Sometimes there's just something that you don't think makes sense in a gaming system. This is a thread for you to toss any gaming features/mechanics/etc that you dislike or think don't make sense, explain the reason for it, and a possible solution to the dilemma (or more if you have plenty!).
Specifically though, this thread is for D&D 3.5, as Drac asked to limit such things to one system so that it doesn't get cluttered. Feel free to make a different thread for other systems.
***
1. Sai - the bludgeoning monk weapon: Okay, if the title doesn't tell you everything, you've never seen a sai.
That, or maybe you're imagining that you pick up the Sai character from Hikaru no Go and using him as a bludgeoning weapon? Heh. That'd be funny...
Anyway, getting back to the point, the sai is a sharp pointy weapon. It should definitely be a piercing weapon.
You could make an argument for it to be a slashing weapon, I suppose, but it fits more as a piercing weapon.
2. Toughness feat: This 'handy-dandy' feat gives you +3HP.
Yeah, that's about it for what it does, making it an excellent selection for a starting level 1-2 character and only a level 1-2 character.
Outside of that though, is it really useful? Hell no. At higher levels, it's worthless. And even at lower levels, it gets outclassed by another feat - Improved Toughness.
This other feat gives you +1HP/level and then some additional HP equal to your level. It's requirement is a measly Base Fortitude+2.
How does it compare?
Getting feat at Lv1: Toughness 3HP, Improved 2HP
Getting feat at Lv2: Toughness 3HP, Improved 4HP
Getting feat at Lv3: Toughness 3HP, Improved 6HP
So outside of level 1, where Toughness gives you one more HP immidiately, Improved Toughness beats it completely. Even then, really, you'd want IT if you can take it since you get an additional hit point each level so by level 2 it's equal, and by level 3 it beats it.
Spme possible solutions:
You make Toughness a prerequesite for Improved Toughness.
You modify the feat and make it comparable (ex: if your game does not allow rerolls for HP during level-up, this feat lets you roll twice and select the higher result for your HP).
3. (Removed because I had been misunderstanding feat, so no reason to leave complaint here!)
4. Cross Class Skills: This one is more of Drac's pet peeve, but I'll comment on it since it was the brief start of a discussion over it that made me think of starting this thread.
<Dracos> Cross class skills are retarded.
<Dracos> If you have a lot of skills
<Dracos> you have almost the entire chart as your 'class skills'
<Dracos> if you don't, you don't really have the skill points to waste on cross class.
<Merc> I dislike the concept of cross class skills costing more, but I do agree with the concept of you being less skilled in them than someone from another class.
<Merc> Which is why I like the concept of the Able Learner feat.
<Merc> even if it is human only.
For a refresher, there are two types of skills: class skills and cross-class skills.
Class skills are the skills that your character can learn from their class and they cost 1 skill point per rank, and you can get a maximum number of ranks equal to your level+3.
Cross-Class skills are the skills your character can't learn from their class, but can still learn. They cost 2 skill points per rank, and you can get a maximum number of ranks equal to 1/2(level+3).
As mentioned, I dislike the idea that learning something should be more difficult than something else. I can fully get behind the concept that you can't become as capable in it because of what you do not allowing you to gain proficiency over it, but certainly not it being more difficult. Picking a certain class over another certainly doesn't change your brain patterns to pick up certain skills over others. And yet, that's what this system does.
I do like the idea behind the Able Learner feat, though. It makes all skills cost an equal amount (1 point), though cross class skills are still limited to a maximum rank half of a class skill. So one solution is that you automatically giving it to everyone (even non-humans, as the feat is supposed to be for humans only).
Other alternatives:
I believe Drac prefers to just do away with the cross-class system and make all skills into class skills essentially.
Yep, Toughness sucks.
You're totally wrong with Improved Toughness, though. It gives you +HP equal to your hit die. No more, no less. A level 20 character (with 20 HD) gets... 20 HP. It goes up as you get more HD (and down if you lose them.)
I disagree that cross-class skills are stupid, too. I do agree that some classes are shafted where they shouldn't be with skills (Fighters, joy...) and they should get both more skill points and options.
