Worst...Idea...Ever

[Barendd Nobeard]

Pipe dream for 4e: precise, rigorous monster design guidelines, ending with the result that HD=level=CR=ECL.

Ugh. That sort of strict accounting enforced on monster design would strip DnD of it's wonky charm. Why follow the mythical "everything can be perfectly balanced" goal, which is impossible?

Because it's a pain in the bottom to have monsters that are level 4 (for the purpose of spells and effects), level 2 (for the purpose of pitting them against adventurers) and level 7 (for the purpose of having one among the party). LA should always be zero.

Do you mean "Level Adjustment" should always be 0? If it's always 0, then you wouldn't need the concept of Level Adjustment at all.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Gold Elves, aka Sun Elves, aka Evil Nazi Bastard Melnibonelves.

Interesting choice of words, showing a great sense of irony.

For me its the 5 foot step rule. Why does taking a step 5 foot back not cause an AoO but takng a 10 foot step back does.It seems backwards.

Of course it seems backwards, you're only talking about taking steps back

The five foot steps is an attempt to represent movement properly. Combat in D&D is abstract: Even though your miniature stands there on that battle grid in one place, not moving unless you move it on your turn, and only staring in one direction, that's not what's actually* happens: The characters are shifting position all the time, within their 5x5 foot square (which they don't occupy, but the game disregards that, too). And when this minor shifting does get you beyond one of those invisible lines (since you are, say, slowly going sideways all the time, without leaving yourself open to attack), it's a fivefooter.

*I know that actually nothing happens, it's all in our heads, but you know what I mean

Mithral elves.. ??

Or Star Elves. Star Elves is used as header of their entry, but since I was using the metal names of the other ones, I stuck to mithral. They're only found in a certain region (their own demiplane and the material plane locations that are very near it. It's in Aglarond, in the unapproachable east.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

but he can't pick up two medium-sized scythes and wield them with a penalty of some sort?

Is that 3.5 medium? So you want to wield two two-handed weapons? Maybe - with four hands, get yourself killed again and aim for thri-kreen. ;-)

Personally, I'd allow it with monkey grip (if I recall correctly how this feat is supposed to work) and another -2 to all attacks. (dual-wielding light is -2, one-handed is -4, so two-handed should be worse)

Do you mean "Level Adjustment" should always be 0? If it's always 0, then you wouldn't need the concept of Level Adjustment at all.

I think that's what he's going for. I must say that I'd like something like that, but it will be a real pain to implement that.

 

[Taren Seeker]

For all the Elf haters complaining about the number of Elf subraces...hope you all hate Dwarves too:

Arctic Dwarf
Deep Dwarf
Duergar
Gold Dwarf
Grey Dwarf
Mountain Dwarf
Shield Dwarf
Urdunnir
Wild Dwarf

That's 9. I believe there are 9 Elf subraces as well:

Sun
Gray
Wood
Wild
Star
Moon
Drow
Winged (Avariel)
Aquatic

I may be mixing my FR and GR terminology here but I believe those are all distinct races. Anyways, never mind me, this is just a bit of a pet peeve.

EDIT: Hmm, I just remembered the Hill Dwarf as well, but I'm not sure that's covered under the ones I already listed. So either 9 or 10 Dwarf subraces.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

For all the Elf haters complaining about the number of Elf subraces...hope you all hate Dwarves too:

Yup. I don't like pc races other than human.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

For all the Elf haters complaining about the number of Elf subraces...hope you all hate Dwarves too:

Arctic Dwarf
Deep Dwarf
Duergar
Gold Dwarf
Grey Dwarf
Mountain Dwarf
Shield Dwarf
Urdunnir
Wild Dwarf

That's 9. I believe there are 9 Elf subraces as well:

Sun
Gray
Wood
Wild
Star
Moon
Drow
Winged (Avariel)
Aquatic

I may be mixing my FR and GR terminology here but I believe those are all distinct races. Anyways, never mind me, this is just a bit of a pet peeve.

EDIT: Hmm, I just remembered the Hill Dwarf as well, but I'm not sure that's covered under the ones I already listed. So either 9 or 10 Dwarf subraces.

I think you have some kinds of dwarves mentioned more than once (grey dwarves are duergar). Elves have more subraces than dwarves. Of course, dwarves are second, with third coming far behind.

