PDA

View Full Version : Worst Rule Evar?



Zeta Kai
2008-05-09, 07:26 AM
What, in your opinion, is the worst rule you've ever seen? By rule, I mean a spell, feat, class feature, racial ability, skill check, or whatever. And by worst, I mean unbalanced, game-greaking, unclear, nonsensical, lame, or needlessly complicated. Whatever you decide, please state why you think the rule is terrible. What do you consider the worst thing that's been published so far for D&D 3.5?

I personally nominate the Manipulate Form ability, for it's obvious abusability, which allows (among other things) Pun-Pun-level cheese. I imagine that the entire Polymorph school of spells or the grappling combat rules are in the running for a close second.

Your thoughts?

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 07:40 AM
Let's see... in some nice combinations of the categories you state,

Unbalanced spell: celerity, because it's so clearly broken by default.
Needlessly complicated feat: dodge, because it is so common and the time it wastes doesn't measure up to the tiny bonus.
Nonsensical class feature: the monk's slow fall, because its 20th-level version is still inferior to the first-level spell feather fall.
Lame racial ability: the gnome's burrowing mammal speech, because it's just plain ludicrous, and nobody much recalls where that particular bit of mixed-up fluff came from.
Game-greaking skill check: diplomancy, for obvious reasons.
Unclear mechanic: the much-maligned grapple rules.

its_all_ogre
2008-05-09, 07:46 AM
feat weapon specilisation: net :smallconfused:

Narthon the Bold
2008-05-09, 07:47 AM
Unclear mechanic: the much-maligned grapple rules.

After years of playing and running 3.5, I still have no idea how to correctly attack into a grapple either melee or ranged.

bosssmiley
2008-05-09, 07:50 AM
Worst spell: Polymorph (is it 5 or 6 revisions now?)
Worst rule: probably the hiding rules that, as written, allow you to hide your carried tower shield behind itself. :smallconfused:
(dis)Honourable mention: grappling for being stupidly over-complicated.

Dhavaer
2008-05-09, 07:56 AM
Not for 3.5, but for d20: the non-lethal damage rules in d20 Modern. You could pound on someone for hours and never have the tiniest effect on them.

Narthon the Bold
2008-05-09, 08:05 AM
feat weapon specilisation: net :smallconfused:

I'm playing a Sea-Kin in savage tide and have gotten a lot of use out of the free net proficiency. I don't think specalizing in it would be a good idea though.

Telonius
2008-05-09, 08:20 AM
Most Unbalanced feat: Natural Spell. Whee, let's completely negate an entire class's role.

Most Senseless rule: Bards cannot be lawful. ... why? There's no reason for it.

Stupidest rule: +1 BAB prerequisite for Weapon Finesse. This goes beyond senseless to stupid; they had the information there to show them that this was a bad idea. Did they even look at the Rogue's BAB when they wrote this?

Most Needlessly complicated rule: Grapple ruleset. Way too many steps.

Most Needlessly complicated spell: Dispel Magic. If you've ever spent a half hour determining which buffs are still active, and what that does to your attack bonuses, AC, speed, and hit points, you'll know why.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 08:22 AM
feat weapon specilisation: net :smallconfused:

Weapon Spec isn't all that great to begin with, and I think there is a design flaw in choices that look good to players but really aren't, and cannot be changed once made.

Honorary mention: the healing-by-drowning rule.

Narthon the Bold
2008-05-09, 08:46 AM
Honorary mention: the healing-by-drowning rule.

What is the healing by drowning rule?

warmachine
2008-05-09, 08:51 AM
Five foot step and defensive casting. You cleverly maneuvered up to the enemy spellcaster. Unless you're a Mageslayer, Spiked Chain Tripper build, you can't stop him casting.

Cross-class skills and skill points. Wanna play the Figher son of a noble who's good at politics and diplomacy as well? It's gonna be too expensive. For most high levels characters, your Spot and Listen suck and you can't afford to buy them.

senrath
2008-05-09, 08:55 AM
What is the healing by drowning rule?

When you start to drown you go to -1 HP. Even if you're at a lower value already.

RTGoodman
2008-05-09, 08:57 AM
Narthon:


When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

Notice it doesn't say anything about what happens if your HP is below 0 - it just sets it to 0 or -1 when you start drowning.


I have no idea about the Worst Rule Ever. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Also, regarding grappling: I don't really think it's as bad as people say. The only problem I have is remembering, as Narthon mentioned, how attacking into a grapple works.

Narthon the Bold
2008-05-09, 09:07 AM
[QUOTE=rtg0922;4302616]Narthon:



Notice it doesn't say anything about what happens if your HP is below 0 - it just sets it to 0 or -1 when you start drowning.


QUOTE]

It also doesn't say anything about what happens when you "drown". Are you dead? It doesn't say that.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 09:11 AM
[QUOTE=rtg0922;4302616]It also doesn't say anything about what happens when you "drown". Are you dead? It doesn't say that.

Technically, the rules also don't specify that you can no longer walk when you're dead...

Drider
2008-05-09, 09:16 AM
AND there is no rule saying humans cannot have 4 arms...:smallwink:


but seriously...wild shape

Attilargh
2008-05-09, 09:17 AM
Not for 3.5, but for d20: the non-lethal damage rules in d20 Modern. You could pound on someone for hours and never have the tiniest effect on them.
The D&D ones aren't much better, as the average schoolyard fight would very likely end in a victory by knockout.

Craig1f
2008-05-09, 09:19 AM
I don't understand everyone's problem with grappling. I think the rules are pretty clear.

Grapple once, they're held. Grapple again, they're pinned, which is just like being grappled twice. Grapple again, you do damage, which you can describe in game as punching, or choking. I usually make a trip attempt at this point as well, so they're on the ground.

What is unclear to me though, is how armor spikes work. I think that if you have armor spikes, every grapple check on which you succeed (including defensive grapple checks) should deal damage. But there is no rule that states that, or explains really how armor spikes work.

bosssmiley
2008-05-09, 09:31 AM
The D&D ones aren't much better, as the average schoolyard fight would very likely end in a victory by knockout.

An extension of the killer housecat example I presume? :smallamused:

Jayabalard
2008-05-09, 09:31 AM
Lame racial ability: the gnome's burrowing mammal speech, because it's just plain ludicrous, and nobody much recalls where that particular bit of mixed-up fluff came from.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_of_David_the_Gnome

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 09:34 AM
AND there is no rule saying humans cannot have 4 arms...:smallwink:

Except for all the illustrations. Yes, text trumps table, but since no text contradicts those tables, it follows that humans have two arms :smalltongue:

"There is no rule saying I can't" is not a strong argument; what is preferable in this kind of debates is a rule that says you can, generally one that fails to make a simple exception for something that would be absurd.

Zenos
2008-05-09, 09:41 AM
An extension of the killer housecat example I presume? :smallamused:

Ah yes, the fact that a housecat can with ease kill an adult commoner.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-09, 02:04 PM
I don't understand everyone's problem with grappling. I think the rules are pretty clear.

Grapple once, they're held. Grapple again, they're pinned, which is just like being grappled twice. Grapple again, you do damage, which you can describe in game as punching, or choking. I usually make a trip attempt at this point as well, so they're on the ground.



Nice, except those aren't the rules.

First, you make a touch attack. If it succeeds, you get to make a grapple check. If the check is succesful, you may deal grapple damage and you are both now grappled. This denies you both your dex bonus to AC vs. all other characters but not to eachother.

While grappling, you have several options:

1: Opposed grapple check to deal damage
2: Opposed grapple check to break the grapple
3: Opposed grapple check to move the grapple up to half your speed
4: Opposed grapple check to Pin (This will last for only one round, so must be re-rolled every round. At your option, a pinned combatant may not speak. A pinned opponent may take no actions other than to attempt to break the pin with an opposed grapple check. Success means the pin is broken but they are still grappled.)
5: Attack with a light weapon or unarmed strike at a -4 penalty.
6: Activate a comand word magic item that is already out and in your hand.
7: Cast a spell with no somatic components. To do this requires a concentration check of dc20+spell level.

