Why don't you like D&D?

I have nothing against the system. The players are the problem.

File: have you tried not playing D&D.jpg (45KB, 489x638px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x638px

>>51509814

>too much shit to keep track of
>Caster supremacy
>The rigid yet somehow inconsistent use of classes has turned every class into a skub battle
>Alignments

I don't hate it but it's not my favorite.

>>51509814
I hate non WotC editions for being archaic.
I hate 3.x for being broken and that it dominated the market despite this because of OGL.
I hate 4e for killing any chance D&D will ever innovate.
I hate 5e for being a throwback, and even bringing back the market domination.

I love older editions for the fun settings, and the basic ones for the simple rules.
I really liked making characters and theorycrafting in 3.x, and it pioneered a sort of gonzo high magic fantasy.
4e perfected that colorful fantasy feel that 3.x introduced, and was also a damn good game; the only D&D that was actually brave enough to be frank with the player about how everything's supposed to work. It had a hard life, and left too soon.
5e streamlined a lot, made character creation a breeze, and is a great pickup game. Although official material is sparse, it's generally pretty good quality, as far as I can tell, and not having the splat-treadmill means there's lots of unexplored space.

>>51510021
What is your favorite? Or what do you prefer, anyway?

>>51509814
I love DnD, I still play 3.5 regularly with my friends. The system has such a huge library of material there's endless game variety. Just recently we had a game about mid-level monsters who are the proteges of an aging dragon who's training them to take his place as protector of a series of villages.

>>51510284

So far Savage Worlds. Yeah it's got a few glaring problems, but it's got the three things I really like in a system: clearly-defined crunch, chargen focused on playing a character instead of a class, and all the tools a good GM needs to run basically any kind of game.

I've only played 5e but it has a lot of problems and most importantly, it doesn't do anything well enough to make up for it. Caster supremacy, the weak-ish skill system, stat inequality, inconsistent fluff (like having inquisitor as a background and archetype, archetypes have little coherent fluff, mostly a pet peeve).

I'm interested in 4e and it seems like with a good combat system and the fact that out of combat play is usually dependent on the GM and players rather than the rules, I could see myself loving that with a good and experienced group. Of the few games I've played:

Call of Cthulhu D20 is pretty shit, the skill system for investigation makes it very game-y and boring, and I don't like how it does insanity at all.

Maid RPG is fun as hell, did a oneshot and it was great for that but not something I'd have as my "main" game or a longer campaign.

Mutants & Masterminds 2e seems fairly good, I'm not entirely convinced D20-type combat and play really supports superhero stories but I only played a oneshot with a new GM so it's hard to tell.

Dread is good, I'm not a big horror fan so I didn't really play my character that well with that in mind but still a cool experience. One of the default scenarios is really interesting, which was what we played.

Dungeon World was kind of fun but I always thought it wasn't that good, that many things were kind of badly designed and so on. After playing Apocalypse World it became clear that it was simply a botched version of that for fantasy, it's the type of game that varies a lot between GMs and campaigns so I'd play it again for that but I don't like the system.

Apocalypse World 2e is really amazing, so many neat mechanics, great atmosphere and I really like the story type it allows (really powerful, badass people in a post-apocalyptic world that is decidedly weird).

cont.

>>51512981
Lamentations of the Flame Princess seems to make a lot of changes just for the sake of it from OD&D, I haven't played that yet but while OSR dungeon crawling is fun the system is not impressing me so far. I haven't encountered anything yet that is a good solution to a problem with OD&D, and it has several of the same problems (demihumans for example).

Everway is very interesting and makes for great modular play, either with the same or new characters for every quest and going from world to world makes it so you can do different stuff every time without restrictions.

Shadowrun 1e is clunky, messy and I don't even like cyberpunk.

Dogs in the Vineyard is interesting, did a oneshot and the GM didn't really know how to run it so it was a bit restricted and railroady but I think the system is neat.

Hoo boy. This is gonna be a shitshow.

Let me break it down for you guys

1. Most, if not all arguments directed at 3.5.

2. General agreement that the better, or at least the least argued editions are AD&D and 5e, but then a whole lot of shit flung once that guy who REALLY hates 5e comes in.

3. Some love for 4e, which is now the redhead middle child.

4. Rage-anon shows up. Fun times are had when he started yelling about Gygax ruining the hobby he created, and generally repeating everything from Virt's blog.

5. General attacking of various systems for their various

6. Every argument continues because(Pasta incoming):
>Tribal mindset. "Our system is the best because it's OUR SYSTEM. We can't be wrong, so They must be. Otherwise what's to separate Them from Us? I'm not one of Them, I'm one of Us. It's Them that likes the bad things."

> justifiably hating D&D

OP what you want is Dungeon World

It's pretty much objectively one of the best currently out there. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

You want fast, intuitive combat? Dungeon World does that.

You want real, deep roleplaying mechanics? Dungeon World does that.

You want great mechanics that reward diversity of play? Dungeon World does that as well.

My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window. This is real roleplaying we are talking about here, not babby 3.5 shit. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Dungeon World today

>>51510021
All this and I'm tired of fantasy RPGs in general as it seems to be the only thing I play. I'd like to play a modern game, a sci-fi one, or a supers for a change.

>>51509814
Why make this thread? All it does is give the people who bitch in every thread whenever D&D is mentioned another place to bitch about how they can't stand a popular game, with increasingly inane reasons.

What's your curiosity? Or did you really just want to give those people who come to a D&D board to bitch about D&D another place to bitch?

>>51516011
Because I'm curious as to what the other tabletop RPGs out there offer. I see a lot of criticism of D&D on this board, but not a lot of explanations as to what it is about other systems that makes them preferred. So far There have been several helpful replies in this thread, and, while some of the suggested alternatives to D&D may not appeal to me, like Dungeon World in >>51515760, I am still glad to hear what people have to say about them.

>>51515760

Get out virt

>>51509814
I've only played AD&D and 3.5.

AD&D is fun if you have a good DM because there are lots of opportunities for you to die for good and that takes a specific mindset to be ok with.

I didn't like 3.5 for its insistence on grid-based combat, its large amounts of non-optional rules that are all required to be used to maintain cohesion, and the emphasis it placed on optimized builds over interesting characters.

>>51509814
>If you don't like D&D as a tabletop rpg, what are some of the reasons?
Two words: Vancian magic.

Related to that: The fact that direct damage spells are subpar.

>>51517294
the damage thing i'm actually okay with, because it still fills a niche. The martials can still deal more raw damage, where-as the casters get more varied effects.

That much i think is smart. The thing about vancian magic, though, i agree with. There are so many spells, a great deal of rule bloat, and a endless array of effects on just a basic caster that its nearly absurd.

