| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a counterpoint to the absurd/unnecessary rules thread, I thought it'd be interesting for people to try and take rules that they think *are* absurd/unnecessary and try to give the best defense possible or at least try to understand what the rationale is behind them.
I'm anticipating some people saying "there is no possible justification for X." That's fine if you think that, but it's not really conducive to the discussion I'm trying to have. I want people to think outside their comfort zone and essentially play devil's advocate with themselves.
Alright, I'll start. Let's see...I really don't like how swingy sneak attack damage is. It makes rogues quite good damage dealers when they can pull it off, but subpar a lot of the times when they can't. I prefer Cheapy's alternative myself (thanks Cheapy!).
Possible defense: Flanking is a fairly common and easy tactic to pull off most of the time. Along with feinting, the flat-footed condition, and potions of rings of invisibility, the rogue should be able to use it fairly consistently. Additionally, it's very thematic of the opportunist vibe that rogues are supposed to fit and being able to inflict conditions with it by using rogue talents is cool.
Probably not the best defense possible (just the best I could think of at the moment), but that was just an example.
Any people on the internet willing to argue against themselves for a change? ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is the cornerstone of any fantasy roleplaying game. In the real world, players have all sorts of murky moral and ethical dilemmas to deal with. RPGs are an escape from those difficulties into a black-and-white world where heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Furthermore, the game mechanics revolve around it. How does detect evil make sense without alignment? What about an anarchic weapon? Do good and evil subtypes make sense any more and, if so, how do paladins know when they get bonuses from smite evil?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment and Vancian casting.
Alignment I've found more good than bad. In general most of my alignment problems are with players and GMs that take it to heart too much or too literally than the alignment mechanic itself. Its much like how Wealth by Level can be enforced when its not really even an actual rule. However the things that revolve around alignment can often make little to no sense making me not want to deal with it ever. Also it just attracts conflict and bad roleplaying like a lightning rod.
Vancian casting is perhaps the most jarring and unintuitive thing in the world when just starting the game. Especially since most things you encounter represent magic resources as some kind of energy pool or stamina where you cant just 'lose' spells. I defend it because it has it's established place and when a DM just changes it without compensating for the fact that the rest of the game assumes Vancian casting exists it just causes all kinds of mechanical problems.
Alignment is the cornerstone of any fantasy roleplaying game. In the real world, players have all sorts of murky moral and ethical dilemmas to deal with. RPGs are an escape from those difficulties into a black-and-white world where heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Furthermore, the game mechanics revolve around it. How does detect evil make sense without alignment? What about an anarchic weapon? Do good and evil subtypes make sense any more and, if so, how do paladins know when they get bonuses from smite evil?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
a. Detect evil: detect person who might do you harm: aka Detect Foe.
b. Anarchic Weapon? Weapon that hurts those who don't have a personal code.
c. Smite Evil: Can be Smite Foe, Smite God's foes, etc.
Dot for later.
Vancian casting for sure. When I design a world, that's probably as far from how I envisage magic working as you can get. However, in our game's traditional worlds, that's how it's expected to work.
I wish it had been done differently, but it wasn't, and it's too much bother now to go back through changing it so I'll sit and defend it till the cows come home because the alternative would create too many issues with existing material. To be honest, I feel that way about a lot of the rules... :)
Alignment is the cornerstone of any fantasy roleplaying game. In the real world, players have all sorts of murky moral and ethical dilemmas to deal with. RPGs are an escape from those difficulties into a black-and-white world where heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Furthermore, the game mechanics revolve around it. How does detect evil make sense without alignment? What about an anarchic weapon? Do good and evil subtypes make sense any more and, if so, how do paladins know when they get bonuses from smite evil?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
None of those things (Detect evil, anarchic weapons, paladins) would exist in a non-alignment setting.
And considering D&D and its clones/derivatives are the only FRPGs I've ever seen with alignment, 'cornerstone' is a strong word.