But not all skills are equal (tumble, use magic device, animal ANYTHING, ride...) and it makes perfect sense to me that some are easier for professionals of one class to pick up than others.
On the other hand, sensory skills should be easily bought for all characters.
Hadn't I asked you to verify the question about Improved Toughness because I wasn't understanding it? Bastard. >_<
Well, that right off the bat clears the problem of Improved Toughness then.
I dislike 5ft steps. Unless terrain is heavily against them, or they are being flanked, spellcasters (and archers, for that matter) aren't more vulnerable than they otherwise would be. Fighters can't even afford to ready an action, because a smartarse spellcaster can just move back 30 feet instead of of five feet, trigger the AoO for something other than casting a spell, and... cast it.
I'm going to have to agree that Toughness totally sucks. Get yourself a toad familiar if ya need those three HP. :)
I'm going to have to disagree with you and agree with Rat that cross-class skills are not stupid. The dwarven fighter Gimli Warhammer who has spent his life training in warfare and climbing mountains should have a harder difficulty in opening a lock than the halfing rogue Robin Stealsalot, who has been trained since entering the thieves guild (and before) on how to open up many locks. Some classes lend themselves to certain skills, such as knowledge (nature) for the druids and hide for the rogues.
Use that AoO as a trip attack! :)
Fighters get way less skill points than rogues, so even if they did want to tumble, for example, they're almost never going to be as good as a rogue unless they focus on getting skilled at it, at the expense of other skills.
And if they want to focus on tumble skills, why shouldn't they be able to?
Plus, as I mentioned, even if they do choose to focus on it, with something like the able learner feat effect, they still can't get more ranks than as a cross class skill, -but- they can choose to focus on such skills -without- being penalized for wanting to try to focus on those skills.
So I don't think they're (cross class skills, that is) too stupid, they do serve some purpose in that regard. However, I don't think that people should be penalized for wanting to get a rank in some other skill in -addition- to the fact that they also can't get the same level of rank as another class can.
To quote a certain power gamer book, "Think about rogue and bard players in your party. They have more points than they know what to do with, make most checks by a huge margin, and typically are given most skill-enhancing magic items when loot is found. How often do they say, "Man, I wish I had some more skills to spend all these points on?" How often do they say, "The DC's fifteen? Oh, I made it by... twenty-two, I guess." How often do they say, "Well, with my twelve ranks, plus six dexterity bonus, plus five competence bonus from my cloak, plus two racial bonus for being a halfling, plus two synergy bonus..."
You're not going to win the skill game playing a fighter. You FIGHT when playing a fighter, that's your job. A fighter focuses on killing stuff, not picking locks. :)
With regards to the cross-class skills, sometimes a character has to make sacrifices and decisions in what they want to do. My dwarf fighter sucks at pretty much everything other than fighting, but I'm a beast at fighting (and I have a +7 to climb while wearing plate mail and a shield!). I let the rogue of the party search for treasure, and I provide the necessary beatdown on the monsters.
Also, wasn't there a feat called Jack Of All Trades, or something like that, that enabled a character to make any skill check untrained?
If a fighter wanted to focus on tumble skills, they would either need a very high INT, or just take a level in monk. Or rogue. However 3.5 favors the specialist. The more you specialize in something, the more power you have really. We have a cleric in the party who is a radiant servant of Pelor, and focuses a lot of his feats on healing. It's quite awesome to have a healer that is REALLY good at healing.
Quote from: "Ranma_007"To quote a certain power gamer book, "Think about rogue and bard players in your party. They have more points than they know what to do with, make most checks by a huge margin, and typically are given most skill-enhancing magic items when loot is found. How often do they say, "Man, I wish I had some more skills to spend all these points on?" How often do they say, "The DC's fifteen? Oh, I made it by... twenty-two, I guess." How often do they say, "Well, with my twelve ranks, plus six dexterity bonus, plus five competence bonus from my cloak, plus two racial bonus for being a halfling, plus two synergy bonus..."
