D&D: Worst (design thought experiment) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ashtagon

2012-07-04, 02:48 AM

More as a thought experiment than anything else, how would you go about implementing a rules set (pseudo retro-clone) that took on the worst aspects of every D&D edition?

Pre-emptive: no edition warring please. I love every edition I've knocked here. If a concept is only directly addressed in a single edition, it probably isn't appropriate here.

Core mechanics: 1e style saving throws and THAC0.
Races as classes from original and/or classic D&D
XP tables that vary by class from pre-3e.
Grapple rules from 3e (along with all the other 'combat manoeuvres', but grapple especially)
2e style weapon specialisation (read all about it in The Complete Fighter's Handbook)
No feats
Not sure which did the worst implementation for skills.
Weapons have varying modifiers to hit based on 1e style weapon tables.
Speaking of 1e, POLE ARMS!

HunterOfJello

2012-07-04, 03:28 AM

- Fighter's only class feature is that they get TONS of "Fighter Feats".
- All "Fighter Feats" are terrible

-Truenaming
-All of the already weaker spellcasting classes must rely upon 2 stats to cast spells instead of 1.

-Candles of Invocation are common in the world.

-Every method of fighting except for THF takes 2 to 4 times the amount of investment as THF and has less than 1/4th the usefulness.

-Paladins lose all of their class abilities by committing a single evil act

-Classes are given features that define their entire ability to fight enemies. Many enemies are absolutely and unequivocally immune to those class features. (Sneak Attack)

-Everyone loves playing Half-Elves. Therefore, Half-Elves should be given the worst stats of any other major race.

Togo

2012-07-04, 03:35 AM

xp strictly linked to wealth
all classes have functionally similar abilities with different fluff attached.
grappling suddenly allows you to gorge eyes, break limbs and score other injuries, while attacking someone with a weapon does not
All spells are combat spells
All out of combat challenges abstracted to a dice roll the DM believes would be appropriate to 'solve' the problem
Extra rules tacked on to make your character more powerful, for no reason
Random chance of being psychic for no cost

SiuiS

2012-07-04, 03:44 AM

I disagree on some of your points. I think the differing XP values solve some of the perceived balance issue between melee and casters, and old-school weapon mastery was pretty slick. Especially considering current weapon mastery is... Kinda wasteful.

Also, old saving throws aren't that bad. Instead of you having a bonus to roll over a static DC, you instead lower the DC. It's mathematically pretty similar.

Togo hits a lot of salient points I can't argue however. Can I just agree with his list? I'll even add

- class mechanic which so confusingly contradicts basic rules that they seem unplayable (bards requiring half elves to be multi class fighter/thieves and then somehow dual class into Druid)
- implicit and unspoken Default Campaign Setting which informs all of the designer's decisions, which left unspoken creates odd rules for seemingly no reason
- unspoken expectation that games scone about politics and logistics at around 12th level, utterly falling apart due to power disparity afterwards.

sonofzeal

2012-07-04, 03:56 AM

- All "Fighter Feats" are terrible
Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Improved Trip, Shield Ward, Martial Study, Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical Concealment, Pierce Magical Protection...... :smallbiggrin:

(Unless you're talking about a different edition of course, but the rest of your stuff is all 3.5)

On-topic...

- Skill challenges from 4e.
- Multiclassing from 2e.
- Stealth errata from 3.5e
- Legacy spells in 3e that were balanced in earlier editions by downsides that no longer exist.
- 3d6 in order from AD&D
- 18/?? strength scores

eggs

2012-07-04, 04:13 AM

Tactical success must be predominantly determined by the user's time investment in an unrelated out-of-game "Character Building" task. Bonus points if the tools used in creating a single character in this task involves rutting through scores of thematically unrelated splatbooks, or if the task involves webs of prerequisites that demand deliberate forethought.

Also, weapon/armor interaction charts!

EDIT:
And the default ruling on "can my character try X?" is "No, unless you have a Feat, Class, Nonweapon Proficiency AND Power that permit it."

Tvtyrant

2012-07-04, 04:25 AM

Having to have "feats" to craft things that you need "skill checks" to be able to craft. Yay paying for the same thing twice!

Spells that make you good at other people's class roles.

Every class has the same exact base mechanics.

No skills for classes with BaB.

Ianuagonde

2012-07-04, 04:40 AM

Also, weapon/armor interaction charts!

Ah, those were the days. More goodies from 2E to add:
-rolling high is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
-initiative is modified by the speed of your weapon or spell, and changes whenever you use a different weapon or spell.
-reading/writing is a skill, and learning it requires the same amount of resources it takes to learn riding.
-speaking of skills, the old skills need to be restored to glory, to trick newbies into making bad decisions when building a character. In particular, the skills Astrology, Charioteering, Cobbling, Fire-building, Gaming, Herbalism, and Tightrope Walking are essential for the best of the worst.
-darkvision and low-light vision are too easy. Instead you get infravision, the ability to see heat emanations. This is much cooler, and makes the DM work that much harder. Now, he needs to differentiate the heat auras of a fighting wolf, a sleeping wolf, a gelatinous cube, and a white dragon.
-magic items are very rare. Making a magic items is close to impossible, and any recipe can only be used once. Said recipe can only be obtained through extensive research and communing with other planes. This rarity includes healing potions.
-your movement is the amount of 10-yard increments you can walk in a round when nothing is happening, and as 10-feet increments during combat. Descriptions such as 'movement 30 feet' makes for lazy players.
-memorizing a single spell takes 10 minutes x the level of the spell. That will nerf those spellcasters!

Togo

2012-07-04, 06:48 AM

Paladins gaining/losing powers because they didn't extend enough control over the actions of other PCs.