You can do a number of the above (except 6 and 7 which follow the normal magic rules) equal to the amount of attacks your BaB would normally allow.

I think that's it, but I probably missed something.

senrath
2008-05-09, 02:13 PM
Unless you took Improved Grapple (or whatever that was) they get an AoO when you try to initiate a grapple. If they hit you the grapple autofails.

Smiley_
2008-05-09, 02:23 PM
"There is no rule saying I can't" is not a strong argument; what is preferable in this kind of debates is a rule that says you can, generally one that fails to make a simple exception for something that would be absurd.

This is what is called "Air Bud" ruling.

Craig1f
2008-05-09, 02:25 PM
Nice, except those aren't the rules.

Meh. I summarized. I grapple all the time. It seems to work fine.

Although, you may have proved a point against me. I didn't realize that pins only lasted one round, and you had to keep pinning them each round. I thought that once someone is pinned, they have to succeed on two grapple checks to get out, and you have a few additional options against them.

DementedFellow
2008-05-09, 02:28 PM
I'd like to nominate the heal skill. Sometimes in order to get any real mileage out of this skill you have to homebrew a DC 25 or something in order to heal 1d6 damage or something.

It just stabilizes. Not that great a skill.

Reinboom
2008-05-09, 02:43 PM
I think most of the confusion in grapple is people want to add more rules to it.
What occurs if you attack someone in a grapple?

- If one of the two is friendly, and you are attacking with ranged, you get a -4 penalty to attack roll. The opponent loses their dex to ac. Questionably: They provide soft cover to each other?

- Else they just lose their dex to ac.


Now, I believe a common issue is: isn't there a chance to hit the wrong person?
(I don't believe there is. Even though it would be rather sensible for there to be, especially with ranged strikes.)

---
I would like to nominate...
Diplomacy, for being set DCs.
Dodge, for being annoying to set all the time for such a small bonus.
Forgery, for.. well.. I've seen this used once. And it was behind the DM's screen (with me using it, as the DM).
Profession for being as mechanically significant as, say, use magic device.
Drowning rules.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-09, 02:47 PM
Now, I believe a common issue is: isn't there a chance to hit the wrong person?
(I don't believe there is. Even though it would be rather sensible for there to be, especially with ranged strikes.)

There is a table footnote in the PHB that says "Roll Randomly to see who is targeted" when using a ranged weapon into a grapple, but no text to support this rule can be found anywhere in the book.

In Rule of the Game: All About Grappling, Part 1, this rule is brought up again and it is clarified as a 50% chance to hit either person that is in a grapple. This gets complicated further when you think of multiple grapplers and how the percentages change.

Craig1f
2008-05-09, 02:48 PM
I'd like to nominate the heal skill. Sometimes in order to get any real mileage out of this skill you have to homebrew a DC 25 or something in order to heal 1d6 damage or something.

It just stabilizes. Not that great a skill.

Yeah, Heal is lame. You can't actually heal anyone with it. And there's an item in MIC for 10gp that allows you to auto stabilize anyone.

Many DMs will require a heal check to determine what affect someone has, when it's not clear, based on the DC of whatever caused the effect.

FinalJustice
2008-05-09, 02:51 PM
And don't even get me started on a gnome soaking half of the Colossal Red Dragon hits by being grappled in the dragon's mouth or paw.

Person_Man
2008-05-09, 03:00 PM
I'm going to go with needlessly complex attacks, defenses, bonuses and penalties. Think about the stacking rules, AC, cover, concealment, miss chance, touch AC, flat footed AC, 3 saves, no save spells, SR, 20 different types of bonuses (circumstance, dodge, natural armor, morale, exalted, vile, deflection), etc.

SWSE/4th ed comes close to a much better system. Ideally, I think there should just be 4 defenses - Armor, Fortitude, Willpower, and Reflexes. Every attack/spell/effect must roll to hit one of those 4 defenses. A 20 always hits and deals double damage, a 1 always misses. There are only four types of bonuses/penalties, and they always stack. There are area of effect abilities that deal half damage on a miss, but they are weaker then targeted abilities, and can be negated by Evasion/Mettle/whatever. All classes are weak in at least one defense, and are strong at attacking no more then one defense.

Really, is some sort of knowable, balanced system really that hard to create? Why the endless addiction to creating new, oddly named, minor bonuses?

Roderick_BR
2008-05-09, 03:34 PM
Narthon:



Notice it doesn't say anything about what happens if your HP is below 0 - it just sets it to 0 or -1 when you start drowning.


I have no idea about the Worst Rule Ever. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Also, regarding grappling: I don't really think it's as bad as people say. The only problem I have is remembering, as Narthon mentioned, how attacking into a grapple works.
I may be wrong because English is not my first language, but "drop to" means "go down to", meaning that if it's already below -1, nothing happens. Let alone go up. This is not a case of badly written rule, only misreading. It's like saying that a character with a -2 Strenght modifier with a tiny dagger can heal you by stabbing, since he deals -1 damage.

For worst rules, I'll join the grapple rules group. Also, whole spells that recharge in 8 hours (in AD&D, a 20th level wizard that burns out all his spells need weeks to restore everything), and the ability to overstack effects, and the speed that you can do it (I cast this one in the morning, extended, this one that lasts 18 hours, right before battle I cast this one that lasts 1 turn, then when battle starts I run, jump, dodge, roll on the ground, tumble, and finally cast a quickened spell as a swift action, and another 9th level spell as a standard action).

Vouru
2008-05-09, 03:35 PM
I would have to say..... Polymorph, why? A wizard turning his familiar into a vary large dinosaur..... nuff said

senrath
2008-05-09, 03:39 PM
I may be wrong because English is not my first language, but "drop to" means "go down to", meaning that if it's already below -1, nothing happens. Let alone go up. This is not a case of badly written rule, only misreading. It's like saying that a character with a -2 Strenght modifier with a tiny dagger can heal you by stabbing, since he deals -1 damage.


No, you misread it (good english though). It sets to 0 HP first, then comes the part about dropping to -1.

The_Snark
2008-05-09, 03:51 PM
Not for 3.5, but for d20: the non-lethal damage rules in d20 Modern. You could pound on someone for hours and never have the tiniest effect on them.

Oh yes. Don't forget that it isn't possible to knock somebody out for more than 30 seconds, either.

holywhippet
2008-05-09, 04:40 PM
I'd say the 3.0 rule which makes bards risk arcane spell failure on pretty much any kind of armour - even light armour. They are supposed to be capable of melee combat - not excellent at it, but enough to help out. But if they put on some armour, they run the risk of not being able to cast their spells.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 05:11 PM
Current Tumble rules piss me off.

DC 15/20 check means you are untouchable, regardless of the ability of your attacker. Its hard enough to control the battlefield.

Eldariel
2008-05-09, 05:13 PM
Magic Items boosting skills. That basically breaks the whole skill system.

sonofzeal
2008-05-09, 05:55 PM
The entire system for first level characters. Spellcasters lack any real casting ability, warrior types lack the ability to actually hit anything, and skillmonkeys can be reliably beaten at their max-trained skills by the rest of the party who put nothing into them.

IMO, D&D starts at lvl3. :smallmad:

Kizara
2008-05-09, 06:00 PM
The entire system for first level characters. Spellcasters lack any real casting ability, warrior types lack the ability to actually hit anything, and skillmonkeys can be reliably beaten at their max-trained skills by the rest of the party who put nothing into them.

