From: justisaur@yahoo.com
On 12/3/2025 9:45 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:52:34 -0800, Justisaur
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2025 3:03 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
>>> appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his
>>> being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to
>>> retroactively change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the
>>> aim of making the game better. Isn't that neat?
>>>
>>> Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
>>> did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
>>> edition-- that you think was bad for the game.
>>
>> First rule I even got rid of, the different female ability score limits.
>> Let's both alienate women from the game and make it impossible to play
>> an Amazon.
>>
>>> Preferably it should be
>>> a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific
>>> weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
>>> whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
>>> Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)
>
>> Oh, well that one's long been binned as it didn't appear in any versions
>> of D&D except 1e.
>
> I can't remember if we ever used that rule in our campaigns. Then
> again, it was rare for anybody to PLAY a female character (even the
> few women who actually played the game had a higher tendency towards
> playing male characters. But maybe that was just in the groups I
> played with).
True, I don't remember a single girl ever playing in my 1e games* or
anyone else's, except that one I tried to introduce to it I just told
the story about. That's why I removed it.
* I had one in my 2e games, but not sure that counts as she was my
girlfriend first.
>>> * Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
>>> type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
>>> rolls. I want them gone. All of them.
>>
>> 5e and 2024 (5.5e? People seem to be calling it 2024 though) made both
>> that and multiclassing optional. You still get ability score increase,
>> as feats are optional replacements for those.
>
> Yeah, 5E greatly reduced the power of Feats, although they're still
> there. Largely because, up to that point, the mechanic had resulted in
> a lot of min-maxing roll-playing that was (to many) contrary to the
> spirit of the game.
>
>> Of course when I tried to not allow them I got player rebellion. So yes
>> I'd love to get rid of them.
>
> Yeah, I'm largely speaking as a DM when I talk about my distaste for
> feats. After all, prior to those rules, it was up to the DM to
> determine if a character could perform certain actions, and what the
> bonuses or penalties for those actions were. They weren't defined and
> inarguable abilities; they were granted at the whim of the referee. So
> there's definitely a bit of "you took away my power!" in my complaint.
> ;-)
>
> But I do think that Feats did make the game feel a lot more
> mechanical, and put too much focus on the rules and dice-rolls rather
> than forcing players to work their way through problems. It made the
> game /easier/, and given the choice, most people gravitate to the
> option that requires less effort on their part.
I greatly dislike them as a player as well, which I've done a lot more
of for 5e than DMing. I just want to play, not theorycraft builds and
read all the optimizations, and feel like I'm not doing my part if I
don't. The current character I'm playing I just took the ability score
increases, but I feel like that was a waste as I got a couple items that
raised my scores to a certain higher score, and a couple of the feats
sounded fun. I don't like I should miss out on a class' fun because I
chose poorly for what to take.
On the other hand I'm playing with a couple newbies and I already feel
too powerful in relation to them.
>> 2. Ability scores. Just bake the bonuses into the classes & archetypes.
>> Avoids so much unbalance between characters, still nowhere near builds
>> in that. (did this in my OSR)
>
> I mean, sure, that's an option... but I think once you go that route
> you've basically changed a huge part of what makes the game D&D.
I actually like the Dungeon Robber scores best. You have the six
standard scores, but you don't have numbers. Just 2 that are "High" and
give some benefit, and the other 4 are just normal.
I'm tempted to get rid of the mental attributes though as the problems
they introduce annoy me. Oh my character is too stupid to think of
anything, or the opposite - give me some hints, my character is much
smarter than I. Same with charisma and wisdom. Or change them to
something like skill names 'Occult' 'Ritual' and 'Leadership' which
don't have the annoying connotations and affect on role-play.
The physical stats are fine in those respects.
>
>> 3. Alignments. (also did this in my OSR, though I stole it from BFR)
>
> I'm not totally against alignments and --in general-- we still use
> them in our campaigns. But we're a lot more fluid with them than was
> originally intended. Mostly, alignments matter only to those
> associated with greater powers (clerics, paladins, and to some degree
> rangers and wizards), whilst fighters and thieves get more of a pass
> on the subject. The alignments are more of a guide on how your
> character is supposed to act, and how NPCs react to you. Going out of
> alignment usually doesn't get you much penalty. Then again, staying in
> alignment doesn't net you any real benefit either.
>
> The exceptions are, of course, characters like clerics, who have to
> act in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Act out of alignment
> all you want, but don't expect your relationship with your Power to
> remain the same.
Clerics have their tenants, no need for alignment. I actually saw less
issue with behavior after removing it, in the all of one low level
campaign I ran.
It's useful shorthand for monster and NPC behavior, but that's about it.
--
-Justisaur
ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
