What do you consider a design flaw in previous editions of D&D?

What do you consider a design flaw or plain broken about previous editions of D&D?

With 4e we have hit point bloat, which is a design flaw because they actually went to correct it with later revisions of the game.

With 3e, we've heard Monte say bad feats are a design feature (paraphrased) and system mastery. But how about fighters n' wizards, do you consider that a flaw or feature?

AD&D, what did you consider design flaws, features?
And so on and so on.
How about 2e's arcane dual classing rules?

And, in retrospect, exceptional strength rules from 1e and 2e.

Could you elaborate on "design flaw", please?
Could you elaborate on "design flaw", please?



Mistakes, things that turned out not as intended.

The clearest example I can give is 4e's monsters doing too litle damage and having too many hit points. You can see that the latest monster designs have much less hit points and much higher damage, it is something they rectified.

Or... there's that 3e caster who uses skill checks that actually doesn't function based on the way the rules are written. Things like that.

Things that didn't go as intended? Well...

3.5

High level casters and most of their spells in previous editions are clearly a design flaw. At least I hope they were, because if those were intended... ._.
Power Attack feat trees were a design flaw. Divine Metamagic was a design flaw. Natural Spell was a design flaw. Actually, most of what is discussed in the Char Op boards is a design flaw. Shapechange of any kind needs a honorable mention.
Class design in general I feel was a design flaw. The skill system was a design flaw. Feats were a design flaw in that some feats were broken and other were useless.
MAD was a design flaw. SAD was a design flaw too.
Multiclassing was definitely a design flaw (level dips, frontloading, non cumulable class defining features, mad PrC shenanigans...).
The math of the whole system was a design flaw. In particular damage, saves, AC, attack rolls, touch AC...
Magic item creation rules were a design flaw.
The whole Epic Levels Handbook was a design flaw.

4E
Magic items in general were a design flaw. Lots of wasted potential.
Some slight math errors were a design flaw - Expertise etc.
Powers', feats', magic items', and in general all options' bloat and general uselessness was a huge design flaw.
Ritual costs were a design flaw.
Some stacking bonuses were a design flaw. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I just go for 4e because I play it more often than any edition.

4e

math error for attack bonus and NAD after heroic tier(10+)
-why didn't they just fix this, is beyond my understanding.
just give +1 flat bonus to both attack/NAD when reach lv11/21 and all math error are gone but after 5 years they didn't fix it.

Solo monster design
-they are a joke, too weak and just a bag of HP.

Challenge level
-monster threat can't catch up the power of PC in later level.
in heroic and early paragon are fine but later that, the PC are too strong and DM has to break the level-limit rule to build a challenging encounter.(or take so much effort to build it in rule)
There's not near as many design flaws as there is intentionally-engineered failures.

THAC0: design flaw.
That stuff about Druid hierarchy: failure.
1E Bard: failure.
ive only played three versions of d&d but ill give my opinion anyways

Basic D&D: had to houserule it alot to make it work how i wanted to

3.5: the dead levels where the only real issue i had, i loved the fighters and wizards equally and always find a way to make an impact in combat even when there are psionics in the party.

4th: HP bloat, seriously in what world doesnt a rat die after one hit, my proposed method is full class hd at first level+ racial hit die depending on the class+ constitution modifier, it makes for pcs with slightly more hp than the normal creatures and still make them frail enough to make the game exciting. healing surges and the level scaling also gets to me a little.... and powers could be less wordy and be more flavourful.
1e initiative was pretty bad.  That'd be a design flaw.  I would also consider OD&D's relying on chainmail a design flaw.

I LIKED the 1e Bards.  It gave sort of an epic feel to them.

Allowing Multiclass Figher/Magic Users to have full spell access while wearing any armor was probably a design flaw, but I allow it.

I think many of the 2e splat books could be considered design flaws.

3.X  Hmm the math.  grappling.

4.  Well, almost everything in it seems is considered a design flaw  with the direction they're going with D&D Next, and I'd agree.  Magic items being the worst among this.
2e:  THAC0 wasn't a strict flaw, but it was awkward to work around.  I'd say that 2e psionics was the biggest design flaw, but it's hard to point at any one thing because of how patchwork the system felt.


3.X:  Full attack actions.  I can understand why they exist, but it basically meant warriors didn't take move actions if they could help it.  Combat ended up being sticky.  Also, attacks with a -10 penalty almost never hit, and were a waste of time, but had to be rolled anyway just in case.