Vancian casting is perhaps the most jarring and unintuitive thing in the world when just starting the game. Especially since most things you encounter represent magic resources as some kind of energy pool or stamina where you cant just 'lose' spells. I defend it because it has it's established place and when a DM just changes it without compensating for the fact that the rest of the game assumes Vancian casting exists it just causes all kinds of mechanical problems.
One of my first GMs, back when I really little, explained Vancian casting as wizards essentially cheating the system by completing 99% of a magical ritual, and saving the last 1% for when they actually needed to cast it. That's what preparing your spells meant in his world: getting the magic "all loaded up" so that you can pull the trigger later.
It's still sort of a silly idea, but it stuck with me. I don't think I would have designed wizards that way, either, though.
|
I always imagined Vancian casting as the wizard going to his cupboard of magical ingredients, breaking out his measuring spoons, and doling out the exact ingredients of each spell he wants to cast that day into his spell component pouch. Three Fireball spells? Okay, that's three teaspoons of bat guano. Two Feather Falls? Two down feathers out of the feather jar, careful not to let any of them blow away.
Doesn't make as much sense when the wizard is traveling or camping, but c'est la vie.
Anyway, to defend a rule I REALLY don't like? Here goes!
Combat Expertise uses Int as a prerequisite to illustrate that a clever combatant can wait until the right moment to strike and watch his stance for weak spots more effectively that a brawler who just swings a weapon and hopes for the best. It opens up the possibility for melee characters to actually prioritize Int, which would give them more skill points and open up new styles of play for martial classes. It also gives other classes who already want Int, like rogues and bards, a straightforward option in combat that lets them do more than "I hit it with my sword, just not as good as the fighter." Using it as a prereq for Improved combat maneuver feats invites these players to actually think more tactically instead of just bashing away for as much damage as they can.
At-will spells in a Vancian casting paradigm.
One of the fundamental concept of Vancian magic is that magical energy is a finite ressource; one can run out of spells. At-will cantrips and similar powers conveniently ignore this reality, but I see why people like to have at-will magical powers.
While we're in the Vancian casting paradigm, lets point at spontaneous casters.
Another fundamental concept of Vancian magic is that spells are too complicated to cast be in the mist of battle or in rushed situations. That's why casters prepare spells in advance, otherwise they'd be killed before they get halfway through casting their fireball. Long and difficult casting is a reality casters have to cope with, spellcasters don't just prepare spells just for fun.
Again, spontaneous casters conveniently ignore this reality as well... But again, I understand the demand to play without spell preparation, and spontaneous Vancian casters are balanced enough to be player side by side their prepared casters counterprats which is an awesome feature on the game-designer's part.
I'm trying to justify the multitude of disadvantages and high feat investment that go into two-weapon fighting but I just CAN'T find a way. Literally the only advantage is having about twice as many potential targets during a full attack to divide your damage between.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On Vancian casting...
I believe that part of the paradox that the whole thing brings is that the spontanious caster mechanic should not have been a seperate mechanic at all, but combined to effect a caster with a spellbook that has "Known Spells" as their prepared slots. Basing almost all spontanious casting equivelant on CHA and not bring over the seventh stat (COMliness) was a very poor choice for 3.0 version.
But...
My defense of a wierd rule...
I had a time of folly when pointing out how the Size rules does not let one wield an oversized Two-Handed weapon. This because a feat has some ambiguise wording that was an adjustment from the previously published source. The updated wording had one "treat (weapon) as a One-Handed weapon." and from there, fireworks.
Still can't use the oversized one, of course, but there are some...
I don't like that Katana's aren't finessable weapons.
I suppose that them being the equivalent of a bastard sword would be the rationale behind it, but that's the only justification I can think of for it.
Skill system
Even if I think skill are always a bit problemeatic in class base systems, Pathfinder gives enough points to most class to have a few extra to spend into other skills than the main ones from your class, and the DC are usually in the range where you can manage ok results with half your level points in a skill. And in play it works reasonably well if you don't use perception too much and ask for skills you know your players aren't putting as much points into from time to time.