IMO, D&D starts at lvl3. :smallmad:

Seconded, although level 2 for me. You have enough HP to take a hit or 2, more spells, some BAB, skill difference is enough to matter and your synergies come into play.

sonofzeal
2008-05-09, 06:20 PM
Seconded, although level 2 for me. You have enough HP to take a hit or 2, more spells, some BAB, skill difference is enough to matter and your synergies come into play.
I choose three because that's when you get your second feat (and feats are often most of what you use to customize your character), all three BAB streams finally diverge, and casters get second level spells. I can imagine playing at 2, but 3 is where things really become fully distinct IMO. The step between 1 and 2 is huge, yes, but so is the step from 2 to 3. After that it evens off more or less (on average; some builds will always peak at particular levels). Anything between 2 and 5 seems reasonable to me, but I think most of us can agree that lvl1 play is borked. Fun sometimes, with the right characters, but borked mechanically nonetheless.

FMArthur
2008-05-09, 06:39 PM
Agreed on the Tumble rules. There needs to be an opposed check or something.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 06:50 PM
I choose three because that's when you get your second feat (and feats are often most of what you use to customize your character), all three BAB streams finally diverge, and casters get second level spells. I can imagine playing at 2, but 3 is where things really become fully distinct IMO. The step between 1 and 2 is huge, yes, but so is the step from 2 to 3. After that it evens off more or less (on average; some builds will always peak at particular levels). Anything between 2 and 5 seems reasonable to me, but I think most of us can agree that lvl1 play is borked. Fun sometimes, with the right characters, but borked mechanically nonetheless.

No disagreement with any of your points, I simply start at level 2 and throw a few encounters the first session so everyone hits 3. That way you get a chance, however briefly, to 'grow into' that divergance.


Agreed on the Tumble rules. There needs to be an opposed check or something.

Merry Christmas, from the Tome of House Rules v1.56:

Tumble:

When you attempt to Tumble in combat to avoid an Attack of Opportunity, your Tumble check is opposed by your opponent’s attack roll. Essentially, you still provoke but your tumble check serves as your AC. Your opponent must still hit your normal AC to hit you.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 06:52 PM
I'd like to nominate the heal skill. Sometimes in order to get any real mileage out of this skill you have to homebrew a DC 25 or something in order to heal 1d6 damage or something.

It just stabilizes. Not that great a skill.

It does, however, cure poison and disease with a 100% success rate, once you hit moderate levels.

puppyavenger
2008-05-09, 06:53 PM
while, I'm sure we have the char-op boards to tell us about overpowerd rules...
About the drowning, notice how it says you don't stop drowning when you're out of the water?
Just a pet peeve of mine, but expert sages, lawers etc. haave higher hit points than people who do heavy lifting for a living and casters who spend tier time either telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down or running away and reloading the crossbow.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 08:27 PM
diplomacy. I'm sorry, it is simply impossible to use, or even fix. Just everything about it. Burn the guy who was put in charge of that
from
EE

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-09, 08:41 PM
Magic Items boosting skills. That basically breaks the whole skill system.Yeah, that's what breaks it. :smallamused:

Roderick_BR
2008-05-09, 09:02 PM
No, you misread it (good english though). It sets to 0 HP first, then comes the part about dropping to -1.
Oh, my... I see it now :smalleek: Once again, I stand corrected.
Yeah, it should say you go *down* to 0(zero). Hmm... funny thing, it also says that you are unconscious at 0 HP, when in actuality 0 HP means you are just disabled.

TheCountAlucard
2008-05-09, 09:17 PM
The entire system for first level characters. Spellcasters lack any real casting ability, warrior types lack the ability to actually hit anything, and skillmonkeys can be reliably beaten at their max-trained skills by the rest of the party who put nothing into them.

IMO, D&D starts at lvl3. :smallmad:

I think I prefer to start the PCs at level 5. IMO, level five is a pretty solid level. You've gotten your third-level feat, your fourth-level ability increase, and the party Sorceror doesn't have to pull out a club after four Magic Missiles.

In my opinion, a PC is not a proper adventurer until at least level 5.

There's a lot of rules that I find complex, inadequate, or just plain bad. I think it'd take me too long to list the ones I don't feel satisfied with.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-09, 10:52 PM
There's a lot of rules that I find complex, inadequate, or just plain bad. I think it'd take me too long to list the ones I don't feel satisfied with.Sorry to be a broken record, but I find the simplest solution is to find a better system.

Eldariel
2008-05-09, 11:33 PM
Yeah, that's what breaks it. :smallamused:

Actually, it's basically the reason it's completely impossible to make any kinds of DCs that are both, reasonable and failable. Sure, the system sucks too, but the skill boosting items basically ensure that everyone has +70 to their good skills pre-Epic. Without even trying to optimize. 23 base, 15 stat, 30 enhancement, 2 masterwork tools.

CactusAir
2008-05-09, 11:42 PM
The rules for feinting. You make a bluff check, th opponent opposes with Sense Motive + his BAB. WTF? It should be either a straight Sense Motive, or a straight BAB+d20. ugh.

Also, death at -10 hp is silly past level 9 or so. That -10 is a non-issue, as enemy attacks either fail to down you or overkill your horribly.

Open Lock. Making this a separate skill from Disable Device is just penalizing rogues unnecessarily.

You guys sound like +30 skill items grow on trees or something. they're expensive and have to be custom crafted, if allowed at all.

Aquillion
2008-05-10, 12:08 AM
Most unclear rules: Metaconcert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm). Someone asked the Sage about it once and the response was basically "Geez, yeah. Ok, the rules printed there simply aren't enough to actually use the power, so you're just going to have to houserule some rules for it if you want it in your game."

Just to be clear: Metaconcerts rules do not tell you what the power does. They describe some things, but leave out other vital points (the most major being the manifester level of the composite entity it creates, which is necessary to manifest any powers -- but there are countless other vital things left out, including basic descriptions of what happens and how to handle it in a day-to-day sense.) These aren't minor cases; things like "does the entity it creates have a space", "can people in the metaconcert take normal actions", "does controlling the entity take an action, and what kind", "what happens if the entity is attacked", etc.

Jack Zander
2008-05-10, 12:25 AM
Sorry to be a broken record, but I find the simplest solution is to find a better system.

My simple solution is to homebrew an entirely new system which is making slow but steady progress (two problems are fixed, but one more is created).

Fishy
2008-05-10, 02:11 AM
The Save-or-suck and save-or-die spells are the worst part of D&D.

The Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and technically Monk are all doing the same thing: trying to hit the monster with their swords, arrows or fists. They have to roll beat the creature's AC, and if they succeed, it lowers the creature's HP. They can do this an infinite number of times per day, or until they run out of arrows.

The Rogue and Scout are doing the same thing, but they have to do a little dance before each blow in order to be effective.

Meanwhile, the Wizard and Sorcerer are eyeballing the monster, trying to work out which of it's three saves is likely to be lowest. If he guesses right, and has the correct spell prepared, he casts, the monster makes a saving throw, and if he fails, the battle is essentially over, no matter how much HP the monster had, and no matter how well the fighters have been doing their jobs. He can do this N times a day, and then the entire party needs to stop.

Magic users are literally playing a different game. And then, Druids and Clerics get to pick which of the two games they want to win today.

It looks like 4E is going to fix this, which makes me happy.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-10, 04:12 AM
Actually, it's basically the reason it's completely impossible to make any kinds of DCs that are both, reasonable and failable.

I think that this qualifies as the absolute Worst Rule Evar, primarily because nobody has an alternative and not even Pathfinder and 4E are fixing it.

I mean, most of the other things, people just ignore: many DMs won't let you take polymorph, or let you heal yourself by drowning, or have their house rules for tumbling past high-level opponents, or let you use an unarmed swordsage instead of a monk. But I haven't seen any fixes for the fact that regardless of how many skill points somebody has, they either have too big a chance of failing something easy, or too big a chance of succeeding at something impossible. Or even both.

Blanks
2008-05-10, 05:29 AM
I can't see why people think the drowning rules are bad. Never, in the history of DnD, has there been a time when the rules were misunderstood. RAW may be problematic, but RAI are clear as crystal.
This is only a theoretical problem, so treat it as such.

If, on the other hand, you think the drowning rules are bad because they are kill you too quickly or not quick enough, thats another thing.





My nomination for worst rule ever:
I think i will go with Diplomacy. It becomes a problem in the game very quickly, and there is no good solution for it*.