This is something 5e Valiantly tried to fix by giving unlimited cantrips and limiting higher level spells down to 1-2 a day, but at the same time the caster supremacy is on a much deeper level then just how often they get to do reality warping things.

Its a damn shame, really.

I love D&D 4e, but according to most people that means I hate real D&D. And being fair, the things I like about 4e are mostly the departures it takes from main line D&D.

The rest of the modern D&D franchise really suffers from resting on its laurels. Its position as the grandfather of RPGs and unchallenged market leader has meant they had no real reason to innovate or change anything, and the one time they actually tried to take brave new steps forward they faced a dramatic fanbase revolt, while one of the blandest and safest systems I've ever seen, D&D 5e, has sold like hotcakes.

I guess it's just a lack of connection with that central idea, of that mythical D&D people seem to venerate but never really seems to exist outside of their heads, the system just being something they project it onto rather than something they use for its own sake.

>>51509814
I think my biggest overall problem with DnD is how magic works, especially in 3.5 and 5e.

I hate the vancian spellcasting, how everything recharges on a daily cycle. I hate how the spell lists are alphabetical to maximize difficulty. I hate how it doesn't matter if you get your magic from divine inspiration, inherent magical force, or study of the nature of the universe, you still all make exactly the same fireball. And I hate how there are books upon books of nothing but spells, slowly pushing non-magic users more and more out to the wayside

>>51509814
I don't dislike it, but let's be honest, it dominating the tabletop rpg scene isn't good for anyone.

Personally I've been having a lot of fun with the second based combat of Hackmaster.

>>51509814
D&D is the CoD of roleplaying games.

An overall poorly designed game that gets by purely on nostalgia and brand recognition, played by troglodytes who can only communicate by screaming obscenities at one another if anyone dares to criticize them or their game of choice.

At this point, D&D serves as a containment to save the rest of the tabletop community from their autism.

>>51522617

It seems accurate to call it 'containment' given that D&D and its ephemera is significantly larger in and of itself than every other RPG in existence.

>>51522707

*inaccurate

>>51522707
So's CoD... I think. What are the numbers on that? It must remain popular, if we keep getting a new one every year.

Why does dnd even have a class system anymore? It just leads to imbalance and inconsistancies like limiting magic to arbitrary groups. Tbh classes act more as stereotypes then archetypes and stifle roll play.

>>51522809

Class systems have a place.

While I enjoy point buy and more flexible systems, you do see a certain loss of strong mechanical identity for each character, since all the bits and pieces need to be generic enough to fit together.

Classes can have a really unique, distinct set of mechanics that wouldn't really function in a classless system due to the potentially broken and mechanically degenerate combinations that could occur.

Good classes are also broad enough that while they might say something about your character they don't restrict you to a single flavour of concept.

>>51522874
>Classes can have a really unique, distinct set of mechanics that wouldn't really function in a classless system due to the potentially broken and mechanically degenerate combinations that could occur.

This is part of why the level-by-level multiclassing of 3.5 (and to some degree, 5e) was a terrible idea.

>>51522889

Yeah, it's really dumb. You lose the main benefits of class systems.

I actually prefer 4e multiclassing a lot in that regard.

>>51522917

Yeah, it had a lot of kinks, and probably was a bit overcosted if you actually wanted to properly multiclass and not just grab a good feat/PP or an imbalanced Essentials hybrid, but it respected the purpose of classes, which makes it automatically a better design than level-by-level.

My favorite version of multiclassing probably has to be the one in Legend though.

>>51522941

Oh god Legends class track system was so fucking cool. Although fuck you for reminding me of that beautiful game which will never be complete.

>>51522707
/a/, /v/, /tv/, and /co are some of the more popular boards on the site yet they also have the worst shitposters to deal with. It's the same concept.

>>51510132
This is a good post.

>>51522941
>>51522953
Legend?

>>51523236

You can find it over at ruleofcool.com (yes, really). A d20 fantasy fantasy system which embraces over the top fantasy, with things like DC 35 Athletics/Acrobatics/Climb DCs to fly, and some of the best feats in any RPG ever.

The class tracks is a particularly notable feature- Each character has three 'Tracks', sets of class features which progress independently of each other.

Each class consists of three (or more) tracks, some giving you more options and letting you swap one track out for another. Multiclassing expands this, letting you select an ability track from an entirely separate class to replace one of your defaults. There's also a feat to let you freely select a third track, effectively letting you combine any three tracks into a unique class combination.

It also had a few classless tracks, single sets of thematic abilities like the 'Vigilante', which made you into a Kamen Rider, which could be plugged into any class as your free choice track to add some extra theme and flavour.

>>51509814
D&D 3.5, and worse, Pathfinder, are overdesigned game who simply don't know what they want, a mix of old-school thinking with overbloated classes and a lot of patchwork rules.

oD&D and AD&D were decent at what they tried to do. Sure, some rules were so-so, and it could become stupid at times, but it was still refreshingly simple. oD&D rules come from wargames, and the flow of the combat was very wargamy. AC and Taco and shit. Saving throws. Wargame thinking.

3.5 keeps all the wargame rules of D&D, and adds several thousand layers of classes, sub-classes, prestige classes, new rules for stealth, attack of opportunity, spells, metamagic, etc.

oD&D had a sort of elegance, in the way its rules worked. 3.5 blows it, and then Pathfinder comes, and blows it again for good measure.

D&D 5.0 is fine. Return to the root. Good job at understanding what is D&D.

>>51523347
>Good job at understanding what is D&D.

You mean retarded "everyone gets +2 to everything and no penalties cause that would be rayciss"?

You mean the stupid-ass rest structure that 4e created because apparently healing magic of all things was too unbalanced?

You mean giving basic orcs fifteen fucking hit points because of how 5e fucked up the class power levels?

You mean dumbing down character power so that a level 20 rogue is only 20% more likely to pick a lock than a level 1 rogue?

You mean encouraging you to play a trap, fag, or Apache-attack-helicopter character, based on the shaky basis that Corellon was a tranny?

You mean putting literal drow in the Players Book as a core option, when drow would be burned at the stake on the surface?

You mean giving you a shitton of ability upgrades (something introduced by shit.5 and 4shit) then capping your abilities at 20, so that every fighter has 20 Strength after a few levels, and there is pretty much no diversity in high level stats?

>>51509814
D&D is a miniatures combat game that gives miniatures a story, and that's how most of the people that play D&D treat it. I don't like it that way personally, so I avoid it.

>>51523494

Wow, this is really impressive.