Clerics (and to a lesser extent wizards) being able to prepare every spell in the game meant some players had a LOT of research to do at high levels.  Attack bonuses outstripped AC, as a general rule.

Multiclass skills grew too slowly to ever be worth it, especially for skills like spot or hide, where degree of failure makes almost no difference.  Pathfinder did a better job of it.



4e:  Daze and Stun effects combine poorly with solos.  Later fixed in essentials with dragons who can simply cancel the effect with any one action.

Any immediate (or free!) action which could retcon an outcome.  Shield spell comes to mind "oh, he hit me, how much did he hit me buy?  If my AC went up by four, would that reduce it?"  Would have been so much better if it operated closer to the fighter's "unbreakable".

Action point economy was wrong.  I get that they were intended as a reward for continuing adventuring, but the fact that players start the day with one just killed it.  Should have been "start with zero, get one each subsequent encounter."  Also, the paragon paths which keyed off action points meant that when a player used an AP (which extended their turn) they had to mention a bunch of other effects as well (which extended the turn even moreso.) 

Critical hits feel wonky, including critical magic dice.  Generally preferred the way crits worked in 3.5.

Rituals in general were bad.  Everything about them was bad.  Time to master?  Far more interesting when a player finds a ritual book and says "Hey let's try this!" in the first ten minutes.  Should have been replaced with mastery in the form of "can take a 10" or something.  Likewise, component cost was annoying, either too high for players to want to spend it, or too low for the DM to care.  "X rituals per day" would have worked better, except for item creation.

Daily magic item usage limits was a horrible idea, and thankfully removed. 
2e and older it was mostly the strange multiclassing and level limits that struck me as odd at the time. Thac0 was confusing at higher levels also, when AC pushed into the negatives. Different saves based on type of effect, class and level created large charts that where mostly only trivially different from each others.

3e it was the proliferation of under and over powered feats, poorly written spells and general escalation of numbers and power level. The challenge rating system was borked to the point of being useless, DMs had to pick monsters by feel and experience. The spells where equally poorly written in 2e, but the generally lower level of play, the changes to the way wizards worked in 3e and the lack of the internet made the problem less significant. Poorly written paragon paths also cluttered up the books with a lot of options that nobody ever used.

The flaws of 4e where the further escalation of numbers (particularly HP in 4e), generally weak monster design (particularly solos and high level ones), failure of the wizard class in general, poor handling of conditions (either too powerful or not powerful enough and 4e's save ends makes them very erratic in play), many characters being dependent on having particular magic items to be effective. Too many new classes and not enough support for existing classes was also a problem.

2nd Edition dual-class rules were my pet peeve.

Problem #1:  Let's say the PC starts out as a Fighter.  At 10th level, he decides to switch to Wizard.  According to the rules, the dual-class PC no longer earns any XP for the former class (Fighter) and no longer advances in level for that class.  So, he could theoretically kill every single demon in the Abyss and not learn a thing from it (as a Fighter at least).

Problem #2:  The dual-class PC is an experienced Fighter 10 but unfortunately, he is also a newly minted Wizard 1.  According to the rules, he fights and saves as a Wizard (not a Fighter).  If he chooses to use any of his Fighter abilities in an encounter (and he can), the PC earns no XP for the encounter and only half XP for the entire adventure.  The PC is heavily penalized for using any attack or save values, weapons or armor, even special abilities, of the previous class.  According to the rules, he's learning 'new ways' of doing things; if he slips back into old ways, things get set back.

It makes no sense to me for a dual-class PC to fight 'worse' just because he's picking up some spellcasting.  I'll grant that maybe he's stuck using a dagger (as a Wizard) but surely (as a Fighter) he knows how to use that dagger really, really well.

Problem #3:  These restrictions last until the example dual-class PC reaches 11th level as a Wizard (if ever).  This is a long time to 'learn new ways'.  Humans are simply more adapable than this I think.

/\ Art
4E:

- Skill challenges were a design flaw. Despite their best effort, WOTC still hasn't gotten them right.
- Overabundant choices were a design flaw. They were part of the reason why combat grinded so much via choice paralysis.

3.xE:

- The falling rules were a design flaw. Way too easy to abuse.
- Plane Shift was a design flaw. Made it too easy to abuse the "5 mnute workday" phenomenon.
- Polymorph spell line was a design flaw. Even after a rerelease, it still wasn't fixed.

4E:

- Skill challenges were a design flaw. Despite their best effort, WOTC still hasn't gotten them right.