For the record: I'm not an elf-hater. I actually like elves. They are in a similar situation now than I am.

I am a dwarf-hater, though. It's not for all the subraces, I like that. The thing is that the one standard dwarven race is more twinked than any three elven subraces combined buggers me far more. And it's core. Despite, the whole idea of a race that is totally geared towards power-gaming fighters (everything points to it, the race even offers an excuse to make charisma the dump stat).

 

[Celebrim]

I have a hard time narrowing it down to just a few choices. Here are some of the top given in the order I think of them

1) Introduction of Weapon Specialization in 1st - The more distance I get from this rule, the more I think it was the worst thing that ever happened to D&D. Having many feats saved the idea somewhat.
2) Human weaker than all other races/demi-human level restrictions - The two are linked, and you can't hate one without hating the other.
3) Only Fighters getting x/attacks per round progression - Combat is so basic to the game that no one class should have ever dominated as completely as the fighter did in 1st/2nd edition
4) Not Giving Monsters explicit Str, Int, Dex, Con, etc. - This was always really wonky, especially as rules began to proliferate that depended on knowing something's attribute. SSS check on the dire bear anyone? What's a puma's bonus to initiative? This pit trap calls for a dex check to avoid; I wonder what the dex of a chimp is?
5) Prestige Classes - One of the few big mistakes the 3rd edition designers made.
6) Changing the simple weapon size rules to be more 'realistic' - One of the few big mistakes the 3.5 editors made.
7) First edition's version of DR - 'Magic or Nothing' was always a rule that depended on alot of DM metagaming.
8) Gary G's various meta-gaming when writing the rules for AD&D - This is a catch all category for all the ways that EGG wrote about how the fantastic world worked that were explicitly designed just to beat the character's down rather than make a functional society - from the prices in the price guide to the creation of magic items. It set up one set of rules for the NPC's and another for the PC's. This was never very satisfying and I think it contributed to the odious tendancy for the PC's to see the game as 'Us vs. the DM'. 3rd edition cleaned alot of this out, but you can still see some of the metagaming legacy in things like the price guide.
9) Save or die poisons - I probably could extend this to include any 'save or die' effect which comes down to a single die throw.
10) First edition's version of energy drain - On the good side, it made undead truly terrifying. On the bad side, it was a ridiculously gross effect.

 

[wingsandsword]

8) Gary G's various meta-gaming when writing the rules for AD&D - This is a catch all category for all the ways that EGG wrote about how the fantastic world worked that were explicitly designed just to beat the character's down rather than make a functional society - from the prices in the price guide to the creation of magic items. It set up one set of rules for the NPC's and another for the PC's. This was never very satisfying and I think it contributed to the odious tendancy for the PC's to see the game as 'Us vs. the DM'. 3rd edition cleaned alot of this out, but you can still see some of the metagaming legacy in things like the price guide.

Like the the infamous "Poker, Chess and the AD&D Game" article in Dragon Magazine #62. That one article did more damage to the game in some ways than a lot of anti D&D campaigns by making it "official" that D&D must always be played exactly by the RAW, the DM's Shall Not Change The Rules, and if you dare change the rules you have no right to call your game D&D or expect players to play it. People say that 3e is weakening DM control and "trying to get rid of Rule 0", unti 3e "Rule 0" was never a written rule, and it used to be that when the Rules and DM disagreed, the official policy was: The DM is wrong.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

10) First edition's version of energy drain - On the good side, it made undead truly terrifying. On the bad side, it was a ridiculously gross effect.

Ah, ironic that this is the last post, because I'm saying just the opposite! I hate how they've nerfed level drain in 3e. Undead should be terrifying, and level drain was a great way to simulate that fear in the players.

Mark me down as another hater of weapon sizes in 3.5. In fact, it's the only change I hate about 3.5, and that's probably why it bugs me so much.

I'm also an old school gamer who doesn't mind the dungeonpunk art style. It inspired me to go post-apocalyptic with my current campaign, so it's cool with me. I do wish they'd kept Elmore and Easley as well, though.

 

[Darkness]

Some especially dumb monster concepts, and especially monsters that only exist to shaft PCs (e.g., mimic, rust monster), aren't my cup of tea.