You managed to completely miss every legitimate criticism of 5e and make yourself come off as a flaming asshole at the same time.

>>51516624
>virt
>shlling for DW, ever.

>>51523494
>You mean retarded "everyone gets +2 to everything and no penalties cause that would be rayciss"?
Orcs as a playable race get -2 intelligence, though

>>51523537
He's right about the rest system though. It's insanely stupid and my players keep bitching that I changed it.

>>51523949
How did you change it?

>>51509814
I've not played 3.5 but the sheer bulk and weight of the crunch put me off it.
I played a few games of 5e but didn't get any further. I'm not sure if the issues I had were me being unfamiliar with the game but:
Stats not giving a relevant bonus. A proficiency modifier I believe, I have 16 in one stat which gave me +2 or something, plus my level gave me this bonus. It was peculiar, a very superficial issue I had but it really bugged me. I typically play 40kRPGs and nWoD, in both systems you can look at a stat and say "I get this bonus because the number is right there", it's not tucked away in a table at the start of the book, +2 has nothing to do with 16.

The fact that the rules were split across 3 books. I get that everything a player needs to make a character and play it is in the Players Handbook, but why does only DnD do this? I can't think of any other RPG that does this. If you need to hide your GM secrets away, put them in a chapter called "The Games Master" like every other RPG does, same with Monster statlines. Dump them in a chapter towards the back.

The Skill system seemed very superficial, the fact that my character was a shipwright cleric of a water god was never relevant. I asked a player who knew the system to help me build the character because I was utterly clueless, and the benefits of the skills to a relevant test seemed pretty negligible. I understand that limiting yourself to 20 digits can make it hard to have a skill roll feel impactful without it becoming ludicrously easy to pass said check however.

I'd love to play a High Fantasy game about heroes and villains, but I don't think DnD is it. I wonder if my issues with it are down to the d20 ruleset or not. 4e appeals to me quite a bit funnily enough, I can't put a finger on why though.

>>51515760
How's it going, Adam?

>>51515760
>all this salt about 3.5
A halfway competent DM would be able to mitigate the flood of splat and cheese in 3.5. Ours did, and we still had a ton of fun role playing and creating crazy unconventional solutions to problems that out classed us. And now we play 5e, and a few other systems. I don't get the autistic rage at 3.5 by some anons.
>ruined a whole generation
>destroyed the hobby
How?

>>51524427

The stat/modifier thing is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered.

The system would make so much more sense if stats were the modifier, a -1 to +4 scale instead of the meaningless 8-18 with derived modifiers.

>>51509853
fpbp

>>51509814
> Class-and-level
> Level-based advancement
> Centered around tactical combat

Enough?

>>51516011
>it's THAT guy

>>51525031
He's pulling double duty tonight.

>>51523494
>>51523494
Skill challenges aren't all that bad in 5e anymore, especially after that horrendous playtest where the numbers were so wonky that even literal gods couldn't break completely ordinary chains, and a level 1 Paladin had almost a 50% chance at outbluffing Asmodeus.

File: Robotic Hunting Dog.jpg (1MB, 5000x3547px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x3547px

>>51509814
The system is pretty shitty.

Bland as fuck too, but that comes from being one of the first major PnP games out there.

As for systems I prefer, the Warhammer systems I really dig. They're just as silly and broken as DnD, but for everyone. Spell slingers and people who punch motherfuckers can be equally broken. nWoD I've got a lot of great experiences with. Shadowrun as well, while it is a little on the crunchy side I don't mind at all.

My go to kitchen sink Fantasy setting is actually Fantasy Craft. Very similar to DnD but it solves a lot of the problems people bring up with it, especially the 3.PF editions.

File: 1f970b85c7dd48935848dd5991eb5902.jpg (2MB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2480x3508px

>>51524427
>I'd love to play a High Fantasy game about heroes and villains

DnD wasn't made for roleplaying.

I know, that is completely stupid as a statement. But bear with me. DnD was made for hack and slash, dungeon crawling, amassing wealth and power in an artificial way: 'you are a level 15 fighter, you get 40 level 1 followers with a sword'. It is a very rule-oriented game, and doesn't care about roleplaying, about anything that isn't hack and slash, anything that isn't dungeon crawling or dragon slaying or class levelling.

D&D is good at what it does, certainly. I like it for dungeon crawling. The sheer number of monsters and classes, powers and artifacts, keep it interesting for people interested in what it does. D&D 5.0 is good for that.

If you want to play a social character, or roleplay something of an actual, balanced human being (non murderhobo), play something else. I like Exalted for that.

File: 1417197178323.jpg (7KB, 217x208px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 217x208px

>>51523537
>You managed to completely miss every legitimate criticism of 5e

No, I just left some out so I could fit them all in one post. If you are talking about criticisms of D&D in general then yes I left out a lot of those. I was focusing specifically on 5e. But if you want to talk about how they won't fix Vancian magic (which in concept isn't even bad), or the shitty combat structure, feel free.

Oh, and 5e fixes a lot. I like proficiency as an idea, in keeping all the class-based bonuses to one progression. I like the restructured action economy. I like Dex damage adding to ranged weapons.

The rest is shite, though.

>>51525668
>and a level 1 Paladin had almost a 50% chance at outbluffing Asmodeus.

Welcome to the retarded-ass d20 mechanic where a fucking house cat has a 1 in 3 chance of breaking down a solid oak door.

Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

>>51512981
Was the inquisitor really from 5e?
Tell us more of the problems you've found with 5e.

>>51513152
For their various what, you complete shitshow.

>>51524427
Your 16 would've given you a +3 modifier which would then be further modified by your proficiency bonus.
This applies to skills you're proficient in, weapon attacks, spell dcs, etc.

The + or - stat modifier from your main stat number should've been jotted down on your character sheet.

>>51528684
>Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

This is just a problem of DCs/bonuses being silly, not the d20. Fuck, a d100 should have the same problem, only 5 fold.

I don't have much of a complaint about D&D, it's a pretty alright system. I just wish other games got more love. I'd like to be able to suggest another game to try without people giving me uncomfortable looks from the thought of moving away from D&D.

>>51509814

> Most classes are oriented about their role in combat
> Not enough skills
> The spells are all boring, and the magic system is unimaginative
>Combat takes too long
>Leveling

While I do houserule the combat a bit, since FNFF has some aspects of it that need to be houseruled, I prefer Cyberpunk 2020. The general combat system is quick and lethal. I like the wound system it uses way better than having HP. The majority of the character archetypes are not based around combat. There is no leveling, you just increase your skills as you continue to play and use points to get new skills. There are tons of skills and room to make up new ones. Can't really say anything about an improvement on the magic since there is no magic. But I do find that netrunner stuff in C2020 is more interesting to me, though I house rule the shit out of it so that they are never wasting an hour of game time going through a data fortress as everyone else waits.