Highly setting specific rules, like alignment languages.

Cavaliers

Read languages as a thief skill (because only they get skills)

Ashtagon

2012-07-04, 06:55 AM

Barbarians should be banned from using magic items, and should be rewarded for destroying items that other PCs could have used.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-04, 07:05 AM

I actually think XP tables differing by class are an excellent idea. The tables themselves were not very organized, but the idea is sound. Wizards are supposed to be more powerful than Fighters, after all.

In fact, what I'd add is "all classes work exactly in the same way" from 4e. And "no simulationism at all" from 4e as well. "no multiclassing" or "3e multiclass penalties", I'm sincerely not sure which is worse.

On a sidenote, you really dig the unfun stuff, Ashtagon :smallbiggrin:

deuxhero

2012-07-04, 07:18 AM

-Everyone loves playing Half-Elves. Therefore, Half-Elves should be given the worst stats of any other major race.

When was this? Isn't Half-Orc MUCH worse in 3.x?

sonofzeal

2012-07-04, 08:08 AM

When was this? Isn't Half-Orc MUCH worse in 3.x?
Half-Orcs still have a reason to play them - Cha is a common dumpstat, leaving you with a Str-vs-Int tradeoff that's worth it for some. The problem is that they don't have anything else of value, which is exactly where Half-Elves are. Both are overshadowed by their parent races, but Half-Orc "win" in that they're merely less advantageous than their parents, while Half-Elf is simply not advantageous at all.

strider24seven

2012-07-04, 08:39 AM

robertbevan

2012-07-04, 08:50 AM

-initiative is modified by the speed of your weapon or spell, and changes whenever you use a different weapon or spell.

i thought that was a really cool feature, actually. i was sad to see it go in 3ed.

it added a little more depth to your decision when choosing what sort of weapon you wanted to fight with, and sometimes when deciding which enemy in a group you want to attack first.

i'd like to see a system with a well thought out balance of weapon speed, critical threat range, and critical hit multiplier.

little details like that even contribute to fleshing out some of my characters' personalities when i'm creating them.

strider24seven

2012-07-04, 08:53 AM

Could a mod lock this thread please. It looks like a forum members decided this thread was an acceptable place to begin edition warring.

I was not intending on edition warring.
If you want me to rephrase, I shall:

•Core mechanics: 4th ed Core mechanics, specifically variable defense mechanics and with all classes receiving mostly identical "per-encounter", "per-day", etc abilities
•XP table "changes" from PF
•CMB from PF
•3.0 Haste

Cyan Wisp

2012-07-04, 08:58 AM

1E (Still love you, 1E, but...)
- morale, loyalty, grapple rules. Ugh.
- thief skills. It's a wonder that any low level thief could make a dishonest living!
- initiative: especially casting time vs. weapon speed factor - when even winning initiative does not guarantee that you can cast your spell unclobbered.
- Psionics for the elite
- Comeliness! :smallbiggrin:
- Some very low level limits. Sorry half-orcs, 4th level cleric is all you can aspire to. The gods don't like you. Probably because your comeliness is, well, wanting, and you stink of unlawful union.
- disease, parasitic infestation, system shock, called shots, assassination, psionic attacks and defenses, aging effects, permanent death. Die, PC, Die!

2E
- "fighting monks." I liked 1e monks.

(I actually liked the 2e "roll low" initiative with weapon speeds and casting times too - first thing we ported into our 1e games)

Can't think of anything else at the moment.

robertbevan

2012-07-04, 09:02 AM

Could a mod lock this thread please. It looks like a forum members decided this thread was an acceptable place to begin edition warring.

oh come on now... this thread has been pretty civil for the topic you started.

what are some of the crappiest point of each d&d edition? oh... and no edition wars please.

that's like getting on a fox news forum and saying

what race of people do you think smell the worst? oh... and let's be mature about this. try not to say anything racist.

Andorax

2012-07-04, 09:26 AM

Crit charts for various types of injuries you can suffer from bludgeoning, slashing, crushing, piercing, fire, frost, acid. Roll for attacks and for spells.

Determine the XP award for a HD 13******* creature.

Ashtagon

2012-07-04, 09:38 AM

oh come on now... this thread has been pretty civil for the topic you started.

what are some of the crappiest point of each d&d edition? oh... and no edition wars please.

that's like getting on a fox news forum and saying

what race of people do you think smell the worst? oh... and let's be mature about this. try not to say anything racist.

There is actually a benign reason for this thread. People do like to make new rules systems, which often build on what came before. By canvassing peoples opinions of what was really bad, we have a better idea of what should be especially avoided.

There is a world of difference between

"Edition X sucks"

and

"The way feature X was implemented in edition Y sucks"

Ianuagonde

2012-07-04, 09:41 AM

i thought that was a really cool feature, actually. i was sad to see it go in 3ed.

It is cool, and I would like to use it. The lumbering fighter,drawing his greataxe vs the rogue who has already thrown a dagger, and is now readying a second. I like it. This is how combat should be.

What I don't like is the hassle that comes with using a different weapon in the same combat (for example, starting with a ranged weapon and switching to melee) or casters using more than one spell in a fight. This happens a lot. It means that on round one, your initiative is 6, on the second round it's 12 and on the third round it's 10. And every other player is also using a different number every round. And so are your enemies. I've DMed this, and it was not pretty. I spent more time figuring out whose turn it was than I did with the combat itself.

To be honest, I don't really have a good fix for this. If you only use the first modifier, PCs will walk around with the fastest weapon they've got even if they don't intend to use it in combat. I wasn't happy to see this go with 3E, but I understand it, and perhaps it's for the best.