WotC may not have (they made them too rigid), but the community sure has (start at critical-hits.com).  Skill challenges are freaking awesome when done right.  These are the best thing about 4E, imho.

Celebrate our differences.

2e: Too many ad hoc game design choices that are there "just cause", especially things that have to do with tables. 
 
% on strength 18
saving throws
variable XP tables
unbalanced classes
unbalanced spells (too many to list)
skill checks always seemed too easy
dual-classing 
monsters using spells and spell-like abilities (wastes a lot of time to search spells each time one is cast)

3e: To many feats, too many feat categories, few feat choices (much better in 4e, can be improved)
saving throws; better than 2e, but unbalanced (fixed in 4e)
level adjustment
monster HD on playable races
multiclassing    
variable BAB on multiple attacks, just awful
monsters using feats, spells (even worse than 2e, now you must also be looking for feats)

4e: Too many things to track during combat: Auras, effects, etc. makes it a logistic nightmare
Monsters: Too many HP, too little dmg.
Rituals
Magic Items 
Saving throws (could use a new, better system)
     
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
My top peeves from every edition:

BECMI: Having demihumans have one class available each, with different level limits from humans. "Lawful" to "Chaotic" as the only alignment axis, complete with hilariously wooden dialogue lampshading it in Cyclopedia-era Basic adventures. Mind-blowing complex thief skill rules (carried forward into 1e and 2e.)

AD&D 1e: Creeping introduction of extra base classes. Having separate Cavalier and Paladin classes. The insanely complex Bard rules. THAC0. Too many tables for things where linear equations would have been better. The ridiculously unbalanced and flavourless psionic rules. Segments.

AD&D 2e: THAC0 again. The clunkiness of nonweapon proficiencies (although having them in the first place was awesome). Dual-classing for humans. Everything I ever saw of the black and red 'Skills and Powers' era supplementary rules. And on balance, even though they seemed cute at the time, kits were a bad idea.

3e and 3.5e: Deliberately underpowered NPC classes like 'Commoner'. Excessive reliance on map grids for combat. The fact that the 'fix' for fireball radiuses was nearly as complex as the thing it fixed. The promising but awkward grappling rules. The fact that flavourful 'background' feats were left out of the core books and only included in various supplements, even though they're the ones players should be taking at level 1.

4e: I confess to not knowing too much about this edition, so I'll just say - tiers puts me off. I like the idea of levels as an approximation to a smooth learning curve. Enforced break points feels wrong. Also, the "Lawfulness is Good" quality of the alignment system.

Things I'd like to see that have never yet been done right: A combat system that has usable martial arts and doesn't totally suck with Renaissance firearms added to the mix; that doesn't rely on grids, and makes for entertaining bar brawl scenes. A psionics system which is optional, but integrates well with other classes. Language learning rules that make some kind of narrative sense without being too difficult to use.

Z.
I won't worry about whether these are "flaws" or "deliberately-done mistakes"...


  • ** All weapon-users are simple, all spell-casters are complex

  • Weapon-users level progression is linear, spellcasters are quadratic

  • ** Level 1 characters that fear housecats

  • ** Save or die/suck

  • * Any character class that requires magic items to stay functional as it levels up

  • Creatures that can only be damaged by certain weapons... with many varieties of "certain weapons"

  • # Moderate-level magic weapons worth as much as a city

  • They still haven't gotten multiclassing right (but they are getting better): way way too expensive and limited in 2E, way too cheap and powerful in 3E, way too expensive and limited in 4E

  • ** Uneven level-progression XP tables prior to 3E

  • Racial limits on levels

  • Racial penalties to attributes

  • Attribute-modifying spells, powers, and magic items

  • ** Skills prior to 4E were just a mess - far too many of them in 3E, too restricted in many ways prior to that

  • # Skills tied to one attribute regardless of circumstances (still in 4E)

  • * Unskilled fighters

  • Summons that significantly alter the character's action economy and power

  • ** Any class being able to do a much different class's schtick better than that other class

  • Requiring a player to divide any single character-building resource between in-combat and out-of-combat utility

  • ** Random attributes and hit points

  • Some classes requiring feats or other resources to be as effective as other classes are for free at the same level

  • Weapon-vs-armor table

  • ** Restating rules for, say, dazing every time it comes up, rather than defining a keyword and then referring to it (and frequently restating it slightly differently so that it interacts differently with other things, for no good reason)


I'm sure I could think of more...

(Key...