I still play and enjoy d&d though. The only other game I've been a player in irl was Gurps, and briefly at that. The name brand recognition at least gets players out, and ultimately good roleplaying isn't dependent on the system.

>>51509814
3.5 if the unfortunate target of five groups.

4e fans, because they are still upset about people not wanting to play 4e and instead preferring even Pathfinder over it. It's a remnant of past bitterness from the days of the edition wars.
2e fans, because they're some nasty grognards who have hated the game for 17 years now but no one listened to them until 5e came out and now they feel empowered.

These two form the "Grandchildren get along with their grandparents so well because they both share a common enemy" duo.

GURPS players, because they are mostly contrarians who have a legacy of hating how popular D&D is and wish more people would play their game.
All those other little game players, because they blame 3.5's popularity from keeping people away from their games, and while they also blame 5e, it's too popular at the moment for them to say much against it.
Trolls, who enjoy repeating meaningless complaints ad nauseum just because they know that they can switch from one complaint to the next forever, and regardless how pointlessly they argue, they're only here for the argument anyway.

It's unfortunate, but they're more than willing to shitpost at the mere mention of 3.5, because they are so consumed with blind hatred towards a game that's nowhere near as bad as they've convinced themselves it is.

>>51528999
The problem is with how low the numbers are in 5e, they should have been using something besides a d20.

When you need epic level training and/or equipment just to reach a +6 on some checks, you shouldn't be using d20s.

File: 1468429736075.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>51529762
Don't spend it all in one place.

>>51529826
I'd go with a d10 for 5e.
>difference between a level 1 normal untrained (10 stat no prof) individuals and level 1 trained experts (16 stat prof) is 50%, so there's a fairly obvious skill divide while still being possible for the untrained to manage something impressive
>difference between the two at level 20 (still 10 stat no prof vs 20 stat prof) is 110%, meaning the expert will always succeed and can do things the untrained will find impossible
>add expertise and this becomes 170%, meaning they're on another level entirely
Alternatively, make the stat modifier the difference from 10 and double proficiency modifiers, and you get the same result while still keeping the sacred cow of the d20 alive.

>>51529762

>a game that's nowhere near as bad as they've convinced themselves it is.

So you acknowledge that 3.PF is still bad, then?

>>51517294
>>51517619
What system is better?

>>51528743
Flaws.

>>51524427
For what it's worth, DnD ability score mods are always floor(score - 10) / 2

>>51524011
I would also like to know how this anon's improved rest system works >>51523949
so that I can get some ideas for my games, here's to hoping they're still around.

>>51528684
Sounds like you had a shit dm and conflated poor gming with poor system design.

>>51530173

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from an argument based on math.

>>51530200
Which only would have happened with shit gming. Rolls are only for when there's a chance of both success and failure, and there's a consequence for failure.

Assuming the elevator or whatever is is 540 lb or less (max lift weight is 30 * STR score), you can just pick it right up, and the fucking cat obviously has no chance and as such does not get a roll.

>>51530327
>the fucking cat obviously has no chance and as such does not get a roll.

Except he does, because he can if he rolls high enough.

>>51530617
Are you deliberately being retarded as fuck?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a house cat has Str 3 and is tiny. How the actual fuck is it going to lift an elevator?
If by some miracle it can attempt to lift massive metal objects, the most it can lift is 45 lbs.

>>51530759
>a cat can destroy a wood door
>no it's can't, it's not possible
>He can roll high enough to beat the DC
>Well Im not letting him try, that proves he can't.

This is some weapons grade autism.

>>51530617
Were you dropped on the head too many fucking times?

Oh god, this is getting into the same bullshit that was being argued in the other thread. 'The system has flaws' 'The GM can fix it' 'That doesn't stop there being flaws', repeat ad infinitum.

>>51509814
Mechanically rigid. A million dumb options for a million dumb characters and yet

>I want to do a spin attack!
>I'm sorry that is literally impossible for your character just sit there and summon demons while tanking crossbowbolts with your sack of 80 HP

>I want to be a Wizard Monk!
Enjoy being worthless garbage lololol

D&D in my mind only works for seriously old school games, where Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Priest, and Elf go into Ye Dungeon to get Ye Treasure and do whatever stupid shit they wish. Then it's great. But fuck, step outside of that box and things get kludgey.

I prefer HERO System for flexibility and meaningfully balanced crunch. I prefer Fate for storytelling shit.

I like all the weird magic items and monsters in D&D.

Honestly
>>51509853
has it right. The problem isn't D&D. The problem is the people who use D&D for everything and the people who have mistaken the fact that they can create some doomsday munchkin in 3.x a sign of the system's (and their own) greatness.

>>51530797
What the actual fuck are you blathering about, you dithering retard.

Actually read where it's impossible for the housecat to lift that elevator, you don't roll for lifting as per the rules.

You're spouting pure weapons-grade autistism and you're retarded af.

>>51530824
Except it's retards acting retarded and then saying they were only pretending to be retarded.

>>51530902
>The rules are fine as long as you ignore the rules that aren't fine.

>>51530928
Where does it say you roll for lifting?

>>51530928
Are you actually capable of reading?

"Lifting and Carrying
Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights."

>>51530947
From the PHB

>Bear. You gain the might of a bear. Your carrying capacity (including maximum load and maximum lift) is doubled, and you have advantage on Strength checks made to push, pull. lift, or break objects.

If you don't make STR checks to lift things, what would having advantage on those checks even do?

>>51531007
"This is beyond my strength limits, can I make a roll to see if I can shift it?"
"Go ahead."

Now calm your fucking autism.

>>51531049
>"This is beyond my strength limits, can I make a roll to see if I can shift it?"
>"Go ahead."

This is basically exactly what's being discussed. A creature attempting to lift more than it's maximum weight.

>>51531007
Your strength is still determined by your lifting capacity, you dithering retard.
Sure, go ahead and roll.

>>51509814
I used to play 3.5 a lot, but I didnt really like the lore and the artworks in the books didnt appeal to me. So my group switched to pathfinder and we never looked back. The shitstorm of 4.0 happened and we heard 5.0 was nice.

>>51531094
Except the d20 is such a huge variable that what you roll has more to do than your actual stat in regards to how much you lift.

Which is, again, what was being discussed.

>>51531062
Then see >>51530999.
Your Str determines the maximum amount you can carry, push, drag or lift. Going beyond that, you can only drag or push, but means your speed suffers, and you can't lift beyond that capacity.

