Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...

[Treebore]

I often see people say that inconsistent/arbitrary rules turned them off. bugged them, what have you, but rarely gave examples of what those rules were.

So if you could, please share rules you feel are inconsistent, bad. no matter what edition, but lets stick with D&D for this.

Please, no fighting, I just want to see what people think were bad rules, and why would be nice too.

If you have to comment on something someone else says, be nice, otherwise don't post. Thanks!


Edit: For clarity sake please be sure to point out which edition the rules was in, and if you can even say what book, or even what page it is on would be very helpful as well.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The rules for Turning Undead in 3E and 3.5 are a completely separate, very odd, and badly thought out subsystem.

I'll also throw in the orb of foo spells, which drive me up the freaking wall. Too many dumbnesses in those to even list.

 

[Derren]

The rules for Turning Undead in 3E and 3.5 are a completely separate, very odd, and badly thought out subsystem.

How are those rules inconsistent?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How are [the Turning Undead] rules inconsistent?

In many well-known ways I don't have time to list. Just for one example, which CR 4 creature should be harder to turn, a vampire or a zombie? (Now take a look at the CR 4 vampire and zombie.)

 

[Ktulu]

How are those rules inconsistent?

I would say, from opinion, they are incosistent in that they don't work like any other system within the game. You combine level to your roll, rather than base attack, then base that against a table, rather than a save or AC, to see the necessary result.

Nothing else in 3.x works that way making it a constant "look up" ability. At least, it did at our table.

----

For me, I would say the CR/EL system of 3.x was always a hassle.

But [insert monster name] should be a cakewalk fo your level! is a shudder-worthy comment I've heard many times, often even from myself.

The CR system, while a nice idea, never seemed to work as needed. It was always very swingy, with things like Ogres being listed as CR 2, when one hit from an ogre could kill fighters, not accounting for crits, along with reach, and enough HP to last at least 2-3 rounds.

It was still a work-able system (you KNEW something 4-5 CR's above the party's level would almost guarantee TPK), but just not as consistent as I'd have liked.

 

[Storminator]

For me, it was 1e.

There is no rhyme or reason to the bonuses of the various attributes. Why do some start to give bonuses at 16 and max at +3 and others start to give bonuses at 15 and go to +4?

Why are the experience points required to level set how they are? Why do some classes cap in level but others don't? Why can't elves be druids?

Why are some character tasks resolved with a d20 vs a fixed DC I roll over, some with a d20 vs fixed DC I roll under, some with a %, some with d20 vs opposed DC, and some succeed automatically?

Why do Fireballs go so much farther outdoors? But not take up more volume? I.e. why are the units converted inconsistently?

What happens when party A surprises on a 3 in 6, but party B is only surprised on a 1 in 8?

Why does a Bill-guisarme get a +1 to attack AC 8?

That's enough to start with.

PS

 

[Particle_Man]

3.5

1) The Dragon Disciple prestige class has as a prerequisite that one cannot be of the Dragon type.

Half-Dragons are of the Dragon type.

The 10th level ability of the Dragon Disciple is to give you the Dragon type.

Any member of a prestige class loses the special features of that prestige class if they no longer meet its prerequisites.

Put them together, mix and you generate a paradox with any 10th level Dragon Disciple.

2) Warlocks must be chaotic and/or evil. It does not say what happens if a Warlock changes alignment. (I guess this is more undefined than inconsistent).

 

[MerricB]

The two systems that were contradictory and inconsistent in AD&D 1e were Surprise and Initiative.

Surprise started off ok: each side rolls a d6, and if they roll <= the surprise number, that was how many segments they were surprised. Both sides could be surprised. If both sides surprised on a 2, if the PCs rolled a 2 and the monsters rolled a 1, the PCs would end up being surprised for 1 segment before the combat started.

Unfortunately, the monk had this wonderful ability that dropped its chance of surprise to values like "32%" and "28%". Like that works in combination with the surprise system...

The AD&D Initiative system was a mess. It was a bunch of systems thrown together with no thought given to the whole. At the point when you started determining when missile fire, melee attacks and spellcasting interacted in the round, you threw your hands up in disgust and went away to the Basic D&D initiative system...

Cheers!

 

[slwoyach]

1E: Exceptional strength. Why only strength and not dexterity? And why such a massive difference between an 18 and a 17? It almost made an 18 strength a requirement to play a fighter. No 18? Thief it is. Not to mention how much races with strength bonuses threw everything out of whack.

Racial level limits. Playing a high level campaign? Everyone has to be human. Playing a low level campaign? Nobody's human.

Multi and dual classing. Why can't my gnome thief find religion and become a cleric? Why can your dwarf advance as both a fighter and a thief when my human can't?

2E: Every problem with 1e is still there? Kaaaaaahhhhhhhnnn!

3E: Improved trip. Why did they make improved trip so much more powerful than all the other improved feats? Why did they make the cleric so powerful? Why does the half-elf suck?

 

[Nikosandros]

The two systems that were contradictory and inconsistent in AD&D 1e were Surprise and Initiative.

Surprise started off ok: each side rolls a d6, and if they roll <= the surprise number, that was how many segments they were surprised. Both sides could be surprised. If both sides surprised on a 2, if the PCs rolled a 2 and the monsters rolled a 1, the PCs would end up being surprised for 1 segment before the combat started.

Unfortunately, the monk had this wonderful ability that dropped its chance of surprise to values like "32%" and "28%". Like that works in combination with the surprise system...

The AD&D Initiative system was a mess. It was a bunch of systems thrown together with no thought given to the whole. At the point when you started determining when missile fire, melee attacks and spellcasting interacted in the round, you threw your hands up in disgust and went away to the Basic D&D initiative system...

Heh... I can't really disagree. It is possible to "patch" the surprise rule by switching everything to percentages, but quite frankly it's a bother and it's not even like the monk was introduced in a later book...

As for initiative, despite the valiant (and extremely well researched) attempt at putting out a coherent whole by DMPrata on the Dragonsfoot board, the truth of the matter is that you're right. The initiative "system" suffers from being a patchwork of different, more or less incompatible, ideas.