Alignment is the cornerstone of any fantasy roleplaying game. In the real world, players have all sorts of murky moral and ethical dilemmas to deal with. RPGs are an escape from those difficulties into a black-and-white world where heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Furthermore, the game mechanics revolve around it. How does detect evil make sense without alignment? What about an anarchic weapon? Do good and evil subtypes make sense any more and, if so, how do paladins know when they get bonuses from smite evil?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
None of those things (Detect evil, anarchic weapons, paladins) would exist in a non-alignment setting.
And considering D&D and its clones/derivatives are the only FRPGs I've ever seen with alignment, 'cornerstone' is a strong word.
I think they can exist in a system without alignment. It simply becomes purely interpretive on the part of the DM. Player casts Detect Evil. Is there anything around that his character would find to be "evil". Instead of evil being a checkbox, it becomes something that is defined by the caster. Even better if these effects become suddenly limited to the divine side of things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor class system.
The armor class system doesn't really make logical sense. Wearing heavy steel plates of armor does not make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to hurt.
However, it has a huge legacy behind it and most people seem to understand the current system better than a complicated damage reduction system. So for ease of play and understanding it works
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can defend any of them as being part of a family of games that's sold pretty well for almost half a century. And that's as far as I need go in this thread which was farther than I went in the other.
So you don't like all the rules? Weird.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My least-liked rule on the other thread was Encumbrance, so here's where I defend it:
Encumbrance rules can be very helpful if you're running a tight survival-style game: you're marooned in the desert, or stuck in a huge dungeon, and you won't be able to resupply very easily.
In that case, it's very important to keep track of ever little piece of equipment, how much it weighs you down, and how fast you can travel.
As much as I dislike fiddling with it, I'd probably use encumbrance rules if I were running Souls for Smuggler's Shiv or a long-distance traveling adventure. Or at least I'd consider running a simplified version. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the biggest fan of natural armour, mostly because it seems to increase based more on CR than on how armoury the monster actually is.
Why does the Bandersnatch have +20 natural armour? I don't see anything that looks remotely armoury on that thing!
...But unless they're going to give it random dodge bonuses or something (which would just be natural armour by another name), that +20 to AC is really quite important to the monster.
Requiring different feats to craft different types of magical items.
Requiring specific craft skills rather than simply using profession skills.
The mundane item crafting system in its entirety.
These all strike me as unbearably irrational, but I suppose they serve a purpose in that they allow DM's a justification for arbitrarily controlling the pace of character development and their story with defined rules when they can't come up with a plot that does the job for them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Not a fan of hit points. I much prefer either a defense-based system like GURPS, or injury-effect systems like Mutants & Masterminds.
But they sure do streamline combat and make things easier (and discourage fiddly sub-systems like wound locations and called shots), so I'm willing to accept them as a price of doing business.
2) Also not really a fan of 'class levels.' But, again, it allows for advancements to occur in discrete packages, already pre-balanced by the game designers, instead of the GURPS / M&M options which allow the player to just buy anything their little heart desires, and possibly end up with a character that is overpowered, or, more often, terribly underpowered, depending on their choices. That can still happen in a class/level based system (the player who quite reasonably takes four levels of sorcerer and three levels of rogue as part of their character evolution, and picks up a level in arcane trickster and has a BAB of like, four, and is still casting 2nd level spells, at *eighth* level).
I see it as training wheels, for new players, who might make all sorts of bad 'trap' choices if given too much freedom (as GURPS and M&M tend to). D&D/PF is 'safer' (not perfectly so, just er) in that sense.
3) So, so much of the game revolving around spellcasters and spell lists. The Core book has 9 pages of combat rules followed by 175 pages of magic rules and spells. The Advanced Players Guide comes out and 5 of 6 new classes use spells (or formulas, which are, in effect, using the rules of listed spells).