>>51531141
Maybe you need to work on your literacy abilities.

>>51531113
4e was fine for the most part. It had some early math wonkiness, but that's long since been fixed. It's biggest issue was the hostile marketing and people making MMO comparisons(that they still have yet to actually provide any evidence for, but I digress).

You'll probably like 5e because it's basically 3.PF-lite.

>>51531163
Hahaha, you dithering retard, show how I'm wrong.

Show me where the house cat is a path of the totem barbarian.

Also, who is the retard who thinks a house cat would succeed over a PC in attempting to lift an elevator.
Protip, it's you.

>>51531163
>using a PC only ability and thinking it applies across the board.
Was your head actually smashed repeatedly against the floor?

>>51524587
The stats are fine but the modifiers need to be doubled. 11=+1, 12=+2, etc.

A fucking 18 Strength should be more than 20% advantage over average. I mean what the fuck, Nintendo?

>>51531114
Would a d10 work better?

>>51530797
>>51530617
The DC for doing something as absurdly difficult as lifting an elevator would easily be well beyond 20, meaning that there's no way an ordinary, unchanged by magic or whathaveyou, housecat would be able to do it, in any situation whatsoever. Page 174 of the 5e Player's Handbook has a table for suggested difficulty classes for tasks, with Very Hard being 25, and Nearly Impossible being 30. Considering that lifting an elevator would obviously fall under one of these categories, and a housecat's strength modifier is lower than +5, there's no way it would be able to do it, even if it crit. You have to remember that a critical roll is not an automatic success or failure on a skill check; the result still depends on whether or not the roll met the difficulty class.

>>51531355
A cat is -4 modifier to str and is tiny. Good fucking luck.
The cat is going to be yanked down with the lift when it plummets.
Does that guy actually do any thinking at all?

I tried to play 3.PF once. The rules were like a brick to the head, and the actual steps involved in character creation weren't well laid out, leaving me guessing what I was supposed to do. And even that far in, I could tell that the exerience would be painful, because I already had a stack of bonuses to keep track of, and I hadn't even started play.

So I dropped it then and there, because I didn't feel like wrestling with a system chainbound in rules. Haven't gone back since, and played with more rules-light things. Stupid, and judging a book by its cover, I know.

AD&D looks alright from a distance, as does 5e, but I haven't played with them: no group.

I don't hate it, but I think "roll+modifiers v a set difficulty number" is vastly inferior to roll under systems like CoC or eclipse phase.

>>51531420
When did anyone say anything about cats lifting elevators hahahahaha goddamn you're a dumb dumb brain

>>51530824
A system having flaws just means it isn't perfect, not that it's bad.

I understand there's people here who have access to a perfect system, but until proof of it is provided to the rest of us, we're forced to use the adage "nothing is perfect."

File: 6417423179212092138.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

Because it's a poorly thought out destruction of the original games in the name of cancerous new school design and big bucks. They're barely the same game, the only reason they decided to retain and desecrate the name is because of marketing value. Shameless and sadly misleading to every new generation of gamers who've no idea what they're missing out on now.

>>51531532
These are the kind of posts that make it so hard to take you trolls seriously.

We've played your games. They're really nothing special.

>>51531489
You fucking piece of shit
>>51528684
>Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

>>51531569

>>51530617 literally said
>Except he does, because he can if he rolls high enough.

and
>>51528684
said
>while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+
I hope you're just trolling and not genuinely this stupid.

All that being said, it's not as if D&D is my favorite system by any means. Lately I've begun having an interest in Symbaroum for my fantasy tabletop needs, as I think it does lethality and low power level fantasy with darker tones quite well.

>>51531616

You're getting rather obsessed over the (admittedly bad) fluff of the example and kinda missing the point.

It's not about housecats lifting elevators. It's that the difference between 18 and 3 strength is in many ways insignificant.

The difference between a +4 and a -4 modifier, relative to the sheer variability of a d20, is a lot lower than most systems leading to the results being extremely swingy.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it is a trait of the system that some people might dislike.

File: 1366154156033.jpg (34KB, 252x233px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 252x233px

I don't necessarily dislike the playstyle and the settings. I just think that the rules are done better elsewhere, with many of D&D's mechanics being holdovers from the 70's.

That and I am sick of running it so often. Why can't people give other games a try?

>>51531569
I doubt you have, can you even name what you played? They obviously are special for inventing the entire fucking genre, and they're still far better than WotC's modern D&D, not that there aren't also many other great non-D&D RPGs

>>51531655
I have to admit I'm pretty unhappy with how D&D's system of skill checks works for these exact reasons. Could you recommend any systems that do skill checks better, with more noticeable differentiation between a skilled and unskilled character and whatnot, and explain how?

>>51531784
>I doubt you have

I understand that. That's why I can't take you seriously.

>>51531655
Because it's a fucking absurd example and you or the other guy just went full retard.

The variance between 18 and 3 strength is still staggering, and the cat won't ever succeed in your idiotic example because not only does the PC have Str 18, the cat has negative str. It cannot hope to succeed because of the astronomical DC it has to attain and the more reasonable DC a Str 18 has to check against is still going to be difficult.

The point is a non issue because it's fucking retarded. The sheer numerical variance between the scores is still pronounced enough for the cat to always fail and the PC to almost always succeed.

Bounded accuracy will continue to liked or hated, but a more reasonable and less completely idiotic example needs to brought forward. Otherwise you're always going to be known as a literal retard.

And goddamn stop backpedalling.

>>51531909

The total difference in modifiers is +8

The d20 has a range of 1-20, with no bell curve smoothing.

The +4 modifier average is 14, the -4 modifier average is 6.

This still means, with that huge difference between the two scores, that there is a statistically significant chance that the -4 modifier roll will still end up higher than the +4.

Is it a low chance? Sure. But relative to a lot of other systems, which have lower dice variance relative to skill values or some form of smoothing bell curve, it's significantly higher, and that possibility of an expert being outdone by someone extremely disadvantaged is a systemic trait of d20 systems.

>>51530824
To be fair, the flaw he's shitposting about is entirely the DMs fault and is in fact contrary to RAW. DM is supposed to determine the DC of the act based on the actual conditions.

Because of that the same action among wildly different creatures would have a different DC. A tiny house cat would have to roll a 30 athletics (strength) check to smash a solid oak door down, but if a huge giant tried it I wouldn't make it even roll.

>>51531999
The maximum DC a cat can hope for is 16.
The Str 18 can hope for a DC of 24, not including other variables.
And not including lifting capacity, the cat needs to halve its lifting capacity because it's tiny, ie max capacity of 45 lb, which an elevator nowhere comes close to being.
Also the Str 18 could be a path of the totem barbarian, among other things, which the cat can never be. This means double the carrying capacity and therefore double the maximum lift.