*
Yes there are solutions, but none of them really makes it a balanced skill...

Skaven
2008-05-10, 05:42 AM
#1: 50 hp Massive damage save vs death.
which leads on to the second:
#2: save or die effects.

Dhavaer
2008-05-10, 06:17 AM
But I haven't seen any fixes for the fact that regardless of how many skill points somebody has, they either have too big a chance of failing something easy, or too big a chance of succeeding at something impossible. Or even both.

Using 3d6 instead of 1d20 does something for this. There are rules for the variant in the online SRD.

happyturtle
2008-05-10, 08:06 AM
Worst rule? All of them. I hate 3.5. If I didn't love roleplaying more, I wouldn't play it at all. Since the DM of my local group is running a 3.5 game, I play it with difficulty and moan about it later.

Random complaints:
* Levels. Low level guy can never win against high level guy, ever, in anything. The high level wizard is better at fighting than the low level fighter. The power curve is so steep that it is an effort balancing encounters. The window between 'The party wins in 3 rounds or less' and 'TPK' is too small.

* Skills. I shouldn't have needed to build a spreadsheet for my character's skills. There are too many modifiers. And also there is too much variation between the numbers of skills given to different classes. And why should intelligence affect how many skills points you have? How well I jump or climb or move silently shouldn't be affected by how smart I am.

* Spellcasting. Needlessly complicated.

* Combat. Needlessly complicated and takes forever.

* Magic magic everywhere. Why do I need so many magic items just to keep up? And why should they be freely available to purchase?

* XP costs. Generally, the more you do something, the better you get at it. Unless you are making magic items. Then you get stupider as you work.

In the end, I think all of the gripes go back to the first gripe, which is levelling. All of the complicated rules seem to be there to try and balance a game which started out unbalanced because of the steep power curve. 4e still has levelling, so I will probably not love it, but it hopefully will be easier to use than 3.5.

/rant

SadisticFishing
2008-05-10, 08:12 AM
^ Yeesh, sounds like you just don't like RPGs.

I think the worst rule evar is the fact that you can't sneak attack people with concealment. Not only does it make SA'ers suck hardcore late game... It means you can't assassinate people! That's just dumb.

JMobius
2008-05-10, 08:28 AM
Nonsense. I love RPGs, and agree with happyturtle on many points.

Level-based systems just aren't terribly appealing to some.

Eldariel
2008-05-10, 08:38 AM
And why should intelligence affect how many skills points you have? How well I jump or climb or move silently shouldn't be affected by how smart I am.

Intelligence represents how quickly you learn the related techniques. Basically, you gain skill points for all the training you've done during the level at level up (that's why the only choices are the class skills of your class; you get the points through your normal activities and therefore improve the skills that have been part of your class over the last level), and the higher your Intelligence, the faster you learn any given thing and thus, the more time you have to learn other things.


* Spellcasting. Needlessly complicated.

Isn't Vancian Spellcasting specifically dumbed down to make it simple? I've hardly ever seen a simplier spellcasting system.


* XP costs. Generally, the more you do something, the better you get at it. Unless you are making magic items. Then you get stupider as you work.

Making Magic Items cost you a part of your lifeforce, which causes you to forget things you've learned. Same goes for many powerful spells; the cost is more than just spell energy, you need to include a part of your own essence to the spell to actually shape the universe to your liking. I'd say it's just a source of energy and experience is basically the only way for D&D to model your own personal energy.

new1965
2008-05-10, 08:50 AM
I'd like to nominate the heal skill. Sometimes in order to get any real mileage out of this skill you have to homebrew a DC 25 or something in order to heal 1d6 damage or something.

It just stabilizes. Not that great a skill.

its okay if one person in the party has it so that you can all take advantage of "Long term Care" while the party is resting for the night

happyturtle
2008-05-10, 09:08 AM
^ Yeesh, sounds like you just don't like RPGs.

On the contrary, I love rpgs, and I love my current gaming group even more. Since everyone else in the group seems to like it, I only bitch and moan about 3.5 between sessions, preferably in threads dedicated to the topic. :smalltongue:


Making Magic Items cost you a part of your lifeforce, which causes you to forget things you've learned. Same goes for many powerful spells; the cost is more than just spell energy, you need to include a part of your own essence to the spell to actually shape the universe to your liking. I'd say it's just a source of energy and experience is basically the only way for D&D to model your own personal energy.

Which makes it all the sillier that I can go to the local magic item shop and stock up. Why should anyone sell the product of his life essence to a stranger for any cost?

Arokh
2008-05-10, 09:15 AM
The Worst D&D Rule I can possibly think of?

I would say "Immunity to Critical Hits" for most creatures. I mean come on,
how can it be that the Zombie/Golem/Whatever does not have any weak spot
I can hit. I do understand it is rather difficult to find a weak spot on things that do not really have a body(such as Incorperal Creatures), but almost any other excuse is rather incomprehensibly to me.

So lang, Arokh.

Eldariel
2008-05-10, 09:17 AM
Which makes it all the sillier that I can go to the local magic item shop and stock up. Why should anyone sell the product of his life essence to a stranger for any cost?

Meh. Medieval world, everything has a price >_> Besides, you get good 10000gp easily for every piece you sell. An easy way to be a billionaire. I can see how that would appeal to many people.

SadisticFishing
2008-05-10, 11:57 AM
I meant RPG as in the video game term, where you level up and grow in power. ANY levelling system is like that. It's the whole point of levelling, you're becoming more powerful.

Griffin131
2008-05-10, 12:06 PM
its okay if one person in the party has it so that you can all take advantage of "Long term Care" while the party is resting for the night

But only if you rest 16 hours a day - because the healer cant rest while hes providing. Well, I guess if its a warforged itd be okay.

JMobius
2008-05-10, 12:50 PM
I meant RPG as in the video game term, where you level up and grow in power.

My temptation to start being an infuriated pedant here is nearly unbearable. :P

Aquillion
2008-05-10, 03:53 PM
I think that this qualifies as the absolute Worst Rule Evar, primarily because nobody has an alternative and not even Pathfinder and 4E are fixing it.

I mean, most of the other things, people just ignore: many DMs won't let you take polymorph, or let you heal yourself by drowning, or have their house rules for tumbling past high-level opponents, or let you use an unarmed swordsage instead of a monk. But I haven't seen any fixes for the fact that regardless of how many skill points somebody has, they either have too big a chance of failing something easy, or too big a chance of succeeding at something impossible. Or even both.
That tempts me into trying to come up with a better system...

Ok, here's my basic idea. This isn't really what I think you should do in games, but it'll explain my real suggestion further down. Instead of numerical skills, players have skills that fall into one of a few categories as follows:

Untrained, Beginner, Skilled, Expert, Master, Legendary.

Untrained is the default.
Beginner corrisponds to levels 1-5, Skilled to levels 6-10, Expert to levels 11-15, Master to levels 16-20, and Legendary for Epic levels. The exact advancement rules I'll work out later, but basically a typical rogue would have eight skills 'maxxed' to those amounts in those levels, say.

For each skill, you have a list of things you can reasonably do at each level. Some are 'simple' tasks (ones you can do without a roll, generally, if you're at least that skilled), while the rest are 'reach' tasks that require a roll of varying difficulty. Some things you just can't attempt at all -- for instance, most Legendary results require that you actually have legendary skill, or at least master skill. As a general rule, you can only manage things one category higher as a 'reach' (though exceptions exist -- knowledge, say, would let you 'reach' for anything.)


So the problem with this is twofold; it's hard to adapt into the game, and you'd have to constantly look things up on the tables to see what your skills allow and the DC assigned. That could get bothersome.