1E (Still love you, 1E, but...)
- Some very low level limits. Sorry half-orcs, 4th level cleric is all you can aspire to. The gods don't like you. Probably because your comeliness is, well, wanting, and you stink of unlawful union.
I forgot about those limits! Those were pretty awful indeed. Only humans can become Paladins, because the gods like humans best. Halflings cannot be Rangers. Elves may not be Druids. It felt really random.

I would also like to add to the list:
-requirements to be a specific class start at level 1. This makes them feel more like prestige classes, and that can't be bad, right? So if you want to be a Paladin, you better roll well for your ability scores. Because if you are anything less than strong (Str 12), wise (Wis 13) and very pretty (Cha 17!) you do not deserve to be a Pally, and the gods won't let you be one.

killem2

2012-07-04, 10:02 AM

The wrestling rules in 2nd ed. Oh jesus those were insane when people wanted to use the, lol.

Flickerdart

2012-07-04, 10:09 AM

Spellcasting powered by all six attributes;
You must expend spell slots to save vs spells that target you;
Every time you do this, look up a chart and see if it helped or actually lowered your save;
Monsters don't need to spend slots to save against your spells or to cast spells at you;
Non-casters are not affected by spells and instead run a slight chance of being stunned for one or two rounds if they save (with a massive bonus);

Oh, 3e psionics...

Arbane

2012-07-04, 12:28 PM

1st ed's "Pummelling, Grappling, and Overbearing" rules.

It's not actually from any edition, but it's as common as dirt: Official fumble rules. :smallfurious:

Novawurmson

2012-07-04, 03:32 PM

Spells that are more effective against you if you don't have the correct number of skill points.

Classes without unique class features.

Core Rule Book leaves out iconic classes.

Cyan Wisp

2012-07-04, 05:39 PM

... "3e multiclass penalties"...

Seconded. What a straitjacket.

I don't know how many times I've thought: "hey, I'd love my character to dabble a little in sorcery/thievery/etc. only to be discouraged by the penalties.:smallannoyed:

Maybe it's to stop the "pick up a level of..." mentality and promote commitment; but commitment to even levelling of classes is not always a good idea for a character. Sometimes, as a concept, you just want to dabble.

From what I understand, PF has addressed this by enabling your choice of favoured class and giving bonuses for levelling in that class.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-04, 06:11 PM

It's not actually from any edition, but it's as common as dirt: Official fumble rules. :smallfurious:

They're actually doing this in 5E, if recent articles are to be believed. Woe betide us all.

So here's a horrible idea: A "skill die" you roll at every level, for every skill, to see how much that skill goes up. Rogues and Wizards get a d12 skill die while Fighters get a d4.

Randomguy

2012-07-04, 06:39 PM

The Skill Challenge rules from 4E.

nedz

2012-07-04, 06:45 PM

Being taller gives you a bonus to hit, and being shorter gives you a penalty to hit.

Being shorter gives you a bonus to hit, and being taller gives you a penalty to hit.

(From two different versions of the rule sets, obviously)

Khosan

2012-07-04, 06:52 PM

They're actually doing this in 5E, if recent articles are to be believed. Woe betide us all.

So here's a horrible idea: A "skill die" you roll at every level, for every skill, to see how much that skill goes up. Rogues and Wizards get a d12 skill die while Fighters get a d4.

Start it out with a giant negative modifier though, like say...d12-9, d4-3. Minimum 0 (unless you roll a 1, in which case you lose a rank).

It's realistic! You don't get better at a bunch of things at a similar rate as you age and, for the most part, you don't learn anything. Sometimes, you even get worse at things.

Blisstake

2012-07-04, 07:12 PM

Healing surges + extremely low hp of earlier editions.

3rd edition style xp calculations. Not really difficult, but unnecesarily time consuming. Combined with different class xp rates, forcing you to have to reconfigure your party level after each level up.

Prestige class overload, with plenty of classes that don't lose anything from taking them.

AD&D grappling.

Skill challenges.

TuggyNE

2012-07-04, 11:46 PM

Make multiclass XP penalties apply to prestige classes too.

HunterOfJello

2012-07-05, 12:00 AM

Healing between fights taking an extraordinarily long amount of time (3.5e).

Healing between fights taking an extraordinary short amount of time (5e).

Slipperychicken

2012-07-05, 01:50 AM

Healing between fights taking an extraordinarily long amount of time (3.5e).

Only if you have neither a caster with Cures on his list, any number of items, or several special abilities. If you have any of these, healing won't take more than a few minutes. If you don't, it could take weeks.

Item-dependent characters, like 3.5 Wizard. Loss of your Item means you're little more than a Commoner of equal level, and completely unable to contribute.

Requiring in-game days and large gold expenditure to learn a single new spell as a Wizard (3.5)

I heard in either 1e or 2e, a high level Magic-User might need to spend 20+ hours preparing spells. So there's another horrible inconvenience to inflict on magic-users in D&D: Worst.

Hilariously-lethal low levels (3.5e, and the era before negative hp, con to hp, and 1st level maxed hit die)

A massive conditions list, in which you might have 3 or more mechanically distinct effects representing more or less the same thing, like Stun/Daze/Paralyze (3.5e)

Paragraphs worth of immunities needed to survive higher levels. Anyone who does not have all of them is a corpse waiting to happen (3.5e)

No-save-just-die effects. Proliferate these to weed out any character whose player can't read the DM's mind (2e, probably 1e?)