And yet, with 175 pages already devoted to spells, it's just a huge time-saver when designing a new class (or monster) to give it a spell list or a couple of spell-like abilities, than to actually design a new mechanic (like ki pool or grit or rage powers or various specific monster abilities). No matter how much I've grown to dislike the game's reliance on 'a spell!' as the generic solution to every design problem, it's just flat out easier, and is a huge time-saver (and, when writing, saves on wordcount).
As long as those long lists of spells exist, there's going to be inertia pushing for them to be used, in place of newer mechanics like from Elements of Magic or Words of Power or Ars Magica or some sort of sane version of the Mage the Ascension system, making it something that shuts down or discourages other options. But it's done. And it works. So, really, why try to reinvent the wheel?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full Attacks bring up an interesting tactical situation where if you charge the troll he tears you in half on its turn, so how do you get the troll to move and attack you instead?
...but I also want pounce on everything after a certain level heh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full Attacks bring up an interesting tactical situation where if you charge the troll he tears you in half on its turn, so how do you get the troll to move and attack you instead?
Successful Troll recommend Antagonize.
Successful Troll recommend Antagonize.
Well, I still could defend that one... for a high enough bri... err... I meant compensation.
*scnr*
Some very nice efforts. Sorry to anybody this made uncomfortable! Blahpers, I'm looking at you :P
Any other takers? I'll try to think of another one...
Silly wizard, cure spells are for clerics!
Because tradition. Because many gamers are change-averse.
And because it nearly guarantees that every party will have at least one holy book-banger or tree hugger.
...That's all I got.
|
I don't like that Spring Attack requires 3 feats as a "tax" for an option to do something suboptimal to simply moving up and attacking. But I do defend that Dodge and Mobility, along with being generally good feats, do help a "Spring Attacker" who will provoke Attacks of Opportunity from all but 1 enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw the title, my initial thought was:
Any rule ... I like to argue.
Then I read your post. I really could do it, but you'd have to give me a rule, as I don't keep a list of un-liked riles.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Cevah:Can you find a sufficient for the Vow of Poverty monk?
Certain religions equate more now = less in the afterlife, and less now = more in the afterlife. Monks are very religious. Some might like to show their faith in this way. Also, at +1 Ki/level, this is 3* better than the next best listed vow, and 6* the worst. Given how Ki can affect attack potential, this might be a good trade off. For WBL, spend it on Inherent bonuses.
Best used with NPCs.
How's that? :-)
/cevah
I don't like iterative attack rules particularly, and that goes for full attacks as well as TWF. Especially the fact that walking 10 ft means you can't attack with both weapons that round, even if you use them at the same time.
However, I know for a fact that altering them or throwing them out the window can create tremendously broken situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like iterative attack rules particularly, and that goes for full attacks as well as TWF. Especially the fact that walking 10 ft means you can't attack with both weapons that round, even if you use them at the same time.
However, I know for a fact that altering them or throwing them out the window can create tremendously broken situations.
I don't know, AD&D allowed full attacks with moving, and most don't consider the Fighter broken back then.
|
|
I don't know, AD&D allowed full attacks with moving, and most don't consider the Fighter broken back then.I don't like iterative attack rules particularly, and that goes for full attacks as well as TWF. Especially the fact that walking 10 ft means you can't attack with both weapons that round, even if you use them at the same time.
However, I know for a fact that altering them or throwing them out the window can create tremendously broken situations.
Full attacks while moving might be excessive, but I allow the extra attack from TWF (though not those from successor feats) while moving. Hasn't broken anything yet, and TWF still isn't as good as a two-handed weapon unless you have Sneak Attack or some other serious static per-attack damage booster.
On one hand while many mechanics like attacks of opportunity (AoO), Area of effect spells, flanking, and cover/concealment add layers of strategy to the game they can make it harder to run a combat without a map/miniatures. The map in a way can restrict the size of a combat encounter which emphasizes melee combat or at least doesn’t give ranged combat a chance to shine.