The solution? All we have to do is cap bonuses to most skills based on the number of ranks you have. This could vary from skill to skill, but in general saying a +7 over your skill is the highest you can get from all sources sounds good to me. This is enough to allow a decent ability score, maybe one or two synergies depending on how good that ability score is, and a circumstance bonus... it bumps you midway into the next 'five-level' category. Obviously, tell players you're playing with this rule before the game starts, so they can design their characters with it in mind. Some skills might require higher or lower limits, since they're designed to receive bonuses; some classes (truenamer) might require an exception; and some things specifically intended to provide a bonus greater than +7 might require an exception, too, if you want to allow them at all (e.g. the Jump spell, or anything clearly intended to produce a supernatural effect, should not count against the +7 limit -- in that case, you're not held back by your mortal limitations.) Also, epic-level characters have no limit, because at that point you're supposed to be doing absurd things with your skills.

For people failing at things that are simple, that's much easier. If the DM ever feels a task is simple, they can just say "no need to roll, you succeed." Those cases are usually obvious and require no specific rules... nobody needs to roll to recognize the animals common to the area where they grew up, say (although they might need to roll to see if they know anything useful about those animals, or just incorrect hearsay -- e.g. 'bulls are driven mad by the color red!')

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 04:07 PM
That sounds nice, but I think it should exclude stat boosts from the cap. Else, NOBODY at high levels will ever have a reason to use synergies or whatever. +7 from stats is ridiculously easy to attain. I'd say leave stats outside (Because having a natural gift can carry you to the point where trained skill couldn't), and EVERYTHING ELSE counts for the cap.

Lizardfolk Lich
2008-05-10, 04:08 PM
I think the rules on lava are the worst. A simple resistance to fire grants immunity to lava damage.

Wender
2008-05-10, 04:13 PM
Intelligence represents how quickly you learn the related techniques. Basically, you gain skill points for all the training you've done during the level at level up (that's why the only choices are the class skills of your class; you get the points through your normal activities and therefore improve the skills that have been part of your class over the last level), and the higher your Intelligence, the faster you learn any given thing and thus, the more time you have to learn other things.

GURPS got that wrong, and so has every system that follows it.

You improve skill at any physical endeavor by repetition. You train your limbs to work a certain way until they can work precisely and without your having to consciously direct them. Some people are just automatically good at some things (a feat or path by the rules). The two biggest determinants of how good someone is at a skill are: Their native aptitude, and; the amount of time they've spent doing it. Your brain works more or less the same way, but for mental skills the mental stats would count instead.

If anything gives bonuses to skill points across the board I would expect that WIS would, because it reflects your ability to regularly and consistently make yourself sit down and run scales on your instrument for hours. But for game purposes there's no reason to make one ability affect such a basic mechanic so drastically. It tends toward the GURPS effect, where you have a world full of moderate strong, moderately agile geniuses.

Furthermore, the skill system woefully oversimplifies some things. Take climbing. What matters when you're climbing is not your absolute strength but your strength relative to your weight (you are, quite literally, carrying yourself). Given equivalent training, a 115 pound person with a STR of 13 is going to be a better climber than a 230 point person with a STR of 15, but if you model climbing as a straight skill there's no way to reflect that fact.


Isn't Vancian Spellcasting specifically dumbed down to make it simple? I've hardly ever seen a simplier spellcasting system.

Vancian spellcasting was flavor, and it was designed to reflect an idea that magic was poorly understood, rare and perilous, but worth it for the power it provided. That was reflected in its inflexibility: Spells were "black boxes" and you didn't ask how they worked, you just intoned the recipe and laboriously gathered up the power in advance in exactly the way you'd been taught so that you could release them in something like a timely fashion. You got new spells by raiding the spellbooks of other casters and copying down their recipes. The idea (which you can see in the old World of Greyhawk) is that you don't really begin to understand what you're doing until you're high level. Even then, the emphasis is on begin, and the world was littered with the dangerous haunts and freakish remnants and horrible experiments of those who pushed the limits of human understanding of magic a little too far.

If the flavor changes (Vance's world was post-Apocalyptic, so his magic system made sense in that setting) then there's not much reason to keep the associated crunch around, either. In 4E it sounds like the trend of making magic pervasive and relatively well-understood is continuing apace.


Making Magic Items cost you a part of your lifeforce, which causes you to forget things you've learned. Same goes for many powerful spells; the cost is more than just spell energy, you need to include a part of your own essence to the spell to actually shape the universe to your liking. I'd say it's just a source of energy and experience is basically the only way for D&D to model your own personal energy.

That was a late (3E) innovation. In 1E, making magic items was an epic undertaking, requiring lots of money, lots of research, perilous trips to forsaken places, a middling chance of success, a decent chance that you'd wind up with a cursed item instead, and the ever-present possibility that Something Would Go Horribly Wrong. (There was no strict system because you were venturing into the unknown. You submitted a request to the DM who responded with what you needed to do, which more often than not was a series of campaign hooks.) That was truly Vancian.

(nb: I'm not arguing for the superiority of the Vancian model here, just pointing out that D&D has moved away from the flavor that made the crunch work, so it makes sense to revisit the crunch.)

[EDIT: On topic, almost all Polymorph and Teleportation magic. They still have never gotten that right, and it's been breaking the game all the way back to 1st Edition.]

Kurald Galain
2008-05-10, 05:17 PM
Untrained, Beginner, Skilled, Expert, Master, Legendary.


Google up FUDGE (the freeform universal donated gaming engine). It uses a similar system.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-10, 05:26 PM
Google up FUDGE (the freeform universal donated gaming engine). It uses a similar system.

I was about to say, it sounds nearly exactly the same.

nargbop
2008-05-11, 12:37 PM
My group plays D&D and ignores nearly all of the rules nearly all of the time. It's more fun that way.

happyturtle
2008-05-11, 01:02 PM
I meant RPG as in the video game term, where you level up and grow in power. ANY levelling system is like that. It's the whole point of levelling, you're becoming more powerful.

Oh well, computer games are a whole different type of entertainment. I enjoy them, but not in the same way I enjoy a good tabletop session.

I prefer systems where you can improve your skills as you go on, rather than getting better at everything at once.

Larrin
2008-05-11, 01:36 PM
I think the worst rule evar is the fact that you can't sneak attack people with concealment. Not only does it make SA'ers suck hardcore late game... It means you can't assassinate people! That's just dumb.


Forget late game, it makes you suck at night. as a normal rogue you cannot sneak up on a guard in the dark and sneak attack him, because its dark and unless you have darkvsion your foe has concealment. Yup, can't slit nobody's throat at night, just not possible, precision damage is only for well lit areas :P talk about mechanics killing the very flavor of an ability!

that and the rather low level spell blur cancels you right out as well.

and immune to crit.

and fortification (maybe?)

and being a swarm...

puppyavenger
2008-05-11, 01:39 PM
and being a swarm...

Well, try to justify it working on swarms, they barly suffer weopon damage at all.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-11, 03:18 PM
GURPS got that wrong, and so has every system that follows it.

You improve skill at any physical endeavor by repetition. You train your limbs to work a certain way until they can work precisely and without your having to consciously direct them. Some people are just automatically good at some things (a feat or path by the rules). The two biggest determinants of how good someone is at a skill are: Their native aptitude, and; the amount of time they've spent doing it. Your brain works more or less the same way, but for mental skills the mental stats would count instead.


With all due respect, you are wrong. Not about how people learn, but about how GURPS (or at least 3e-4e, which is all I've played) works. Skill gain rate, in GURPS, has nothing to do with intelligence. As a matter of fact, the only two factors in learning skills by training are ... wait for it...time spent doing it and native aptitude (expressed by Talents for a small group of skills).

Really, old sport, don't complain about that which you haven't learned about.