The statistically significant chance is still irrelevant because the cat won't be able to make the DC and it can't even hope of lifting such a massive weight because of its size and strength.

Your point is irrelevant.

>>51532133
It's actually a little different. The DC remains identical, it's just that the tiny cat takes penalties to its roll while the giant gets bonuses. It amounts to the same thing though.

>>51532148
>could be a path of the totem barbarian, among other things, which the cat can never be

Funnily enough, not true. A cat could very well be a barbarian.

I mean, I'm just here to watch the anti-D&D trolls look stupid so I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, but let's not put a downer on those cats that aspire to be berserkers.

>>51532148

Except this isn't just about strength, that was the prior example given but I think it was meant to illustrate a larger problem.

Of course if they both roll the same number the higher modifier person wins. That's so obvious I'm not sure why you even bothered to state it.

But this is the key thing- The randomness of the dice is more than twice as significant as the modifier in terms of creating a result. This leads to what some people would consider an excessive amount of randomness.

I'm somewhat confused as how mathematical and statistical fact is irrelevant.

>>51509814
It won't let me destroy Magic

>>51532175
Not in 5e, the DC changes relative to the difficulty of the act. There are no flat penalties and bonuses, only advantage (roll twice, take the higher of the two) and disadvantage (roll twice, take the lesser of the two).

>>51532213
The cat should be able to fulfill its hopes and dreams.
I for one welcome our cat barbarian overlords.

>>51532252
Then use a better example and a less retarded one.
If it's against a solid oak door, the door has hardness and hp, a cat can only typically deal 1 slashing damage, it won't ever break down a door.
It's impossible for the cat to lift the elevator no matter how well it rolls and it cannot break down a solid oak door. This isn't true for the PC.

The cat has no hope of succeeding in either one of the idiotic "examples" given. Stop being retarded about this.

Rolling high on a d20 does not automatically guarantee a success because there are other variables coming into play.

If you want to move goalposts that's your preogative, but what's you're doing is just making irrelevant noise.

>>51531616
The example was never cats lifting elevators! It was a cat breaking down a wooden door using STR vs a fixed DC and that DC is achievable even with a cat's -STR.

The elevator thing was about a barbarian or some shit lifting an elevator and is a completely different argument you blathering retard

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Demon-Born_(3.5e_Race)

friend wants to be this in a campaign starting at ECL 15 so basically an epic level campaign

Is this race balanced? It mentions the one feat from outsider HD but doesn't list how many HD its starts with.

I'm thinking he would start with 1HD of outsider and get the LA +7 for a total of 8ECL and then level up a different class from there.

or am I wrong

>>51532532
Then see >>51532470
If it's against a solid oak door, the door has hardness and hp, a cat can only typically deal 1 slashing damage, it won't ever break down a door.
It's impossible for the cat to lift the elevator no matter how well it rolls and it cannot break down a solid oak door. This isn't true for the PC.

>>51528684
Right...
>Welcome to the retarded-ass d20 mechanic where a fucking house cat has a 1 in 3 chance of breaking down a solid oak door.

>Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

The example included lifting elevators and comparisons with a cat in the same breath as breaking down a solid oak door. With no mention of being a barbarian.

The barbarian add ons came about after the fact because you or another retard tried to justify and justified poorly any potential reasons for success.

Are you actually able to read? Do you actually understand words as they are written? Can you actually comprehend English?
Why must you repeatedly smash your face into the keyboard and hope it forms coherent sentences?

File: 88f56225293efa22c6601e91cc7cb86ba8930559defc560cc871696e04e28b36.jpg (44KB, 432x547px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 432x547px

>>51531832
I'm sorry you can't take seriously those who request you have experience with the material you're criticizing before engaging in a discussion.

>>51532532
>not bothering to read and actively spewing drivel because you're literally a retard

Read nigga read and learn some fucking reading comprehension.

>>51532532
Does shit automatically spew onto the keyboard when you type?

>>51532874
No, it's this arrogance that someone who might disagree with you most assuredly has no experience.

How can we even start a discussion? You've already asked me to stop caring about your opinions and to not take you seriously, and I can only oblige.

>>51533057
I'm glad to see that you aren't even pretending to raise a valid point.

>>51533145
You act like you raised one yourself.

>>51533057
>>51533145
>>51533169
Your shitposting doesn't even make sense any more.

>>51509814
3.x is just fundamentally flawed and there are simply better alternatives.

I like 4e a lot and 5e just fine, but D&D is ultimately about being murderhobo's and breaks down the farther away from that you go.

I'm fine with murderhobo'ing if that is something we've decided to do before hand. Generally though I prefer something more than that in which case a better system can be found.

>>51533517
>fundamentally

You're right, all those people who were playing it in this last decade+ totally were not playing it because it's fundamentally flawed so it cant be played.

File: 1485891215208.jpg (261KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1920x1080px

>>51533169
That's not the same anon you were talking to. I made multiple points in my first post. Projection will only get you so far, arrogant little man.

File: 1485853738675.jpg (18KB, 480x362px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x362px

>>51533517
>D&D is ultimately about being murderhobo's and breaks down the farther away from that you go
NuD&D*

>>51532679
>>+24 racial stat bonuses, in exchange for -4 charisma
>Outsider
>Base speed of 40ft
>Darkvision
>Immunity to aging
>+2 racial bonus to AC
>scaling damage reduction
>free bonus feat
>Any favored class
>has a "Get out of Dead Free" card that gives massive stat bonuses, regen, even more DR, and Mind Blank, all for middling ""penalties""

Yeah, tell your friend to fuck off with that shit.

>>51529762
Honestly I see more 2e fags aligning with 4e. 3.5 fags tend to give the most credit to 5e.
3.5 fags also seem to shit on their own edition the most. It's very bizarre.
And nobody likes pathfinder.

>>51534055
>Honestly I see more 2e fags aligning with 4e.
I think part of it is most of us remembering all of the "VIDEO GAME EDITION, NOT !MY! D&D" shit that 3.x fans were throwing at 4e were the exact same criticisms 3e was getting when it first came out.

>>51534637
Wouldn't that align 2e with 3e by showing them what a VG D&D would really look like? 3e is also the closest in style to 2e of all the WotC games. But it's also garbage, so.

>>51534688
>3e is also the closest in style to 2e of all the WotC games.

Depends on who you ask. Most 2e fans I know say 4e is closer to older editions than 3.PF or 5e.