You're not going to win the skill game playing a fighter. You FIGHT when playing a fighter, that's your job. A fighter focuses on killing stuff, not picking locks. :)
With regards to the cross-class skills, sometimes a character has to make sacrifices and decisions in what they want to do. My dwarf fighter sucks at pretty much everything other than fighting, but I'm a beast at fighting (and I have a +7 to climb while wearing plate mail and a shield!). I let the rogue of the party search for treasure, and I provide the necessary beatdown on the monsters.
I disagree that they make most checks by a huge margin.
They make checks by the exact -SAME- margin that any other character that can max out their ranks in that skill can. The one difference is that they can max out -more- skills, which is a result of their extra skill points.
It's also just ridiculous to punish you twice if you want to play an intelligent skilled Fighter. Skills should either cost two points per rank for cross class skills or be allowed only to half-rank. They should not be -both-.
What I'm suggesting in no way detracts from a rogue/bard/etc's ability to have variety and be skilled in such either, nor make a fighter an uber skilled machine in addition to still being a killing machine.
As I said, a fighter has vastly less skill points to distrubute (which makes sense!), and are still less capable of becoming as skilled as a rogue at say tumbling (because it's -still- a cross class skill and they can only get half as many ranks as a class skill). The skill merely does not cost two points per rank, which is a -double- punishment in addition to the limit on ranks.
Quote from: "Ranma_007"Also, wasn't there a feat called Jack Of All Trades, or something like that, that enabled a character to make any skill check untrained?
All that feat does is allow you to make a skill check, but it doesn't allow you to get -ranks- in those skills.
Quote from: "Ranma_007"If a fighter wanted to focus on tumble skills, they would either need a very high INT, or just take a level in monk. Or rogue. However 3.5 favors the specialist. The more you specialize in something, the more power you have really. We have a cleric in the party who is a radiant servant of Pelor, and focuses a lot of his feats on healing. It's quite awesome to have a healer that is REALLY good at healing.
And I'm not saying it's wrong for the system to favor specialists, I am however saying it's wrong for the system to doubly limit you from trying to add variety, when only one limit suffices.
Also, are Fighters really being *punished*? If they want all those extra neat skills they can... multiclass!
It's not like rogues can twist around their stuff to get the stuff fighters get without multiclassing, like full BaB progression. The whole point of the mechanic is to allow that sort of flexibility. It naturally adds that variety you're looking for, too.
In general, a character will almost never step outside of those class skills. Furthermore, for most warrior classes, there's a heavy armor penalty that cripples a large set of motion related skills.
I can't remember the last time I saw a fighter with something as simple as Knowledge Local added to his skill set for flavor. Why? Because the wizard with a base intelligence is likely to beat his knowledge local on just that for a good 6-8 levels as a reward for them spending sometimes as much as half of their total skill points for that flavor. Who would try and climb that wall? But from a narrative standpoint, it's totally reasonable.
Take a fighter who's background is he was a punk thief on the streets who learned a few moves and is trying to clean himself up. With feats, it's easy to back it up. Skills? Nigh impossible. Why? Do you really have to punish him further beyond him having a few skills he won't put to for ages afterwards?
I believe that without them, most folks will aim for coherent skill sets because there's a synergy advantage in such and a narrative advantage in such and all the cross-class crap does is limit creativity. You're stuck when you choose a class into a very narrow minded interpretation of it skillwise rather than encouraged to include skills in with their backgrounds.
Moreso, there's often very intelligent expansions that get made to skills that make them fit wisely with one class or another...that has to pay through the nose for it. Sense Motive's enhancements for using it to basically do "Con <enemy>" makes perfect sense for a lot of fighter builds. Hell, so does bluff for feinting. What kind of genius tied the concept of a FEINT to a skill that a fighter has to pay through the nose to use and then has to win a skill contest with?
I consider that for a lot of skills, a below 10 rank is effectively a 'no' rank. Things that aren't opposed rolls but have solid DCs usually have them in the 15-20+ range. Things that are opposed rolls pretty much indicate that save for massive dice luck, there's no point in going into a cross-classed skill with it as you're going to lose pretty much every time you pull it out, which isn't really in the spirit of having 3-4 skills to begin with. If you only have a couple of talents, you should at least be allowed to be semi-competitive with them.
This ignores that usually classes specialized towards such class skills get other perks towards it. Class abilities that synch well with it. High stats in the relevant areas for it. No armor penalities. Etc. There tends to be lots of synergy down most classes with their relevant skills to make it worthwhile to stay within them.
So to turn 007's line back on him, I don't see any reason why Gimli Warhammer should be totally owned by Gandalf the White in knowing the layout of his own mountain home.
Dracos
I wouldn't be surprised if Gandalf the White not only knew Gimli's home, but Hobbiton, Rohan, The White City, well, you get the idea. ^_^
As well as a healthy dose of Knowledge (planes), Knowleddge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (nature), etc, etc...
Quote from: "Carthrat"Also, are Fighters really being *punished*? If they want all those extra neat skills they can... multiclass!
It's not like rogues can twist around their stuff to get the stuff fighters get without multiclassing, like full BaB progression. The whole point of the mechanic is to allow that sort of flexibility. It naturally adds that variety you're looking for, too.
It's silly. The multiclassing method of doing it.
You're really, as evidenced in chat, worried about a few skills from the munchkining perspective and not "This really is stupidly limiting" from the role playing perspective. There's a few obvious ones "Spell casting", "Use Magic Device" that don't really fit and explicitly name ONE character class as using it...
I want to play a religious fighter. Why should my knowledge religion be silly crippled? Am I illiterate and deaf and unable to devoutly devour every word my nearby cleric friend shares with his greater intelligence and wisdom?
I want to play an atheletic wizard. Why is the concept that I go outside and do some aerobics and jumping so utterly alien that I have to be limited to failing every jump check I make over pits until I enchant magic boots to keep up?
It shouldn't be and I don't really think it reflects the greater elegance of the rest of the system.
Dracos
I'll throw in my two cents here. (More like $20, long post comin) In no particular order, D&D 3.5 features that fail (in my opinion)...
- Balance, or rather the lack thereof. "Cleric/Druid and arcane casters win, Fighter loses" is but one example. The classes are not balanced to each other. Not even the archetypes are balanced. Skills are not balanced to each other, as pointed out earlier. Feats - well, they don't even try, with feats. Put new players and experienced players in the same party. The experienced players will build very capable characters, and the new players will likely build characters who are light-years behind the well built group in their capabilities for pretty much everything. This is an issue in any game, certainly, but it's present in 3.5 to a ridiculous extent. I've run games that fell apart because one PC tried to boost his AC to over 20 points higher than everyone else, then got upset when I asked him to tone the build down a bit. "Why should I intentionally cripple myself just because everyone else is making poor choices?" he asked. Indeed, he was an ass. But he did have a point. A DM of any relatively restrictive system like 3.5 shouldn't HAVE to soft-ban things or spoon feed new players into one of the system's uber builds to avoid them building a relatively useless character. This ties into my next quibble...
- The value of splatbooks compared to the core game. Saw someone at another board post a topic once that said "I don't allow non-core prestige classes in my games, what do you think?" 90%+ of the responses were "I'd never play in any campaign you ran." And with pretty good reason; the true major choice in 3.5 character building is not "what core class will I start in" but "What PrC (or two) am I going to head for?" The core class system is such that prestige classes are a necessity for both fun and, increasingly, balance - fine, okay, I won't say this is necessarily a flaw. BUT. Splatbooks do not contain only PrCs, they contain a multitude of feats, items, blah blah all stamped with the WotC seal of balance. These other things are not of value as great as PrCs, but they tend to get allowed into campaigns anyways due to being in the same books, shouldn't have to softban things anyway see point 1. With every splatbook released, though, there's an increasing number of new feats, rules, and the like that are of great benefit to nearly any character, not just the new classes described in the given book. Most recently the PHB2 has taken this to an entirely new extreme. This goes straight back into balance, such that the capabilities of a character you can build are directly correlated to the number of splatbooks you have access to. Sure, the DM can limit the campaign to X books - but every single player needs to have access to those same books. This is an annoyance and money (or hard drive space) drain, at best. Sure, it makes WotC rich, and you can argue that it's a necessity of any system that allows addons, but the rate of increased capabilities in 3.5 splatbooks in particular is pretty dang high.
- The entire skill system is inelegant, overcomplicated, confusing and self-defeating. If where you place your skill points is supposed to be a fairly major point of character customization, how come fighters can customize themselves less than wizards of equal intelligence? Why are some skills so much better than other ones, and why do classes have such restrictive skill lists and different skill point totals? Why is there a rank system at all, with such arcane caps and cross class skills and half-ranks, when 99% of the time a character is just going to pick X skills, where X = number of points per level, and max them, with the other 1% being synergies and prerequisites for stuff?
- The item, treasure, monster and experience charts are too tightly bound into the overall attempt at 'balance', which fails anyhow. See the first point, add "If you don't follow the tables for monetary rewards, experience and enemies, especially the first of those, balance becomes 100x worse." God help the man who tries to run a campaign that's low on magic items. Your non-caster classes will fail even more than usual, and the few items that are handed out will shape the party around them.
- Permanent level drain in a game with only 20 levels, and extreme power jumps between levels, is a horrible idea. Nuff said. Die at low level and you don't lose much total XP. Die at high level and you can get True Resurrection. Die at mid level and you will lag behind everyone else for ages. Easily houseruled away, but still. I am actually of the opinion that any and all permanent experience loss, including costs for spellcasting and item creation, is a bad idea, but that's more debateable.
- In 3.5 specifically, the changes made to DR and the weapon size and material systems are... well, silly. The size stuff is confusing for new players and redundant (is it a medium longsword or a huge dagger? Who cares?), while the DR/materials thing rips apart the old DR system (which was perfectly fine, and at least fit in with what they were doing for monster level balancing) and replaces it with a need for fighters to carry X different weapons around to hit various creatures (protip: the vast majority of fighters prefer to have a single signature weapon), while casters are unaffected and PCs can't really make use of the system on their own side.
- The progression of saving throws is frankly weird. Taking several classes will boost good saves into the stratosphere while leaving low ones in the gutter, while staying in one or two evens them out. Progression is either high or low for a class, there's no medium option, and the levels at which high and low progression actually gain points in the saves are erratic.
- Everyone needs to sleep naked, and for exactly 8 hours, or suffer. Rather illogical.
- Nonmagical healing pales in comparison to any and all magical healing, and the Heal skill doesn't actually restore any HP other than for long-term nursing. Cmon, where's the actual first aid? (Oh, if you make a DC 100 check, you can restore about 20 HP in an hour, twice a day. I'm not kidding, it's in the epic rules.)
- Tumble also helps you jump down from heights, in addition to all the other insane combat bonuses it gives. As opposed to, yknow, Jump being used for that.
- 5 foot steps and casters. This was touched on earlier in the topic, I think? If Bob the Mighty has gotten all up in a wizard's face, and the wizard tries to step back and throw a spell at Bob, why can't Bob take a 5 foot step forward and AoO him?
That's what I can come up with on the spur of the moment.
Quick comments on some of what you've said. May or may not comment on other stuff later on.
QuoteThis goes straight back into balance, such that the capabilities of a character you can build are directly correlated to the number of splatbooks you have access to.
Definitely true. There are a number of websites that do quick summarizations of classes, skills, and feats from various splatbooks, which could save you download time or pocket cash, but generally the description never matches the quality of having the actual book in front of you.
But yeah, when I think of D&D 3.5e, I do tend to include splatbooks a lot. Even in my earlier post when I commented on the redundancy of Toughness, part of my argument included the use of a feat from a splatbook.
QuotePermanent level drain in a game with only 20 levels, and extreme power jumps between levels, is a horrible idea. Nuff said
Agreed.
QuoteThe progression of saving throws is frankly weird. Taking several classes will boost good saves into the stratosphere while leaving low ones in the gutter, while staying in one or two evens them out. Progression is either high or low for a class, there's no medium option, and the levels at which high and low progression actually gain points in the saves are erratic.
Unearthed Arcana comments on the progression system, and explains that it basically uses fractions rounded down. If you use the fractional system, saves tend to be a little better balanced when doing multiclassing.
QuoteEveryone needs to sleep naked, and for exactly 8 hours, or suffer. Rather illogical.
Well, not naked, just not in armor, I thought. You can always sleep in clothing without any problems, and I fully understand that sleeping in armor would be uncomfortable.
I do find the exactly 8 hours to be a bit silly, but all the games I've played in haven't really given reason to worry over it, since we just tend to gloss over sleeping outside of someone standing watch, pretty much.
I suppose you could always add new items:
Coffee, 1gp (15 servings)
Coffee Filtration Device, 10gp
Simple Coffee Mug, 3cp
Effects of coffee:
*Coffee removes the effects of fatigue and other penalties for not having a good night's sleep (This does not include sleeping in armor however).
*For the first week starting on coffee, charisma suffers -1 penalty as you become grumpy and irritable as you adjust to the drug. Following a week of taking the substance, your body chemistry begins to accept the drug, and you no longer suffer for taking the drug. Instead, you begin to suffer effects of withdrawal without it.
*Unless you take your morning cup o'joe upon waking up, even if you've had 8 hours of sleep, you suffer a -2 penalty to int, wis, and cha until you've had a nap or sleep to get rid of your crankiness and the cobwebs in your brain that keep you from making rational decisions.
I dunno, something like that. ^_^;;
Figure there's probably some splatbook that actually has coffee somewhere in it though. =p
QuoteNonmagical healing pales in comparison to any and all magical healing, and the Heal skill doesn't actually restore any HP other than for long-term nursing. Cmon, where's the actual first aid? (Oh, if you make a DC 100 check, you can restore about 20 HP in an hour, twice a day. I'm not kidding, it's in the epic rules.)
Definitely a pet peeve. There's not much benefit in taking the Heal skill when a magic spell will do a better job usually, and pretty much the only classes that tend to have it as a class skill are those that would be able to heal themselves with magic (which ties into the skills argument).
QuoteTumble also helps you jump down from heights, in addition to all the other insane combat bonuses it gives. As opposed to, yknow, Jump being used for that.
Agreed. I can understand the synergy bonus Tumble gives to Jump, but it should not have to replace Jump in what it does.
The craft skill; in fact, making stuff in general.
My major gripe with the craft skill is how it's split up. Making armor is as different from making weapons (and they're both separate skills) as making weapons is from knowing stuff about religions. I'd probably have the same gripe for profession, but I never use it... hell, I don't know if ANYONE uses profession. Craft (alchemy) is fine as a separate category. But armor vs. weapon vs. bows vs. gemcutting vs. blacksmithing vs. carpentry vs. leatherworking, etc? If I want to make a handy-man character (say, an artificer), I have to spend ridiculous amounts of skill points.
Perhaps if there were a separate skill point pool for "trade" skills, or you could buy them for a lot cheaper or something. It's not like most of them have any kind of effect on balance. Spellcraft, yeah. Concentration, tumble, disable device, open locks, and most definitely Use Magic Device. Those can significantly alter play (that last especially).
Next up... experience point costs for creation. Urgh! Seriously, the trade-off is really not worth it... unless you have that epic crafting class or Eberron's Artificer (which I love... but am leery of playing). Experience directly translates to power; if I spend a few thousand to create a few wands and scrolls that I end up using up, I've given up the power an additional level would give me for some temporary gain. Yeah, they made things easier for me, but...
(continuing briefly)
Yeah, the expendable items made things easier, but I probably could've done as well through clever use of spells and abilities... and kept my experience to boot. Gold comes and goes, but I've yet to meet a DM who was stingier with money than with experience.
And the rationale for the experience cost often gripes at me. So... you make a potion or scribe a scroll and it somehow takes away some of what you've already learned or achieved?
I realize the experience cost is to prevent certain kinds of players from stocking up on massive amounts of magical items and just going apeshit... but the time and money restraints already work to do this to a certain extent. And, honestly, if a player's inclined to take this route, they'd find plenty of other things to do to achieve the same purpose.
Does profession still exist?
Dracos
I think so -- I remember seeing it
I'll second AoOs. From everything I've read they're unwieldy, clunky and overreaching. I intensely dislike that the system actively encourages them, doubly so for many non standard melee or movement actions.