And I don't say this as a D20 basher (or a chap who's never played d20). D20, at it's core skills, is rivaled by very few. I just wish fewer people thought it was the best at everything. Really, at tasks such as realistic simulation of fights between neophyte farmers and cats, creation of diverse characters, and underwater basket weaving, GURPS and FUDGE are rather more useful- just as d20 is rather more useful for GODS (Good Ol' Fashion Dungeon Strategy).

chitzk0i
2008-05-11, 03:43 PM
I nominate Knockback from Races of Stone. It seems fairly reasonable. If you hit while using power attack, you can bull rush your target for free. And you get +2 on the strength check per point you power attacked. That's perfectly fine on its own, but if you combine it with Shock Trooper from Complete Warrior, you can power attack for full with no attack penalty. This combo paired with a hard-won bull rush modifier of +20 meant my Goliath character went from "fantastic at melee damage with sucky AC after a charge" to "Home-run Hitter". +50 bull rush will win against just about anything!

vegetalss4
2008-05-11, 03:45 PM
Skills. I shouldn't have needed to build a spreadsheet for my character's skills. There are too many modifiers. And also there is too much variation between the numbers of skills given to different classes. And why should intelligence affect how many skills points you have? How well I jump or climb or move silently shouldn't be affected by how smart I am.


I just have to talk about this. because it actuly makes perfect sense. You see intelligence dont affect how well you jump or climb or move silently, thats strength, strength, dexterity. no intelligence affect how easy you learn things, and that why you get more skill points. because skill rank (which is brougt for skill points) represent how much you have learned in that skill.

Lycar
2008-05-11, 03:45 PM
That tempts me into trying to come up with a better system...

Ok, here's my basic idea. This isn't really what I think you should do in games, but it'll explain my real suggestion further down. Instead of numerical skills, players have skills that fall into one of a few categories as follows:

Untrained, Beginner, Skilled, Expert, Master, Legendary.

Untrained is the default.
Beginner corrisponds to levels 1-5, Skilled to levels 6-10, Expert to levels 11-15, Master to levels 16-20, and Legendary for Epic levels. The exact advancement rules I'll work out later, but basically a typical rogue would have eight skills 'maxxed' to those amounts in those levels, say.

...

Okay, for all people who hate the basic D&D skill system. take a look at Spycraft 2.0 . It is a D20 game of high tech espionage, yet the basic system works very well.

For example, skill checks have a certain cap, depending on your actual skill level and some class abilities and feats. So if you have 0 ranks in a skill, your result cap is 15. No matter what kind of boni you accumulate from attributes, gear and circumstances, you can not get a better result then 15. For 1-3 skill ranks, the cap is 20, for 4-6 30 and then +10 for every 3 skill ranks beyond that.

Exceptions: On a roll of a natural 20, a skill scores a 'threat', which is pretty much like a critical hit. In that case, the skill cap is ignored. The system also uses action dice, which can also boost a roll result past it's skill cap.

I suppose, the skill cap system is a nice way to curb the more annoying effects of magic items. So even with a +30 item, characters could only succeed at tasks that are within their grasp, skill wise. It might be neccessary to lower the skill caps a bit to make things work properly though.

In that case, one of the class features of a class ought to be to have a higher skill cap with certain 'iconic' skills. One might even consider to link the result cap to class level for certain skills to curb the abuse of multiclassing.

For example, your skill cap is determined both by your skill rank and by the highest class level you have in a class with this particular skill as a class skill or something like that.

Oh, they also frequently offer two relevant attributes for some skills. For example, climbing is a possible use of the Athletics skill. Here strength gives a bonus. For other uses, dexterity is the relevant attribute.

Synergy boni also exist. Here, a relevant skill gives a +1 per full 5 skill ranks. Finally some incentive to raise your skills past the magic 5.

As for feats, there are tons of them, and they actually are worth taking. :smallamused:

Basic skill feats are like the D&D equivalent: +2 insight bonus to 2 thematically linked skills. But they also increase the 'threat range' of your skill to 19-20. Oh i should mention that on a threat, action dice can be spent to buy special effects. Also, action dice are per gaming session or scene, not per level. So scoring a threat on a climb check means you could spend an action die to climb especially fast or be not considered vulnerable ( = flat-footed) to the burst of rifle fire from the goon on top of the cliff or something...

Advanced skill feats of the appropriate type increase the insight bonus to +3, the threat range to 18-20 and allow a single re-roll on a skill check, except on critical failures.

Grand Skill mastery improves bonus and threat range again, also reduces the action dice cost to activate a threat by -1 , minimum 0. So i gets cheaper to get more spectacular results from a critical success.

Prerequisite by the way is not a certain skill rank, but career level (ECL). And the corresponding basic and advanced feats of course. For grand skill mastery it is lv. 12 for example.

So only from lv. 18 on can you take Perfect Skill Mastery. Bonus to skill +5, threat range 16-20, up to 3 re-rolls, except no more then 1 re-roll on the same check and no re-rolled critical failures.

A word on critical failures: These happen on a nat. 1, except if you have 0 ranks, then they happen on a 1-3. This is the reverse of a threat, if you roll one of those, the GM can use one of his action dice to buy a fumbple for the character.

So trying to disarm a magic trap, just because you have that nifty +30 to disable device item can be... tricky... :smallamused:

I suppose you have to take a look for yourself and decide what to take from that system and what not. Still, result caps, if used judiciously, could make actual skill matter again.

Maybe give certain classes a handful of skills where they get an increased result cap as a class feature. Or link them to actual class levels, so that staying with a single class gets rewarded.

The possibilites are there, one just has to use them. :smallsmile:


Oh and about the Heal skill: You also treat diseases and poision with this. Maybe you should consider having disease actually happen in your game once in a while. A cure spell may bring back HP, but maybe it takes a proper cleaning and dressing of wounds to prevent infection...

Lycar

Newtkeeper
2008-05-11, 03:53 PM
I meant RPG as in the video game term, where you level up and grow in power. ANY levelling system is like that. It's the whole point of levelling, you're becoming more powerful.

An yet, my friend, seek and you'll find
An RPG of other kind
The levels gone (class system's dead)
And it is not just in my head.
Be what you want (not what you can):
The principle on which they ran.

For electronic RPG
if you will look, you'll surely see
Some few of them are level free!


Though poem's bad, near as can be.
At least I know my RPG.

Sholos
2008-05-11, 04:13 PM
I don't think climbing is all that badly represented. High level climbing is affected more by technique than strength, so being more skilled at climbing should have more of an impact than strength alone.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-11, 04:24 PM
For example, skill checks have a certain cap, depending on your actual skill level and some class abilities and feats. So if you have 0 ranks in a skill, your result cap is 15. No matter what kind of boni you accumulate from attributes, gear and circumstances, you can not get a better result then 15. For 1-3 skill ranks, the cap is 20, for 4-6 30 and then +10 for every 3 skill ranks beyond that.

Aside from being a clunky mechanic, that still doesn't actually work out. Any rookie can still pass a difficult dc-20 check randomly, and reliably passing that check requires a character of level 12 - 16, depending on stat bonus.

And yes, an expert still has a roughly one-in-three chance of being beaten by a rookie.

Lycar
2008-05-11, 04:46 PM
Aside from being a clunky mechanic, that still doesn't actually work out. Any rookie can still pass a difficult dc-20 check randomly, and reliably passing that check requires a character of level 12 - 16, depending on stat bonus.

And yes, an expert still has a roughly one-in-three chance of being beaten by a rookie.

Thats why i said it needs some work to be adjusted to D&D. But the basic premise is there. I suppose the result caps are pretty high because there are quite a few ways to gain boni on skill checks in Spycraft. High-level characters are expected to be able to reach DC 75 eventually. Scale that down a bit and it is something to work off.

Also, it is not that clunky really. You just need a table to look uo your skill cap in respect to your skill ranks. Could as well put it down right beside the skill name too.

And if you are concerned about a rookie getting lucky, well, just use 3d6 for skill rolls. Much less deviation from the average that way. The rookie still can get lucky but far less often so.

Lycar

drengnikrafe
2008-05-11, 04:52 PM
* Levels. Low level guy can never win against high level guy, ever, in anything. The high level wizard is better at fighting than the low level fighter.


*Smacks head*
Oh, you're totally right. It's completely unfair that the person who has enough battle experience to probably actually predict every idea that exists in the so-called book, fighting a person who is working off of what he learned in a book, and practiced against people who were working out of the same book. A person who has taken enough hits to hardly be phased by anything that's not swung with incredible force should be taken down by fresh-off-the-grill rookies.