File: 89c511cb27af771885a604914f8dff4cb86ec980bf95e2de8440f8a04986e3de.jpg (188KB, 736x724px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 736x724px

>>51534707
What the fuck? That's completely untrue even if you play with miniatures. As much as WotC D&D is a radical departure from TSR D&D, 4e is a radical departure from THEM. Its closest analogue is probably that one D&D tactical boardgame, the next closest analogue is Baldur's Gate or something.

5e is definitely the closest to old school D&D. It's just not close to 2e.

>>51534790
Like I said, it depends on who you ask.

File: 2c1fb38730a8f9bc1754656ebddfa2108933c9aade52230e1c5b5e39f9ee9f66.jpg (35KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x376px

>>51534882
Sure, idiots vs. me

It focuses too much on it's implied setting, and less on being a toolkit for GMs to create their own worlds.

>>51509814
Why do I hate 3.5?

Because despite a certain Mr. Petty's shitposting about how they don't matter because popularity, as if that actually means something, the game's broken ass mechanics, especially the dumb skill, combat maneuver, and stat check rules, have impacted my experience with the game negatively every single time their problems come up. It's not fun to have to beg your DM to fix a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place and it's even less fun to play under a DM who won't fix the problem because he can't see it, or worse, fucks the game up with a fix that shouldn't have happened. Playstyles that would've worked in prior editions, like doing every single thing you can to survive while the DM doesn't lift a finger to help you, simply do not work in 3.5 without radically restructuring the game.

File: RPG Flowchart.gif (190KB, 1627x1052px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1627x1052px

>>51509814
Levels
Classes
Focus on equipment/loot as a major part of character progression despite levels and classes
All the many, many, many modifiers to keep track of because of the previous points
Vancian magic
HP bloat
Ivory Tower design
General combat focus, greatly weakened by the previous point

Pretty much all of it, though, is rooted in the fact that it originated as a skirmishing game and is primarily geared towards dungeon crawls. Which is fine. Some people like that. But I prefer games that have maybe one fight every few sessions, with the rest focused around social and investigative stuff. DnD is kind of terrible at that.

Which leads to my last point:

Its general design philosophies lead to player habits that just don't translate well to other games, making DnD players hard to deal with. And all the annoying "how can we make DnD run X, despite dozens of systems already existing that do X just fine without all the homebrew effort?"

>>51535140
>Its general design philosophies lead to player habits that just don't translate well to other games
You mean industry habits. It's been 40 years and we've yet to meaningfully shed all of OD&D's setting-specific assumptions.

>>51529762
Why do D&D fanboys hate GURPS so much?

>>51528736
As mentioned caster supremacy still exists, not only are they more "powerful" out of combat but they get to do a fuckload more cool stuff. They don't rely on the weak skill system and a swingy d20, can become invisible anywhere anytime while others have to Hide, you know the drill.

Strength, Charisma and Intelligence are objectively worse stats, and unless your class relies upon them directly you will dump them. Dexterity is the godstat, I don't really have a problem with CON since it's not the primary stat of anyone and Wisdom is good but not by a huge margin.

Combat isn't very fun, there's not very much to do and while I don't have big problems with it I am sure there are games that do it much better (4e and Fantasy Craft seem like they could be such games but idk).

The system as a whole is too focused on combat to handle other things satisfyingly. Skills are quite weak, almost no features explicitly affect anything but combat (even things like Fast Hands just makes an action into a bonus action). This leaves spells as the only thing in the mechanics that can do things out of combat basically, leading to the good old caster supremacy. When it claims to be as much about interaction and exploration as combat, this is ridiculous, and even if I don't value those things too high and am fine with very combat-heavy campaigns, I think it's a shame it's so obsessed with the mechanical combat benefit that it almost never bothers giving any other benefits.

It's streamlined and simple without being bare bones, I have wrapped my head around the system and understand various problems and how to solve them as a gm, it's very easy to make homebrew and I have a good grasp of the rules in general. This combined with there being so many players for it, makes it a good "main" game for me, however I think as a system it has big shortcomings and in the end it doesn't improve upon 3e as much as it could considering 4e.

>>51535256
Oh, as is being discussed it's also very swingy which isn't objectively bad but for a heroic game I'm kind of tired of it. RNG is great in MAID and shit but having to rely on the gm as a level 20 fighter to grapple a commoner is pretty stupid. The gm basically has to know about this and handle skill checks/non-skill checks accordingly, allowing the PCs to do cool and powerful stuff. It's better if this is laid out by the rules or at least encouraged, see apocalypse world.

>>51509814
Oh, look, another thread where millenial babies who can't deal with their character not being a super-special snowflake that always succeeds and actually reading the rules they complain about cry about a perfectly fine system

>>51535380
This isn't a theater, stop projecting so hard. Seriously, I think you may have mental issues.

>>51535437
He's just very dedicated.

>>51535437
At least I can read and add numbers in my head, something you guys obviously struggle with

>>51510132
For once I can't argue with anything in a post on /tg/. Bravo, anon. You nailed it.

>>51509814
I dont like the mechanics of DnD, to which I mean: How armour work, how attacks and hp work in system, how the system is focusing almost exclusively on combat, I abhor vancian casting, the incredibly unbalanced class system thats fighting my suspension of disbelief at every turn (You steal for a living so you magically repel certain weapons...what?) And finally.

I'm not a fan of the over the top heroic high fantasy, possibly due to dnd, nor the way dungeons and such are supposed to function.

I tried it, and it was not for me. I have found systems which does what DnD is supposed to do but much better and I considering a very badly written system, unbalanced, inconsistent and subjectively not conducive to fun.

My biggest complaint honestly is just how prolific it is. My real life playgroup practically refuses to play anything else because they think it's flawless and able to do anything. Showing any system that isn't d20 is either met with confusion or outright disgust.

>>51535480
>mentions millennial and snowflakes when no one was talking about generational differences or their sonic OC
>In a thread where much math is posted that is often correct for the specific instances anons are demonstrating.
>only a couple shitposters displaying a complete lack of reading comprehension
>sperging out this hard.
It's almost like you're a living manifestation of confirmation bias.

>>51531645
fuck, I meant to reply to >>51531489, not >>51531569.

>>51509814
The old OSR era D&D is okay, it's rules light enough, but the newer editions feel clunky and constrictive, and I often feel the need to bypass the rules instead of using them as written. They have granularity in odd places (different types of actions in combat - do we *really* need four different kinds of actions to depict 'my character does a thing', movement rules, spellcasting) and I dislike how skill use and combat are two different subsystems. I don't like the gamist abstractions of HP and levels, and they lead to nonsensical situations unless houseruled by the GM (your skill level is capped by your character level, but your character level also determines all your other abilities leading to situations where a skilled ballerina would be necessity be of higher level than a lvl 1 town guard, making her a better combatant). I don't like how fluff and crunch don't match in D&D, at all (the fastest way to learn new spells is not to study in library for 8 hours a day but to kill some goblins and wolves - in fact, if you stay home and study you never get better at anything!)

