a bunch of weapons no one used, psionics, much of Unearthed Arcana in play (for some reason, I liked it better in Dragon), much of the Fiend Folio (this was probably my first realization that game designers where not perfect, but now it does have a certain nostalgia value)… as an aside, other quirks I kinda liked: spells balanced with system shock checks, disappearing drow equipement…

2nd edition: keeping too many of the above, but without the charm or style. Two weapon rangers, most kits, most things Realms that I had contact with, the devastating long spear from the CFHB, the complete elves handbook (and all released after it), large portions of Players Options in play, including sub-ability scores…

3rd edition: the 3.0 ranger, 3.5 weapon sizes (given what they replaced), too much emphasis on a default setting (including things like deities, demographics, magic level…) that can never satisfy everyone, no matter how generic they make it.
 

Jyrdan Fairblade said:
You have got to be joking! Please tell me that these haven't been published somewhere....

In Libris Mortis, the deaf/mute cousin of Draconomicon and Lords of Madness. Aka the one that was a disappointment.

They took the negative touched quasielementals of 2e in almost every aspect (Dust, Ash, Void, Salt) and called them undead elementals. No explanation of how things without a real corporeal body could be made undead, how things without a body/soul duality could even be made undead. But wham, undead elementals.

As I said, dumber than a sack of hammers.

Had they called them quasielementals which they almost transparent imitations of, that would have been fine, but they made them actual undead. *sigh and shake of head*
 



Remove ads

Top