Have you ever tried pitting the world's best sniper against some rookie with the same weapon? Or, am I the only person who thinks that if random guard #77329 using a any weapon he wanted could not have beaten The End in MGS 3?

Kurald Galain
2008-05-11, 04:59 PM
Also, it is not that clunky really. You just need a table to look uo your skill cap in respect to your skill ranks.
That's why it's clunky.



And if you are concerned about a rookie getting lucky, well, just use 3d6 for skill rolls.
Yes, that's a better suggestion.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 08:16 PM
The complete brokenness of spellcasting that, unfortunately, sacrifices fun. If you want to kill things, you play a Fighter, and then you're bored as hell because all you do is attack. If you want to do interesting things, a Batman can't kill anything until Save or Die comes into effect.

Oh, and HP. How does it make sense that my poor level 1 Sorcerer is twice as frail as the same guy who went and killed a few scrappies by means of Magic Missile? Give us decent starting HP, decent starting spells, and make the non-casters fun. Is it too much to ask?

And don't Tome-of-Battle me. Fun shouldn't be sold separately like batteries.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-11, 08:32 PM
*Smacks head*
Oh, you're totally right. It's completely unfair that the person who has enough battle experience to probably actually predict every idea that exists in the so-called book, fighting a person who is working off of what he learned in a book, and practiced against people who were working out of the same book. A person who has taken enough hits to hardly be phased by anything that's not swung with incredible force should be taken down by fresh-off-the-grill rookies.

Have you ever tried pitting the world's best sniper against some rookie with the same weapon? Or, am I the only person who thinks that if random guard #77329 using a any weapon he wanted could not have beaten The End in MGS 3?

Myself, my problem isn't so much being good at what you do as being good at what youdon't do. Why is a 15th level wizard who's never used a sword in his life better at stabbing people than a first level fighter who practices stabbing things daily? And, for that matter, why can't I be the world's best underwater basket weaver without being good at stabbing things?

Aquillion
2008-05-11, 08:50 PM
Myself, my problem isn't so much being good at what you do as being good at what youdon't do. Why is a 15th level wizard who's never used a sword in his life better at stabbing people than a first level fighter who practices stabbing things daily? And, for that matter, why can't I be the world's best underwater basket weaver without being good at stabbing things?Because it's heroic fantasy. Lower-level characters are mooks; the heroes don't get beaten by mooks. Ever. At anything. Period.

That's a design feature. You might not agree with it, but the point is D&D is not really supposed to be realistic -- it's supposed to represent a sort of mythological world where the heroes are larger-than-life. Your level 15 wizard is not simply better at magic or anything like that; he is, all-around, more awesome and important than a level 1 guard. He can beat them up for the same reason the main character in an action move can beat up a hundred guards even though, in theory, winning fights just like that is the guard's job.

Levels are not simply measures of learning and experience. Although the book never comes out and says it, they are a form of ascendence. Look at what negative energy or a wight's touch does, say -- how on earth could it drain your knowledge out of your brain? Answer: It doesn't. It's draining something much vaster and more vital, something almost like a small spark of genius or divinity or raw power.

drengnikrafe
2008-05-11, 08:58 PM
Myself, my problem isn't so much being good at what you do as being good at what youdon't do. Why is a 15th level wizard who's never used a sword in his life better at stabbing people than a first level fighter who practices stabbing things daily? And, for that matter, why can't I be the world's best underwater basket weaver without being good at stabbing things?

I'll give you something there. However (You didn't think it would be that easy to defeat me, did you?), as a 15th level wizard, it's likely you've watched a lot of swordplay, so even though you're not good at swinging a sword, you have watched other people do so, and so you're familiar with how others swing theirs.
Now, you can't be an extreme underwater basket-weaver (Final Fantasy: Gil Quest reference?) because you only know what the books on extreme underwater basket weaving can teach you. You have not had all the realizations on how to be a better basket weaver, nor have you seen others weave baskets. It's assumed that, as you travel, you practice what you're good at (or, if you take other skills, what you're not good at), and eventually get better. I'm sure if your DM is very kind, he'll let you spend extreme amounts of other skill points, if you'll devote your whole backstory to extreme underwater basket weaving, and let you have a bonus in it.

Remember, there are Role Playing applications to the world. It's not all hack and slash. Sometimes, people run a diplomatic campaign, and there is no stabbing things, just talking. You still get better at basket weaving then.

holywhippet
2008-05-11, 11:43 PM
It can be assumed that a level 15 wizard has been in melee combat enough times that they've developed some sense of how to handle themselves in combat. Their reflexes, eye-hand coordination and understanding of hand to hand combat have all been developed by other critters trying to kill them. That kind of experiences is hard to match, especially by someone who has just worked out which end they are supposed to stab their opponent with.

Kompera
2008-05-12, 08:17 AM
* XP costs. Generally, the more you do something, the better you get at it. Unless you are making magic items. Then you get stupider as you work.

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2006-11-29


And, for that matter, why can't I be the world's best underwater basket weaver without being good at stabbing things?
This one is easy. It's the genre. D&D characters are heroes first, and underwater basket weavers, tradesmen, or masters of a profession second.

Epinephrine
2008-05-12, 08:55 AM
Agreed on the Tumble rules. There needs to be an opposed check or something.

Also agreed - we didn't make it an opposed check, but added the foe's reflex save to the difficulty check.

Solo
2008-05-12, 09:06 AM
If you want to do interesting things, a Batman can't kill anything until Save or Die comes into effect.

Save or lose/suck him and CDG.


Why is a 15th level wizard who's never used a sword in his life better at stabbing people than a first level fighter who practices stabbing things daily
Cause the wizard has had 15 levels worth of experience at people trying to kill him, even if he doesn't specalize in combat, and the fighter has only trained for one level?


And, for that matter, why can't I be the world's best underwater basket weaver without being good at stabbing things?
You have to know how to stop people from stealing your pic-a-nic baskets, of course!

ashmanonar
2008-05-12, 01:51 PM
Okay, for all people who hate the basic D&D skill system. take a look at Spycraft 2.0 . It is a D20 game of high tech espionage, yet the basic system works very well.

For example, skill checks have a certain cap, depending on your actual skill level and some class abilities and feats. So if you have 0 ranks in a skill, your result cap is 15. No matter what kind of boni you accumulate from attributes, gear and circumstances, you can not get a better result then 15. For 1-3 skill ranks, the cap is 20, for 4-6 30 and then +10 for every 3 skill ranks beyond that.

Exceptions: On a roll of a natural 20, a skill scores a 'threat', which is pretty much like a critical hit. In that case, the skill cap is ignored. The system also uses action dice, which can also boost a roll result past it's skill cap.

I suppose, the skill cap system is a nice way to curb the more annoying effects of magic items. So even with a +30 item, characters could only succeed at tasks that are within their grasp, skill wise. It might be neccessary to lower the skill caps a bit to make things work properly though.

In that case, one of the class features of a class ought to be to have a higher skill cap with certain 'iconic' skills. One might even consider to link the result cap to class level for certain skills to curb the abuse of multiclassing.

For example, your skill cap is determined both by your skill rank and by the highest class level you have in a class with this particular skill as a class skill or something like that.

Oh, they also frequently offer two relevant attributes for some skills. For example, climbing is a possible use of the Athletics skill. Here strength gives a bonus. For other uses, dexterity is the relevant attribute.

Synergy boni also exist. Here, a relevant skill gives a +1 per full 5 skill ranks. Finally some incentive to raise your skills past the magic 5.

As for feats, there are tons of them, and they actually are worth taking. :smallamused:

Basic skill feats are like the D&D equivalent: +2 insight bonus to 2 thematically linked skills. But they also increase the 'threat range' of your skill to 19-20. Oh i should mention that on a threat, action dice can be spent to buy special effects. Also, action dice are per gaming session or scene, not per level. So scoring a threat on a climb check means you could spend an action die to climb especially fast or be not considered vulnerable ( = flat-footed) to the burst of rifle fire from the goon on top of the cliff or something...