Drawing up the map and setting everything up can take a considerable amount of time too. I’m sure there are suggesting house rules for these issues, like in Kirthfinder.
|
|
Silly wizard, cure spells are for clerics!
Because tradition. Because many gamers are change-averse.
And because it nearly guarantees that every party will have at least one holy book-banger or tree hugger.
...That's all I got.
It's also pretty much the only party niche role that the sorcerer/wizurd spell list doesn't piss all over.
Alignment is the cornerstone of any fantasy roleplaying game. In the real world, players have all sorts of murky moral and ethical dilemmas to deal with. RPGs are an escape from those difficulties into a black-and-white world where heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Furthermore, the game mechanics revolve around it. How does detect evil make sense without alignment? What about an anarchic weapon? Do good and evil subtypes make sense any more and, if so, how do paladins know when they get bonuses from smite evil?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I like having Paladins and the like in my games, but I'm not a huge fan of the alignment system, so I made my default setting such that there's a singular entity that alignment-relevant effects base themselves off of. As in, they use his moral compass to decide if any given creature is evil or lawful or what have you.
Granted, the characters aren't going to know that most of the time because that's not information that people tend to spread, but it's there and it makes my life easier.
As for on-topic stuff, I'm not a fan of distinct turns. I prefer games with initiative systems more like that of Exalted (each action takes X time and you get to declare a new action after that many clock-ticks). That being said, D&D-style turns have much less to keep track of and there are definitely some days when I'm very fond of that.
It's also pretty much the only party niche role that the sorcerer/wizurd spell list doesn't piss all over.Silly wizard, cure spells are for clerics!
Because tradition. Because many gamers are change-averse.
And because it nearly guarantees that every party will have at least one holy book-banger or tree hugger.
...That's all I got.
Yup, niche protection baby!
...One single, lonely little niche.
Infernal healing.
I like having Paladins and the like in my games, but I'm not a huge fan of the alignment system, so I made my default setting such that there's a singular entity that alignment-relevant effects base themselves off of. As in, they use his moral compass to decide if any given creature is evil or lawful or what have you.
Granted, the characters aren't going to know that most of the time because that's not information that people tend to spread, but it's there and it makes my life easier.
Isn't this how the game already works? Or is it just something that I subconsciously invented too, to explain objective morality?
Isn't this how the game already works? Or is it just something that I subconsciously invented too, to explain objective morality?I like having Paladins and the like in my games, but I'm not a huge fan of the alignment system, so I made my default setting such that there's a singular entity that alignment-relevant effects base themselves off of. As in, they use his moral compass to decide if any given creature is evil or lawful or what have you.
Granted, the characters aren't going to know that most of the time because that's not information that people tend to spread, but it's there and it makes my life easier.
Different settings have different things going on, but from what I recall all the ones I've looked at have had some kind of objective morality that the multiverse was built on. Good is objectively known to be one list of things, evil is another list, and so on. So kinda the same, except that Smite Evil 'just knows' rather than having a guy that it asks.
Defend a rule that you don't like? Hmmm. Well, I can try. This particular one is an optional rule, but it's being used in a game that I'm right now, so it's the first that comes to mind.
1. The rule doesn't come up very often so it's not a big deal.
2. It's designed only to go into effect when your characters are developed enough to handle it.
3. It's thrilling to escape death, and this adds another way to do so. If you go too many encounters without coming a hair's breath away from losing your character, the game gets less fun.
4. People enjoy this rule for the same reason that they set a video game to the hardest possible setting on their very first play-through. They enjoy the challenge.
5. It adds realism to the game. The idea of someone having a heart attack from taking a huge hit to the chest make sense. Part of being a hero is facing down likely death and having the courage to face it anyway. This factor would be cheapened if characters didn't have multiple ways to die.
6. It's an optional rule. It can only be put into effect by GM fiat or group consensus. You might have a problem with it, but the rest of the group is likely enjoying it.
Wow. I should not have tried this after eating. I literally just soured the dinner in my stomach.