Massive, worthless requirement-taxes to enter Prestige classes. Ideally, they should tie up every character option (race, feats, skill points, etc.) available until the intended entry-level, so no-one gets in early (3.5e)

Long feat chains, with a string of terrible feats used as payment before one or two half-decent ones, some chains all but requiring pre-planned character builds to acquire (3.5)

Melee Cant Have Nice Things (3.5)

Ashtagon

2012-07-05, 01:57 AM

Melee Cant Have Nice Things (3.5)

Compared to 1e, 3e fighters have lots of nice things. I mean, they get feats! And alternate class features! And they continue to get Hit Dice at high levels! They even have skill points!

avr

2012-07-05, 05:02 AM

THAC0 was actually an improvement over the original look-up tables. D&D Worst should use those tables.

Opponents with cool magical gear which only they can use.

Psionics as a random buff for a tiny minority of PCs.

Character types which require planning all/most of the character design from level 1 to be effective.

Really bad art.

Ashtagon

2012-07-05, 05:18 AM

Character types which require planning all/most of the character design from level 1 to be effective.

Character builds requires a >= 3e style class paradigm where you can multi-class and select feats and skills. I'm not sure this is intrinsically worse than the <= 2e paradigm where you have no character crunch decisions to make past 1st level. A great many people do actually appear to enjoy the character building mini-game.

hoverfrog

2012-07-05, 08:21 AM

I heard in either 1e or 2e, a high level Magic-User might need to spend 20+ hours preparing spells. So there's another horrible inconvenience to inflict on magic-users in D&D: Worst.Yep, I had a druid who had to spend 23 hours to relearn all the spells he'd cast in a day. Not including the 10 hours rest he required.

I'll add d8 hit dice for Rangers in 1e but at least they started with 2d8. Only 9 levels where you got to roll for hit points.

Khosan

2012-07-05, 11:50 AM

Oh, Dual Class penalties from 2E (or at least from Baldur's Gate) for multiclassing. You lose the benefits of your first class until you have just as many or more levels in your new class.

Salanmander

2012-07-05, 12:49 PM

It is cool, and I would like to use it. The lumbering fighter,drawing his greataxe vs the rogue who has already thrown a dagger, and is now readying a second. I like it. This is how combat should be.

What I don't like is the hassle that comes with using a different weapon in the same combat (for example, starting with a ranged weapon and switching to melee) or casters using more than one spell in a fight. This happens a lot. It means that on round one, your initiative is 6, on the second round it's 12 and on the third round it's 10. And every other player is also using a different number every round. And so are your enemies. I've DMed this, and it was not pretty. I spent more time figuring out whose turn it was than I did with the combat itself.

To be honest, I don't really have a good fix for this. If you only use the first modifier, PCs will walk around with the fastest weapon they've got even if they don't intend to use it in combat. I wasn't happy to see this go with 3E, but I understand it, and perhaps it's for the best.

Slightly off-topic, Exalted actually does this really well. Whenever you take an action, you add X to your initiative, where X is determined by the action/weapon/whatever, and then there aren't really rounds. You just keep track of how long it's been since your last action to know when you get to act again.

As for D&D: Worst, thinking about multi-classing, i'm torn between 2e "here's a big list of rules with lots of exceptions that has two completely different systems depending on whether or not you're human" and 4e "It exists, but has an extremely minor effect. And you thought we'd let you make a character that interestingly meshed the abilities. Hah!" (That said, my 4e information may be out of date.)

Duke of URL

2012-07-05, 01:03 PM

It's been alluded to already, but I'll cal out 1e's restrictions on what classes (or highest level in a class) you are allowed to have by race. And, for misogyny's sake, the rule limiting females to a higher max STR score than males. (IIRC, aren't there also racial minimums/maximums for ability scores, too?)

Of course, there's a special shout-out to D&D Basic where if you played a non-human, your race was your class (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling).

Oh, another Basic/1e "worst" to add: Roll 3d6 for stats in the following order: Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha.

As for D&D: Worst, thinking about multi-classing, i'm torn between 2e "here's a big list of rules with lots of exceptions that has two completely different systems depending on whether or not you're human" and 4e "It exists, but has an extremely minor effect. And you thought we'd let you make a character that interestingly meshed the abilities. Hah!" (That said, my 4e information may be out of date.)

Combine them into "here's a big list of rules with lots of exceptions that has two completely different systems depending on whether or not you're human but only has a minor effect anyway".

Urpriest

2012-07-05, 05:59 PM

At first level, you have enough money to retire comfortably. By second, the average commoner will sell you their children for what to you is pocket cash. This has no effect on published settings.

Past a certain level, numbers increase exponentially, but nothing else changes.

Selling a magic item requires three steps: identifying the item, which requires a spell with a random chance of failure that won't detect any (randomly distributed) curses. Then an Appraise check to know how much the item is worth, which can be off by as much as %1000. Finally, a Haggling check with a similar range of values.

Every type of monster has completely different rules, with some using hit dice, some getting automatic hit points, some being defeated purely by ability damage...oh, and every actual statted monster is an exception to those rules. CR is determined by a random number generator.

Sneak Attack is triggered by DM intervention only.

Slipperychicken

2012-07-05, 07:55 PM

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-05, 07:59 PM

Selling a magic item requires three steps: identifying the item, which requires a spell with a random chance of failure that won't detect any (randomly distributed) curses.

This gave me a brilliant (horrifying) idea: Whenever a player tries to cast a spell, they roll a number of d6's equal to the spell level. If any of these d6's come up as a 1, the spellcaster instantly dies, no save. And their soul is also destroyed.

That should nerf those pesky batman wizards!

Flickerdart

2012-07-05, 08:34 PM

Whenever you roll a 1 on a saving throw, you need to roll, or some worn or carried items are damaged/destroyed.

