|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 10:28PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 10:49PM
#2
|
|
|
How about 2e's arcane dual classing rules?
And, in retrospect, exceptional strength rules from 1e and 2e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 10:50PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Could you elaborate on "design flaw", please?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 10:55PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 11:55PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
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! Spoiler:
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 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 1:11AM
#6
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 1:13AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 2:03AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 2:18AM
#9
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 3:49AM
#10
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