* A problem we are likely to see repeated as the norm in 5E
** A problem fixed in 4E, and in some cases in 3E or 3.5E, that we are likely to see repeated as the norm in 5E
# A problem we are not likely to see repeated as the norm in 5E

All of those are in my opinion based on things the designers have publicly said.) 
 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I won't worry about whether these are "flaws" or "deliberately-done mistakes"...


  • All weapon-users are simple, all spell-casters are complex - Disagree

  • Weapon-users level progression is linear, spellcasters are quadratic -Disagree

  • Level 1 characters that fear housecats - Agree

  • Save or die/suck - Disagree

  • Any character class that requires magic items to stay functional as it levels up -Agree

  • Creatures that can only be damaged by certain weapons... with many varieties of "certain weapons"-Disagree

  • Moderate-level magic weapons worth as much as a city -Disagree

  • They still haven't gotten multiclassing right (but they are getting better): way way too expensive and limited in 2E, way too cheap and powerful in 3E, way too expensive and limited in 4E- Agree

  • Uneven level-progression XP tables prior to 3E -Disagree

  • Racial limits on levels -Disagree

  • Racial penalties to attributes -Disagree

  • Attribute modifiers- Disagree

  • Skills prior to 4E were just a mess- Disagree

  • Skills tied to one attribute regardless of circumstances (still in 4E)- On-the-Fence

  • Unskilled fighters - Disagree

  • Summons that significantly alter the character's action economy and power -Disagree

  • Any class being able to do a much different class's schtick better than that other class - Agree

  • Requiring a player to divide any single character-building resource between in-combat and out-of-combat utility - Disagree

  • Random attributes and hit points -Disagree

  • Some classes requiring feats or other resources to be as effective as other classes are for free at the same level - Depends on the circumstances


I'm sure I could think of more...



Off the top of my head,

"Balancing" bonuses with penalties. "Oh no, My charisma is 4 instead of 8. I guess that means I'll be really snarky and rude while I'm doing 200d6 damage at level 1."
 
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
3.0 and 3.5 multiclassing that allowed you to take a single level in a class for no other reason than to meet a requirement for a prestige class.

4E hybrid class and multiclass rules.

 
I am not a fan of the unassociated saving throws in 4e. If I am bit by a filthy dire rat, but I have a strong constitution, then why doesn't that apply to my save?  I understand that this is supposed to be a rules simplification, but I think there should be other ways to simplify the rules other than completely disassociating them from their related stats.
I am not a fan of the unassociated saving throws in 4e. If I am bit by a filthy dire rat, but I have a strong constitution, then why doesn't that apply to my save?  I understand that this is supposed to be a rules simplification, but I think there should be other ways to simplify the rules other than completely disassociating them from their related stats.



your high CON does resist it, you make endurance checks to get rid of the condition

"Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
7 or lower: The stage of the disease increases by one."

...but it could have just been an endurance check to begin with.

---

ah right, biggest design flaw with 3e: Multiclassing that totally screws up BAB and saves. A level 3 character can have anything from +0 to +6 in Saves/BAB depending on how he multiclassed, and what order he did it in. That's weird.


I am not a fan of the unassociated saving throws in 4e. If I am bit by a filthy dire rat, but I have a strong constitution, then why doesn't that apply to my save?  I understand that this is supposed to be a rules simplification, but I think there should be other ways to simplify the rules other than completely disassociating them from their related stats.


That's what the NADs are for. "Save ends" is essentially the equivalent of "1dX rounds."

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
THAC0: design flaw.



Do you mean the actual rule (descending ACs being better)?  Or just it's really stupid name?

Because the rule is not a design flaw.  You likely just don't understand why that system was used.




your high CON does resist it, you make endurance checks to get rid of the condition

"Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
7 or lower: The stage of the disease increases by one."

...but it could have just been an endurance check to begin with.




Right, my point was the initial save. I am fully aware of the recovery rolls being endurance (con) related... And having an unmodified d20 roll where 10 or higher wins is like using percentile dice - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And you're right, multi-classing needs to make a little more sense than it did in 3e... 


your high CON does resist it, you make endurance checks to get rid of the condition

"Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
7 or lower: The stage of the disease increases by one."

...but it could have just been an endurance check to begin with.




Right, my point was the initial save. I am fully aware of the recovery rolls being endurance (con) related... And having an unmodified d20 roll where 10 or higher wins is like using percentile dice - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And you're right, multi-classing needs to make a little more sense than it did in 3e... 



Well, I know that's strange when you look at it like it was some kind of resistance. But it is not. It's not like the previous editions' saving throws, you are not resisting anything: it's just a way to track the duration. It is unmodified because it is a way to track a random duration. You are subject to an effect that has a (save ends) duration, and you resist that with your NADs (which are attribute based). If you take away (save ends) and place instead a 1d6 rounds duration it has the same purpose (only the save ends has an infinite variance and an average of slightly less than 2 IIRC my calculations, both of which are impossible to replicate with any combination of dice).

Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E

AD&D:
-Class/Level/Racial restrictions were a design flaw, though they could easily be ignored, so you could make a multi-class human with an elven only kit for example. Or a dual class elf with a human only kit.
- Ability scores was a design flaw in AD&D, you couldn't really benefit from any stat until 16, this resulted in players always having incredible stats or cheating their stats roll simply to get any sort of bonus (including that +10% XP bonus)
- Over-developed rules was a design flaw, the rules on unarmed combat comes to mind.

3E / 4E
-The inability to make the character YOU WANT TO make is a design flaw.
-The inability to make house rules without a high potential of bothching the entire ruleset.
-Too many level/feat restrictions for Feats and Prestige Classes. You often were forced to take feats you didn't want to get a desired class/feat. Or had to wait until you were a certain level.

In 3E, you had to take 2-5 different classes in order to get the desired skill set. Skills in particular being an issue, players would often start at Rogue or Ranger, simply because they wanted SOME skills under their belt.

In 4E, well, not much customization was available period - so you were stuck in whatever stereotypical role the rulesets lead you in.


What I would like to see:
- The return of 'Kits' , essentially sub-classes. This will allow Players to have unique/versatile PCs without the need to multi-class
- Solid rules for creating/adding your own Classes, Races, Feats, Skills etc.
In 4E, well, not much customization was available period - so you were stuck in whatever stereotypical role the rulesets lead you in.

Apparently I'm playing 4e wrong...

Granted, multiclassing in 4E is extremely expensive and underpowered (whereas in 3E it was extremely cheap and overpowered)... but I find lots of room for customization and so far have only found one character concept I wanted to try and couldn't build (and guess what, I couldn't build it in 3E either).

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
In 4E, well, not much customization was available period - so you were stuck in whatever stereotypical role the rulesets lead you in.

Apparently I'm playing 4e wrong...

Granted, multiclassing in 4E is extremely expensive and underpowered (whereas in 3E it was extremely cheap and overpowered)... but I find lots of room for customization and so far have only found one character concept I wanted to try and couldn't build (and guess what, I couldn't build it in 3E either).


+1.

Yeah, that statement right there is significantly misrepresenting 4E.  4E is very flexible.  And if you add some imagination with reflavoring of some powers, you can really take control of character creation. 

Celebrate our differences.

Hello,

Here's one - turning in 3e. Filling out my taxes is easier.

My biggest pet peeve is why in most editions is information spread across three or more books. I'm looking at the monster manual and the power says panic. I then have to go to the DMG to define panic.
Yes, turning undead was much easier in 1e and/or 2e. In 3e it just got complex. Keep turning undead, but keep it simple.


your high CON does resist it, you make endurance checks to get rid of the condition

"Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
7 or lower: The stage of the disease increases by one."

...but it could have just been an endurance check to begin with.




Right, my point was the initial save. I am fully aware of the recovery rolls being endurance (con) related... And having an unmodified d20 roll where 10 or higher wins is like using percentile dice - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And you're right, multi-classing needs to make a little more sense than it did in 3e... 



wel the initial save has been replaced with the fortitude defence that is con based.
being hit with a atack verses fort defence is the same as failing a con based saving trow in 3.X

after being efected in 3.X you are afected for a set duration.
in 4th your affected for a random duration dependent on saves.
 
Many of these flaws are relative to other editions, or I wouldn't have said they were flaws without later improvements.

4e:
Publishing schedule - if 4e had lasted 10 years would you have bought PH10 and Martial Power 5
Skill Challenges - Complexity was wrong, DCs still aren't right.
Immediate Actions - let it be a turn based game
HP Bloat - PC and NPCs especially early Solos
At-Wills - core game  should have been better
3D - flight and swimming underwater just isn't covered well enough
30 levels - it was poor design because it made all the flaws worse
Enh Bonus - magic items in general are all messed up
Essentials -  while I like almost everything that came with Essentials, it was received so poorly putting it out was a flawed choice

3.5
Full Attack - took away movement
Campaign long balance - low level wiz was weak, high level wiz was strong v low level fighter was strong, high level fighter was weak.
Cleric Healing - that a cleric could... had to give up spells for healing (gods bless 4e)
Monster Building - no alternative to complex





1e (Based on reports): full of technical bugs.  Complexity existed where you didn't need it and didn't exist where a modern gamer would want it (say, in character design)

2e (Minor experience): Has a lot of seriously arcane mechanics, especially arbitrary limiters on character advancement/creation, that ought to be hammered out of the system.

3.0 (Played the hell out of this): some seriously broken choices plague the game.  Runs fine, maybe the best I've experienced, but ONLY under a gentelmen's agreement to avoid CoDzilla and other such cheese (IE, fighters are allowed or required to optimize, wizards are expected not to).

3.5 (Played the hell out of this): Corrected many of 3e's specific problems (bag of rats, for instance) while introducing unforseen annoyances of its own (the fighter's golf bag).  Overall, it didn't really solve the Imbalance problem, though the class bloat after Complete X provided enough classes to play within a balanced range, unlike 3.0.  As such, it still needs a vigilant and knowledgable DM or a standing gentelmen's agreement to run well.

3.5 (by tests) and 4e (by reports): OPTION BLOAT!  Dear god, the option bloat....

4e (Tested this, decided it wasn't for me): HP bloat was a serious problem whenever I tried to play this.  A big problem for me was also class homogenization.  3.x was grid reliant compared to the TSR editions, but 4e's reliance on the grid makes 3rd look like freeform.  Ouch! (A lot of people complain about "low threat" in 4e, but I never will... my first experience with the system ended in a TPK because the party was paranoid)

4e (Basic information): 5 alignments that equate order with goodness and chaos with evil.  30 levels.

4e (Later discussions; didn't come up in release info or my personal experience): Monsters and PCs don't live in the same rules-universe, nor can they (so far no one has "debunked" there being no acceptable rules to balance an NPC enemy built as a PC).

Essentials (Played around with the Red Box, again...): homogenization is patched to some degree, other 4e problems persist



Hope for next: 2e's charm/feel, 3e's variety, 4e's balance.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

 
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Level-by-level multiclassing in 3.X was a big mistake.  On the surface it seemed sensible, but in order for it to work every level of every class has to be of equal value at all times.  Obviously that never happened, and probably was never possible to begin with.
Level-by-level multiclassing in 3.X was a big mistake.  On the surface it seemed sensible, but in order for it to work every level of every class has to be of equal value at all times.  Obviously that never happened, and probably was never possible to begin with.



I thought about that before n' my thoughts on different ways to tackle that was...

1) make level 3 characters the default. A level 1 wizard would just have 0 level spells, level 2-3 and he becomes competent at level 1 spells.

2) Level 1 as a character (not class level 1), means you get bonus feats/features to spend on the class. So a level 1 fighter who becomes wizard1 is going to have more fighter features while a level 1 wizard who enters fighter 1 will have more wizard features to begin with.


     Rarity system.  It works well enough in Magic [at least from WOTC's view] since the players are encouraged to go buy more stuff.  But we don't buy anything physical in D&D when our PC gets a magic item and so all it does is complicate the magic selection process.

    Alignment system.  Now I like the 3e system, but 4e is worthless.  Better to just domp it if they are not willing to make the effort to make a proper system.
Using a single die and assigning certain numbers as 'extemes' is a design flaw. On a single die all numbers are as likely to be rolled as any other. So saying a '1' is an extreme failure, or a '20' is an extreme success is inaccurate. They are no less likely to happen than a 7 or 10 or 14.



The biggest design flaw that I have seen is the focus on long drawn out tactical combats that was started in 3rd edition and really came to a head in 4th.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Using a single die and assigning certain numbers as 'extemes' is a design flaw. On a single die all numbers are as likely to be rolled as any other. So saying a '1' is an extreme failure, or a '20' is an extreme success is inaccurate. They are no less likely to happen than a 7 or 10 or 14.


I think this is a misunderstanding, with respect. Because (generally speaking) no special quality is assigned to any of the 18 other possible die rolls, an exceptional result occurs only 10% of the time. That's reasonably extreme. The fact that the outcomes are linearly distributed is not a problem, if the bulk of the results are just success or failure, and otherwise indistinguishable.

Of course, you may prefer that extreme results are rarer - perhaps around the 5% level so beloved of statisticians. I think that's what the 'critical threat' rule from 3e achieves, but 18 on 3d6 would work too. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that the statistical distribution of the 'normal' results has any effect on the rarity or specialness of the 'critical' results.

Z.