Rust Monsters. Everywhere. Most statted equipment is metal vulnerable to Rust Monsters. Non-rustable items are either hideously expensive, or else require extensive system mastery book-diving to find.
Of course, the players can just as easily use crystal magic items....is what we want them to think (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/folugub.htm).

Arbane

2012-07-05, 08:56 PM

Psionics as a random buff for a tiny minority of PCs.

Oh, yeah - AD&D Psionics. Totally random if you get them, potentially really powerful... and all sorts of creatures that are created just to hose you.

Arcane_Secrets

2012-07-05, 09:04 PM

Favored Class for Elves: 3.5 Arcane Archer

HunterOfJello

2012-07-05, 09:26 PM

Spontaneous spellcasters having to take longer to cast metamagic'd spells.

Character Optimization requiring 5+ books per character. (At least that was my experience with 4e)

Allowing eternal wands to contain bard spells and be cast by non-bards. (I had a non-bard player try to buy one with Glibness on it. I threw a small book at him.)

Non-core base classes almost all being weaker than half the core base classes.

Attack scores increasing much faster than all Armor classes over time.

Having an entire class of armor that was pretty much worthless to wear. (Medium armor in 3.5)

~

This would be an excellent list to hand to the developers of 5e. Titled: Things we've hated about all of your previous products. (i.e. don't bring this **** back.)

Slipperychicken

2012-07-05, 10:09 PM

This would be an excellent list to hand to the developers of 5e. Titled: Things we've hated about all of your previous products. (i.e. don't bring this **** back.)

Maybe someone can link the thread in an Email to some developers, mentioning that pretty much thewhole board agrees that these are bad things. I can see WotC easily fixing most of them.

Randomguy

2012-07-05, 11:20 PM

Classes with the most awesome fluff aren't even good enough in play to be used as cannon fodder.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-05, 11:23 PM

Maybe someone can link the thread in an Email to some developers, mentioning that pretty much thewhole board agrees that these are bad things. I can see WotC easily fixing most of them.

There's actually two great big stickied threads over on the WotC forums all about "what did you love/hate about previous editions." So I doubt it.

avr

2012-07-05, 11:31 PM

Character builds requires a >= 3e style class paradigm where you can multi-class and select feats and skills. I'm not sure this is intrinsically worse than the <= 2e paradigm where you have no character crunch decisions to make past 1st level. A great many people do actually appear to enjoy the character building mini-game.
A point, it's hard to imagine both downsides simultaneously. I'm unwilling to say it's impossible in case that makes the universe decide to prove me wrong however.

Duke of URL

2012-07-06, 06:33 AM

Having an entire class of armor that was pretty much worthless to wear. (Medium armor in 3.5)

I disagree -- medium armors are great fodder for mithril + classes like Bard, Warlock, and Warmage, who can cast in light armor.

Togo

2012-07-06, 08:53 AM

And for people with middling AC....

Amoren

2012-07-06, 09:00 AM

Require an extensive array of feats to pull off the basics of your concept and do it effectively, also sometimes requiring class abilities from rare, unique classes or alternate class features scattered across several different books to do well (3.5).

Outright limit certain classes from utilizing your concept. Do you want to be a fast, sneaky thief or assassin that dual wields? Be a ranger and go strength or its not happening. (4e)

Then combine the first two with no multiclassing, only spending precious feats to allow you to use one or two of another class's features once a turn per encounter, or once a day. Spend feats to use that classes attacks, but give up your own in the process! (4e)

Skill training is a massive bonus at first levels, and practically irrelevant later levels (4e).

All area of effect abilities are squares. (4e)

A huge laundry list of skills, many of them so specific and specialist that they'll never see use in most games, or at best confer minor benefits. Then make the supply of skill points relatively low, so that people are even further disinclined to select such skills compared to the major ones which are useful, sometimes, some of which require you to have TWO skills to use effectively.(3.5)

Alternatively, a short order of skills which are so vast and general. Every thief is an expert pick pocket, trap disarmer, forger, knot tier, and escape artist. EVERY. LAST. ONE.(4e)

Rogues with intelligence as a recommended dump stat (Pathfinder + 4e, I know its personal preference, but I just hate how intelligence went from being either the primary or secondary stat for a lot of rogues, to being out right useless because of how trap skills were changed around and modifiers to skill systems.)

Classes that don't work from pure design, typically also requiring practically every ability under the sun to be high (3.5 + 4e. Truenamer is the biggest culprit, but 3.5 also had Monk and Paladin which suffered from MAD, and even without it were still handicapped by poor features. Then there was the first Assassin from 4e...)

Assassins are best when using large, heavy fullblades or executioner axes rather than fast, nimble weapons (4e).

Humans are the best at everything. They also are usually better at classes that other races bonuses line up perfectly for - without suffering any of the negatives.

Kurald Galain

2012-07-06, 09:14 AM

2E's spell components, thief skills, race-based level limts, and unarmed combat rules.

3E's monks, NPC classes, epic rules, and grappling rules.

4E's rituals, skill challenges, it's-a-trap hybrids, item rarity levels, and fortune cards.

Alternity's (yes, that's a D&D clone) step dice mechanic and arbitrary skill costs.

And FATAL's, well, never mind :smallamused:

sonofzeal

2012-07-06, 09:42 AM

And FATAL's, well, never mind :smallamused:
I rolled up a FATAL character once. It took figgin' forever and I'm not really sure I did it right, but some of the criticisms I've seen come from basic mathfail on the part of the criticizer. Apparently people don't get the difference between circumference and diameter....

But really, that's the best you can say about it, that some of the criticisms are exaggerated... which isn't really saying much. The way it's described in some of the reviews, I'm not sure it's possible for anything to actually live up to those standards. It's still a vile, unplayable monstrosity though.

Ashtagon

2012-07-06, 09:50 AM

I rolled up a FATAL character once. It took figgin' forever and I'm not really sure I did it right, but some of the criticisms I've seen come from basic mathfail on the part of the criticizer. Apparently people don't get the difference between circumference and diameter....

I don't thick it's a confusion of the difference between those that is the problem. I think, rather, it's confusion over why you are even rolling up the circumference (or diameters) of those bits.

Salanmander

2012-07-06, 09:53 AM

4E's rituals

So, I quite liked the idea, anyway, of magic that has some versatile effect basically being designated "out of combat only" by a long casting time. I haven't played 4e much, and didn't really run into rituals; do they end up not working well? Is the concept bad for some reason I haven't thought of?

Reluctance

2012-07-06, 10:25 AM

Randomness being cooked into chargen. I don't mind a few random rolls if I'm making a disposable one-shot, but when building your character up over time is part of the game, you want to give everyone an even start.

Not watching your dependencies. It's one thing to overlook how your ability will interact with other abilities down the line. It's another to overlook what's required in order to meet your prereqs. (3.0 melee PRCs requiring Weapon Specialization comes immediately to mind.)

A point, it's hard to imagine both downsides simultaneously. I'm unwilling to say it's impossible in case that makes the universe decide to prove me wrong however.

You need specific builds with exacting requirements to stay competitive. You have options, but most of them are traps.

So, I quite liked the idea, anyway, of magic that has some versatile effect basically being designated "out of combat only" by a long casting time. I haven't played 4e much, and didn't really run into rituals; do they end up not working well? Is the concept bad for some reason I haven't thought of?

Rituals are limited in scope, decently pricey, mechanically underwhelming, and serve mostly to cover unnecessary fluff. Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm), while subject to the same gaming as any other 3.5 subsystem, are a much better base to start from.

(It's an understandable overcorrection. Just like how 3.5 TWF took a hit because of how strong it was in 2e.)

Andorax

2012-07-06, 11:07 AM

Attack Ranks A through M...because we already said demi-humans can't get any more levels, but we'd like them to remain relevant in high level adventures.

Kurald Galain

2012-07-06, 11:21 AM

So, I quite liked the idea, anyway, of magic that has some versatile effect basically being designated "out of combat only" by a long casting time. I haven't played 4e much, and didn't really run into rituals; do they end up not working well? Is the concept bad for some reason I haven't thought of?

It's a good idea that suffers from poor execution. The main problem is that almost everything you can do with rituals, you can also do with skill checks - and skill checks are faster, cheaper, and more reliable. For instance, in the time it would take to cast Water Walk (10 minutes per target), a party member could simply solve the task by swimming. Instead of casting Locate Object (which has a range of only about 10 yards), it is faster to simply make perception checks to search the area.
Rituals that can't be duplicated with skills tend to have restrictions on them that make them pointless. For example, illusion or locking rituals that allow so many checks to bypass them that any credible threat will just walk through in a fraction of the casting time; or scrying rituals that last only ten seconds; or divinations that specify that they will often give cryptic or misleading answers.
There are a number of exceptions (e.g. Raise Dead and Tenser's Floating Disc) but about 90% of rituals printed suffers from the above problems.

Amoren

2012-07-06, 11:26 AM

I had a gnome wizard character who constantly rode around on his Floating Disk, loved that character even though I generally sucked at controllers (all I really did was THUNDER, THUNDER, THUNDERCLAP GO!).

Still, sounds like rituals in general were the opposite problem of utility magic in 3rd edition - where it usually made skill points irrelevant.

Khedrac

2012-07-06, 11:37 AM

Attack Ranks A through M...because we already said demi-humans can't get any more levels, but we'd like them to remain relevant in high level adventures.
Unless you are a halfling which will cap out at K.

Then in the region packs let's introduce levels for Elves to give abilities up to 20 (I am too lazy to go downstairs to check, but iirc they had a choice - either improve casting or combat ability but could in theory max both) and allow halflings to progress as clerics for casting all the way to max casting (different but good spell list), and when we say as clerics that is right down to the xp quantity needed to advance each level except offset by 1 due to cleric 1 not having spells.

Hmm, which reminds me of some other fun ones from B/Ex/C/M/Im D&D:
1st level clerics not getting any spells.
Clerics having 8 spells of each level as the only spells under core rules, wizards getting 12. (This actually works until you start allowing other-source spells in).
The sheer complexity of the Gold-Box Immortal rules (that said some stuff from there was much better than the Wrath of the Immortals version).
Requiring all immortals to beat someone up to advance a level (not sure if all but certainly higher levels - see earlier lazy comment).
Publishing a Rules Compendium that was excellent, but not telling anyone it had made a few changes to basic rules (that actually made sense and were simpler to an identical effect, but reversed the way opening stuck doors works).
Introducing Weapon Mastery in the rules for level 26-36 characters which went back to level 1 and completely changed the power balance between weapon-wielders and monsters (and only included in one adventure).
When adding said weapon mastery rules only allowing a chance to improve every 4 levels (for most) - and then having a chance to fail to improve (80% to get to Grand Master in a weapon) - anyone not house-rule that away?
Giving some weapons the ability to parry and not others.

And the one that irritated me the most:
Making the main campaign world prehistoric earth (Companion set).
Then making it a sentient creature (a Megalith) (Immortals set).
Then making it Hollow (Hollow World).
Dropping the Megalith race (Wrath of the Immortals).
[Major campaign world changes in Wrath of the Immortals involving said Hollow World]
Dropping the Hollow World entirely as "myth" (AD&D Conversion).

Speaking of the AD&D conversion - let's take an established campaign world (arguably more developed than any other they published at the time) and transfer it to AD&D as the new line to introduce new players. Then let's include CDs of music etc making the products some of the most expensive and therefore the least likely to be bought by new players who don't knwo if they want to spend that much on the system!

Hmm, /rant - I wonder where it got turned on

Venger

2012-07-06, 12:28 PM

I don't thick it's a confusion of the difference between those that is the problem. I think, rather, it's confusion over why you are even rolling up the circumference (or diameters) of those bits.

well, having read the by-now legendary FATAL review on rpgnet, I can say that it's because FATAL has you roll on a huge chart listing every possible part of your anatomy to determine where your sword/spear/etc lands with every attack.

without getting, uh, censorworthy, if you roll certain results on said chart, the ones related to circumference and/or diameter, then it comes up whether or not your character could accomodate the offending weapon.

it's touted as the worst RPG ever for a reason.

Zubrowka74

2012-07-06, 12:31 PM

The "D&D : Worst" idea made me think about an RPG version of Mordac, The Preventer of Information Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dilbert_characters#Mordac)...

Kurald Galain

2012-07-06, 06:54 PM

There's actually two great big stickied threads over on the WotC forums all about "what did you love/hate about previous editions." So I doubt it.

Link please? I'm unable to find these on google.

nedz

2012-07-06, 11:41 PM

There's actually two great big stickied threads over on the WotC forums all about "what did you love/hate about previous editions." So I doubt it.

Perhaps someone could post a link to this thread over there ?

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-07, 12:49 AM

Huh. The threads were in the D&D Next mechanics speculation forum (basically a whole forum dedicated to "What do you want to see in 5e?"), which now seems to have been taken down. A quick perusal of the archives says they weren't saved anywhere. Sorry guys.

Curmudgeon

2012-07-07, 10:55 AM

Hide in Plain Sight isn't a Rogue ability.

Novawurmson

2012-07-07, 11:01 AM

Melee class loses class features if he engages in one of the few tactical melee maneuvers.

nedz

2012-07-07, 03:00 PM

joe

2012-07-07, 04:08 PM

Paladins are only allowed to have up to 10 magic items, and have to tithe 10% of their treasure. We'll also require them to have a Charisma of 17, and not give them any powers to make that worthwhile.

Rangers are not allowed to hang out in groups of more than three, cause... well, because I don't want a party of rangers.

There can only be 1 14th level Druid in the game.

Monks do not add their Dexterity mod to Armor Class

Speaking of Armor Class, lets make it so the LOWER your armor score is, the better it gets. Same with your attack bonus. People like seeing numbers get smaller.

Female characters have a strength limit lower than male characters

Should we put a Bard in this game? Sure, but you have to multiclass into a Fighter, Rogue, and Druid to get it. How do you do that? Eh, you can figure that out yourself.

Elven Paladins!?! Not in this game. In fact, I think Elf should be its own class. Same with Dwarf and Halfling. We don't need gnomes in the core rules at all: Who the hell plays a gnome anyway?

Wizards can choose to specialize... into Illusionists... and nothing else.

If you're dying, you can immerse your unconscious body in water to stabilize!

I think my beefs with 3.x and 4th have been touched upon already, but a lot of 1st edition silliness was missing.

Khedrac

2012-07-07, 04:13 PM

There can only be 1 14th level Druid in the game.But any number of 23rd level druids...

Flickerdart

2012-07-07, 04:35 PM

If you're dying, you can immerse your unconscious body in water to stabilize!

But once you start drowning, you can never stop.

137beth

2012-07-07, 05:21 PM

*Maximum class level depends on your race
*Polymorphing gives you all the abilities of the new creature, including the ability to be immune to polymorphing.
*every class has the same mechanics
*Monster manuals are released in loose-leaf papers.
*No onnline-support/errata
*The rules implicitly assume that you understand the combat rules for an obscure miniature wargame, and even if you do understand them, the new rules introduced are so convoluted that everyone reading it will come up with completely different interpretations
*Monster hp increases rapidly so that at high levels, battles become slugfests (I'm looking at you, 4e.)
*There should be a way for an ECL 1 character to gain infinite stats and every ability in the game
*4e skill system, with the exception of diplomacy (which follows 3e)
*3.5 system for diplomacy
*Enemy NPCs counting as monsters of their own level, implying that a full adventuring party of equal power would make a "standard difficulty" encounter (4e.)
*Oh, and every number in the game increases by 1/2 your level, even when it doesn't make since.
*Also, every one of the rougue's spells (since everyone gets spells, like in 4e) has no effect on half the monsters in the game (a la sneak attack.)

Zubrowka74

2012-07-07, 06:38 PM

Hide in Plain Sight is an iconic Ranger ability, which they get at 17th level.
This is way, way too late to be useful.

Scouts do get it a bit earlier, but if you want HiPS there are several other ways of getting it sooner, e.g. by learning to dance.

In 3.0 the dancer got it at first level if I recall correctly. This wrecked havoc on Neverwinter Nights multiplayers. The first character I made was a ranger dipping Shadowdancer with a double sword. It was ridiculous.

Curmudgeon

2012-07-07, 07:06 PM

In 3.0 the dancer got it at first level if I recall correctly. This wrecked havoc on Neverwinter Nights multiplayers.
It's the same in 3.5: the Shadowdancer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/shadowdancer.htm) gets Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight at 1st level. However, one other thing that hasn't changed from 3.0 to 3.5 is the prerequisite list, including 10 ranks in Hide. You can't dip Shadowdancer before 8th level, and the cost (3 feats, 23 skill ranks) is very high.

Zubrowka74

2012-07-07, 09:18 PM

It's the same in 3.5: the Shadowdancer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/shadowdancer.htm) gets Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight at 1st level. However, one other thing that hasn't changed from 3.0 to 3.5 is the prerequisite list, including 10 ranks in Hide. You can't dip Shadowdancer before 8th level, and the cost (3 feats, 23 skill ranks) is very high.

The NWN version did not have that many prereqs though because you could get it way sooner, unless my memory is failing.

avr

2012-07-07, 10:21 PM

18 of those skill ranks are expected of any rogue anyway (Hide, Move silently) so the actual cost is a level, 5 skill points and the feats. I suspect the writer expected the prereq feats to be standard on a rogue too.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-07, 10:45 PM

avr

2012-07-07, 10:52 PM

Because they match the 'dance' flavour of the shadowdancer. My point if that the writer likely didn't think he/she was imposing much of an entry tax.

Curmudgeon

2012-07-08, 12:47 AM

Because they match the 'dance' flavour of the shadowdancer. My point if that the writer likely didn't think he/she was imposing much of an entry tax.
I think the only part that matters is in bold.

The 10 ranks of Hide mean the dip for this ability isn't available before level 8; that's an obvious entry restriction. The Dodge and Mobility feats, if you do think things through, are useless because you're going to be hidden as much as possible. Hidden people don't need boosts to their AC because they can't be targeted with attacks or spells.

Slipperychicken

2012-07-08, 12:30 PM

I think the only part that matters is in bold.

The 10 ranks of Hide mean the dip for this ability isn't available before level 8; that's an obvious entry restriction. The Dodge and Mobility feats, if you do think things through, are useless because you're going to be hidden as much as possible. Hidden people don't need boosts to their AC because they can't be targeted with attacks or spells.

That's almost as idiotic as the requirements for Improved Trip. So.. I need to be abnormally smart to trip people?

Kurald Galain

2012-07-08, 01:14 PM

That's almost as idiotic as the requirements for Improved Trip. So.. I need to be abnormally smart to trip people?

Of course. You need to pass the theory exam to get a tripping license.

Amoren

2012-07-08, 02:00 PM

How else are you going to calculate where in the shin you need to hit them with your minotaur waraxe to get them to topple over? Honestly, were you just expecting to hit the leg hard enough the bone shattered? The nerve!

Oh, a few more for the list.
*Skills that are completely out classed and useless compared to magic by another class. (Hide and invisibility, disguise and disguise self... Heal...)

Curmudgeon

2012-07-08, 05:11 PM

Oh, a few more for the list.
*Skills that are completely out classed and useless compared to magic by another class. (Hide and invisibility, disguise and disguise self... Heal...)
You've actually got those backward. Hide beats invisibility quite handily. See Invisibility and True Seeing are helpless to find someone with a good mundane Hide check. True Seeing will beat Invisibility and more advanced spells, but the 250 gp in component costs are wasted vs. someone who's simply hidden.

As for Disguise and Disguise Self, the spell is good for +10 to your Disguise check, but anyone interacting with you gets a Will save because of the spell; it might be safer just to skip the magic and not have that saving throw vulnerability.

Heal, of course, is very underpowered.

Khosan

2012-07-08, 05:39 PM

You've actually got those backward. Hide beats invisibility quite handily. See Invisibility and True Seeing are helpless to find someone with a good mundane Hide check. True Seeing will beat Invisibility and more advanced spells, but the 250 gp in component costs are wasted vs. someone who's simply hidden.
To be fair, they both get screwed by Glitterdust. No save.

Speaking of saves, 2e style saves. You had saves versus certain effects and it was...I don't even really remember how it worked. I remember higher numbers were bad. I think it was the minimum number you had to roll to succeed.

Kurald Galain

2012-07-08, 05:47 PM

Speaking of saves, 2e style saves. You had saves versus certain effects and it was...I don't even really remember how it worked. I remember higher numbers were bad. I think it was the minimum number you had to roll to succeed.

Your character has a saving throw value (e.g. 16 vs poison) and you have to roll on or over that value on 1d20 to make your save. High rolls are good.

Of course, the problem came from deciding which of the five arbitrary categories any particular effect fell under :smallbiggrin:

nedz

2012-07-08, 08:49 PM

That's almost as idiotic as the requirements for Improved Trip. So.. I need to be abnormally smart to trip people?

Or a Wolf.

Curmudgeon

2012-07-09, 07:52 AM

To be fair, they both get screwed by Glitterdust. No save.
Glitterdust only covers creatures and objects in a 10' radius (12 squares). With See Invisibility you can know where to position the spell to hit invisible foes, but with hidden creatures you must have a superior Spot score or you're restricted to guesswork.

ryu

2012-07-09, 08:10 AM

or simply hitting ALL of the area. Death from above anyone?

Flickerdart

2012-07-09, 09:02 AM

Or a Wolf.
Or a Barbarian - in addition to Wolf Totem, there's a Forgotten Realms berserker lodge feat that acts as the prerequisite for Improved Trip.

Curmudgeon

2012-07-09, 09:10 AM

or simply hitting ALL of the area. Death from above anyone?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. You could cast Glitterdust multiple times to cover more area, or use Widen Spell metamagic to have it cover more ground. That might catch some hidden characters, but even 20' radius when most such characters have 30'-40' speeds isn't a sure bet. And lighting up those targets doesn't immediately kill them; they could run for cover or Teleport away.

If you're talking about leaving the hidden/invisible foes unseen and using area attack spells, these spells usually have Reflex saves for half damage. Characters who have good Hide abilities also usually have evasion and good Reflex saves. So while you've got a decent chance of killing invisible enemies, the hidden ones will likely survive.