Advanced skill feats of the appropriate type increase the insight bonus to +3, the threat range to 18-20 and allow a single re-roll on a skill check, except on critical failures.

Grand Skill mastery improves bonus and threat range again, also reduces the action dice cost to activate a threat by -1 , minimum 0. So i gets cheaper to get more spectacular results from a critical success.

Prerequisite by the way is not a certain skill rank, but career level (ECL). And the corresponding basic and advanced feats of course. For grand skill mastery it is lv. 12 for example.

So only from lv. 18 on can you take Perfect Skill Mastery. Bonus to skill +5, threat range 16-20, up to 3 re-rolls, except no more then 1 re-roll on the same check and no re-rolled critical failures.

A word on critical failures: These happen on a nat. 1, except if you have 0 ranks, then they happen on a 1-3. This is the reverse of a threat, if you roll one of those, the GM can use one of his action dice to buy a fumbple for the character.

So trying to disarm a magic trap, just because you have that nifty +30 to disable device item can be... tricky... :smallamused:

I suppose you have to take a look for yourself and decide what to take from that system and what not. Still, result caps, if used judiciously, could make actual skill matter again.

Maybe give certain classes a handful of skills where they get an increased result cap as a class feature. Or link them to actual class levels, so that staying with a single class gets rewarded.

The possibilites are there, one just has to use them. :smallsmile:


Oh and about the Heal skill: You also treat diseases and poision with this. Maybe you should consider having disease actually happen in your game once in a while. A cure spell may bring back HP, but maybe it takes a proper cleaning and dressing of wounds to prevent infection...

Lycar

I LOVE Spycraft. I think we're playing 1st edition rather than 2nd edition, but the Action Dice concept is awesome.

Plus, I love how much more skill-based the game is. A firefight can KILL you, so you avoid firefights by doin' stuff with skills.

Addendum: I enjoy the use of modern technology a little more. IE: Last session, I was on the ground, foot on my neck by a dude with a gun. Being a snoop, I have a class ability that gives me a bonus to jury-rigged technology.

I put together a rudimentary taser out of some batteries and wire, and proceeded to zap the guy and stun him for 8 rounds. o.o

Now, in D&D, there aren't opportunities like this to jury-rig something very often. Even if there are some opportunities, the system almost seems to fight AGAINST improvising using some skill, with penalties because you're using improvised tools or whatever. Actually, I didn't roll uber high, but the GC gave it to me because it was something cool, and unexpected. Who thinks the unarmed Snoop is gonna tase the bad guy with stuff out of his pockets?

Craig1f
2008-05-12, 02:02 PM
Also agreed - we didn't make it an opposed check, but added the foe's reflex save to the difficulty check.

With the DMs I play with, if you attempt to tumble against an opponent with at least one rank in tumble, they can attempt an opposed tumble check to deny you the benefit of tumbling.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-12, 02:22 PM
I'll give you something there. However (You didn't think it would be that easy to defeat me, did you?), as a 15th level wizard, it's likely you've watched a lot of swordplay, so even though you're not good at swinging a sword, you have watched other people do so, and so you're familiar with how others swing theirs.
Now, you can't be an extreme underwater basket-weaver (Final Fantasy: Gil Quest reference?) because you only know what the books on extreme underwater basket weaving can teach you. You have not had all the realizations on how to be a better basket weaver, nor have you seen others weave baskets. It's assumed that, as you travel, you practice what you're good at (or, if you take other skills, what you're not good at), and eventually get better. I'm sure if your DM is very kind, he'll let you spend extreme amounts of other skill points, if you'll devote your whole backstory to extreme underwater basket weaving, and let you have a bonus in it.

Remember, there are Role Playing applications to the world. It's not all hack and slash. Sometimes, people run a diplomatic campaign, and there is no stabbing things, just talking. You still get better at basket weaving then.
Fair enough. I don't complain about the 'get skill points from adventuring' angle, for, as you say, there is always downtime. I just think it rather odd that you cannot be a great underwater basket weaver without being a good swordsman- even if you've never left your home in Underwaterbasketoplis.

However, in Heroic Fantasy, you are right. It rarely comes up. And I've never accused DnD of being bad at simulating heroic fantasy (except early Mythology, and that's the class choices [there were no Sumerian wizards] and not the system- you could easily write d20 Sumeria [and could even play it in d20 Modern]).

drengnikrafe
2008-05-12, 08:36 PM
Fair enough. I don't complain about the 'get skill points from adventuring' angle, for, as you say, there is always downtime. I just think it rather odd that you cannot be a great underwater basket weaver without being a good swordsman- even if you've never left your home in Underwaterbasketoplis.

However, in Heroic Fantasy, you are right. It rarely comes up. And I've never accused DnD of being bad at simulating heroic fantasy (except early Mythology, and that's the class choices [there were no Sumerian wizards] and not the system- you could easily write d20 Sumeria [and could even play it in d20 Modern]).

Hmm....
If that is pointing out that you are both right and wrong, then I will, too, concede that you are moderately correct, just as I am moderately wrong.

TheEmerged
2008-05-12, 10:05 PM
I'll second the bit about the cost difference between class & cross-class skills. We experimented with making all skills 1pt in cost but keeping the caps and it worked much better in my opinion.

Since someone mentioned the way skills don't seem to work properly until level 3 or so (that is, your ranks in the skill don't seem to really contribute to your success until you have 5 or more rank), my DM came up with a workable solution he borrowed from Alternity -- if you have no ranks in the skill, you *subtract* the result of a 1d4 roll from the result before success is determined.

FlyMolo
2008-05-12, 10:13 PM
BAB issues, and why a pound of iron weapons is worth way more than a pound of iron: Wartime economy. DnD is always being invaded by someone. So Everyone gets combat training. Wizards have to run away from stuff and dodge stuff and point wands properly. Fighters do it twice as well.

And my nomination for a silly rule is Darkness. The spell that makes it lighter.

Only in DnD do you cast darkness in a pitch-black room to make it lighter.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-12, 10:16 PM
A mithral chain shirt being more valuable melted down for the material.

And the fact that you actually can craft mithral out of thin air by crafting Chain shirts and melting them down.

I hate those rules.

And the 10' ladder. That's just wrong.

FlyMolo
2008-05-12, 10:35 PM
And the 10' ladder. That's just wrong.

And the two 10' poles? Agreed.

drengnikrafe
2008-05-12, 10:38 PM
And the two 10' poles? Agreed.

Are we refering to the factory, in which you take ladders, and turn them into 10' poles at a profit?... Yeah, that's one of the lightly messed up mechanics.

DrowVampyre
2008-05-12, 10:55 PM
BAB issues, and why a pound of iron weapons is worth way more than a pound of iron: Wartime economy.

Don't forget though that a 10 foot ladder costs 5cp...while a 10 foot pole costs 2sp. Sotwo 10 foot poles plus rungs are cheaper than a single 10 foot pole. ^_-

Blanks
2008-05-16, 07:29 AM
Vancian spellcasting was flavor, and it was designed to reflect an idea that magic was poorly understood, rare and perilous, but worth it for the power it provided. That was reflected in its inflexibility: Spells were "black boxes" and you didn't ask how they worked, you just intoned the recipe and laboriously gathered up the power in advance in exactly the way you'd been taught so that you could release them in something like a timely fashion. You got new spells by raiding the spellbooks of other casters and copying down their recipes. The idea (which you can see in the old World of Greyhawk) is that you don't really begin to understand what you're doing until you're high level. Even then, the emphasis is on begin, and the world was littered with the dangerous haunts and freakish remnants and horrible experiments of those who pushed the limits of human understanding of magic a little too far.
I really like the description, it nicely sums up how i feel magic should be. Thanks :smallsmile:

Oh, and i copy/pastet it into a description for my players, hope thats okay :smallbiggrin: