What D&Disms have you never liked?

[The_Gneech]

Most of the D&Disms that bugged me were ameliorated with 3E, actually. The big one was "I am thy class, thou shalt have no other class but me," which made you have to jump through hoops to make a fighter with a little magical zing, or a rogue who might want to trade some of his ability to scale walls with his fingernails in order to be a little more durable in combat. I always ended up playing a ranger in previous editions because they were the closest thing to a well-rounded class.

3E's relatively open multiclassing was a godsend in that regard, although it didn't quite go far enough and had its own problems (such as not being able to make a decent warrior-mage and having characters with huge saving throws but no BAB). d20 Modern's "multiclassing is expected and built into the game balance" approach was a big improvement, and Star Wars Saga Edition was almost perfect in this regard. (Then we slipped backward to the 1990's, le sigh. Oh well, the wheel will turn again.)

I'm digging Pathfinder's approach to skills, which does at least make giving your character some ancillary abilities besides "hit things" or "shoot spells" a lot more flexible.

The biggest thing that 3E retained that bugged me was the "you are your gear" problem, but I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that -- players love power-ups, myself included. I think it may be one of those things where what's fun in a game, and what's cool in a story, are just incompatible and something has to give somewhere.

On the other hand, the cleric never bugged me. I will give 4E big props for including a "martial leader," who can fill in the role of a cleric without all the religious baggage -- but why didn't they call it a "Captain?" Warlords are guys who ride across the steppes with a horde.

-The Gneech

 

[Garthanos]

Hit points bug me, without special abilities coming into play all damage is generic and has no effect until it brings you from completely healthy to dead. You can't shoot someone in the leg or get blood in your eyes from a headwound. I mean you can describe it and roleplay it, but it still doesn't affect the system on a game level.

.. 4e does have game level support for short term minor incidentals you mention.... built in. For instance a leg wound ( the narraration of the effect of one of the fighters ability which knocks his enemies prone unless the enemy is out of the fight its temporary and adrenaline over comes it). And blood in the eyes is pretty much exactly a rogue attack effect... thow that same roge attack might also be a dagger attack which knocks the targets helmet out of place.

Hit points I am now fine with because heros need that buffer of
luck and energy and ability to minimize the impact of attacks ...
but if I want long term wounds... I have some house rules in my pocket.

I only recently found out hit points in 3e were presented entirely as damage tolerance its completely different than other versions of D&D in that regard.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Of everything mentioned so far the only ones that have ever particularly irritated me would be the chump-champ (zero-hero, etc) advancement and alignment.

Alignment historically speaking has not bothered me a WHIT, it is only in recent years with the ever-increasing number of people who misuse and abuse it for whatever ends and the fact that no edition has been able to provide a simple, practical explanation for its existence and usage in the game. _I_ understand what I want it used for and how, and I can generally explain this to my players, but very few others seem to understand it or are willing/able to explain their perspective to others.

The gritty-superman advancement on the other hand is fairly self-evident.

 

[The Ghost]

Wow, I guess I didn't realize how much I loved D&Disms until reading through this thread.

Chump to champ, Vancian magic, D&D clerics, finding better magic items (and selling/trading the old stuff), tracking resources, class roles...love 'em.

Same here. That being said, there is one thing that I have never liked...

I never cared for the Eastern-flavored monk. I want monks to be more like Friar Tuck.

...yeah, this.

 

[TheNovaLord]

TBH its probably only the monk

as ive liked the magic system from oD&D days, it means i dislike the 4e powers system

too many combat rules in 3.5 and i dislike metamagic feats in 3.5, and there are too many, and minor/meech feats in 4e

i like vancian, AC,hp, levels, xp and defined classes that work different to each other

 

[Drkfathr1]

Vancian magic.

I don't mind slots to restrict how many and how powerful of spells can be cast, but I hate the memorization and fire-and-forget aspect of it. I let all my spellcasters be spontaneous casters.

Clerics are a little funky but I just seperate PC clerics from NPC priests and that seems to work for me. Priests are just priests...some might have some minor spellcasting, but most don't. Clerics are the champions of the faith, not the rank and file. That also lets me create cults and religions with Priests that might have other skills and abilities.

 

[Garthanos]

Sime of the D&Dism arent generically D&D xp for gold was in AD&D but was almost gone (quite optional) by 2e.
Hit points as progressing buffer of ability to resist being incapacitated by attacks (changed interpretation in 3e but still). Classes to maintain niches/roles (but there basic function has been the same - how tight this was maintained has shifted around). Using d20 well that is forever.

True Vancian Magic isnt half bad...though I didnt like it in D&D
http://www.dyingearth.com/

Though I suppose anything that is as unique to D&D even if it only occured in 1 D&D and didnt occur elsewhere.. maybe that is a very good definition of a D&Dism... and likely ones un-liked.

 

[Mercule]

I remembered another one. Funny that I forgot it, since it's my biggest peeve. I guess I just mentally won't let it be a D&Dism.

Two-weapon fighting rangers. I don't mind them having the style available to them -- in the same capacity as a rogue or fighter might. I absolutely do not understand how TWF has anything to do, inherently, with being a cunning wilderness warrior. It just fries me. In a way, I don't mind them dating, but I really think they should see other people.

 

[Ariosto]

A D&Dism is something that's Unique to D&D, something that you would call a "Sacred Cow". If you said the word to a gamer, he'd know you're talking about D&D as opposed to any other system. Like +1 Swords, Alignment, Levels, etc. A D&Dism is something that, if you removed it, a grognard would say "That's not D&D anymore!"

Yeah, some of the things getting cited as "D&Disms" are just a few (or even just 2) years old. Some are just the opposite of what I think of when I think of D&D!

If WotC took this list and made as many of the changes as are mutually compatible, what might the result resemble?

I can't think of anything from D&D of 1979 or earlier that I have never liked, at least if that means always actively disliked. However, there was a period when I liked The Fantasy Trip and RuneQuest so much better that by preference I played them instead. I came later to appreciate D&D as it (still) was, not as better or worse but simply as itself.

(I'll bet I could think of some things I don't like now, but they probably would be things I previously either liked or simply did not think about. Then there are things peculiar to one edition or another.)

 

[Spatula]

The nine alignments, and especially alignment languages.

Cleric magic being identical to wizard magic, with just some slightly different effects (and many overlapping effects).

Clerics being trained melee warriors and full casters at the same time.

Pre-3e cleric weapon restrictions.

Thieves being mostly useless PCs.