I don't have a particular favorite system, but I've picked several things I like from different ones I've tried out.

-aspects from Fate integrate character description/background fluff with hard mechanical bonuses/penalties
-also from Fate having combat happen in roughly defined areas, taking away granularity from movement so I don't have to break out the ruler every time someone wants to tussle
-using skill rolls to simulate longer stretches of time and practice from Burning Wheel
-beliefs from BW, which give characters clearly defined goals and mechanical rewards for trying to achieve them, makes GMing easier
-helping dice from BW (character gains a mark for advancing a skill when they use it, and if you help another you get that mark too but don't face any penalties if the roll fails), which promote cooperation between players
-escalation mechanics from Dogs in the Vineyard

>>51535889
cont.
Conflict in Dogs in the Vineyard basically works by matching your opponent's rolls, and if you run out of dice to use you can always choose to escalate the conflict to a more violent one, giving you an access to new pool of dice to roll.
-3d6 vs skill as the basic resolution mechanism from GURPS. Doesn't matter if I'm attacking, bluffing, sneaking or crafting it's always the same roll.

So basically my favorite system atm would be a homebrew, yeah.

>>51533869
>I made multiple points

Too bad we were looking fir valid ones.

Follow-up question to the cat debacle:

There was mention of making a Strength check to break through a door. But there was also mention of Hardness and HP for breaking through the door.

Two different mechanical methods for adjudicating the same action. Which one is actually applicable?

>>51536803
>very different from TSR D&D
>name was retained for marketing value
>WotC retaining the D&D title misleads new players on TSR D&D's style of play
>poorly thought out design
>new school fundamental flawed
>corporate motivations
All perfectly valid. Argued in detail is a different question.

>>51509853
This is a large generalization, so I'm going to guess you've had some bad experiences.

The people I play with are the only reason I play D&D. The system itself doesn't offer enough.

>>51536923
1. The core elements can be said to have been retained.
2. More than the name was retained.
3. You're failing to appreciate the preferences of players.
4. Your opinion, and you have to remember that this was award-winning design.
5. You wouldn't be able to play what's fundamentally flawed.
6. That helped revitalize a failing industry.

Your points are hardly moving. I understand you're going to likely ague them for a few decades more, but they just come off as some trying to rationalize their hatred, rather than someone actually evaluating systems.

>>51537015
>You wouldn't be able to play what's fundamentally flawed.
what

>>51534790
Most cite the focus on team dynamics to be more in spirit with pre 3e editions. Never played myself so I couldn't say

File: 1380227759220.jpg (74KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 250x250px

>>51534688
>implying 4e is any more videogamey than 3e
I'm getting real tired of your shit Eric

>>51537149

I think it's just a bit of a misunderstanding of terminology when it comes to this kind of discussion.

To clarify- Calling a game bad, broken or even fundamentally flawed does not mean it is unplayable. It's all a question of how much extra effort and work a GM has to put in to make the game function as intended.

Broken mechanics have to be fixed, fundamental flaws take effort to be repaired or worked around, and both of these lead into the description of these games as Bad- A good system supports the GM, decreasing the amount of work they might otherwise have to do and letting them focus on running the game. A bad game inhibits the GM, increasing the amount of work they have to do and distracting them from running the game.

3.PF is a bad, broken, fundamentally flawed game. That doesn't mean its unplayable, just that it takes a significant amount of work and time investment from a GM to make it run smoothly.

>>51538062
>just that it takes a significant amount of work and time investment from a GM to make it run smoothly.

You're so right. I'll tell those ten-year-old kids who have had no trouble running the game smoothly to knock it off, they're ruining your definitions.
In fact, I'll personally message all those thousands of people who played the game out of the box without any difficulty or effort, since it must be them who are wrong for not having any big issues.

Though, by your definition, GURPS is fundamentally flawed and broken, because before you can even start playing the GM has to invest a fair amount of time beforehand essentially cobbling together a system out of an array of parts, with plenty of terrible options that need to be avoided.

>>51538062
>fundamental flaws take effort to be repaired or worked around,

Your definitions get pretty vague and hazy very quickly. Effectively, your definition, as it stands, makes every game fundamentally flawed, because all games have some bad mechanics, and regardless of how easy it is to fix them, it still takes some measure of effort.
In fact, it could be argued that 3.PF is less fundamentally flawed than other popular systems, because its fixes are rather easy to implement and mostly revolve around modest numerical issues. And, depending on your tastes, you might not even encounter any real issues at all.
Calling 3.PF a "bad, broken, fundamentally flawed" game is rather unfair, because you can find similar or greater issues in just about every other game, it's just that most games lack the same amount of investigation and popularity that 3.PF has. And, in order to label 3.PF as such, you need to do so by defining "bad" around the type of game that 3.PF is, when a fair argument would be understanding that it's a system with vivid mechanical tangibility that makes it rather different than most games which prefer looser, more narrative structures.

3.PF is flawed in the sense that it has flaws. But, with its many and broad strengths it's hard to label a system that effectively reshaped what we imagined roleplaying games could do as "bad." It may be a bit antiquated in this day and age, but it's still a very impressive system that I feel sometimes doesn't get appreciated enough, until I remember that it somehow still remains as the second most played game in the world.

>>51538276
Don't make things up anon, 10 year olds play vidyagaems not D&D

>>51538502

What?

3.PF is broken from base principles.

It tells players they can play a vast and varied cast of different heroic archetypes, all being able to contribute and build a story together.

But if one player picks a Fighter or a Monk, and another player picks a Wizard, Cleric or Druid, that statement immediately becomes false.

This isn't something that requires much investigation to discover, it can come up in play entirely too easily (which is why so many people complain about it), and the only real fixes are removing huge amounts of content from the system as the top and bottom ends of the power curve are simply incompatible.

Caster supremacy and class imbalance isn't the worst of 3.PF's problems, but it is the easiest to point to and the one that comes up in play extremely often, which is why it's talked about as such a big deal.

>>51535538
I've only ever seen this with Pathfinder and 3.5 groups

File: tg summary.png (457KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 800x600px

>>51538567
>that statement immediately becomes false.
Dependent, of course, on the players, the GM, the setting, the house rules, the adventures, and whether or not they browse stupid forums.

>>51538502
The thing is, if they admit other games are flawed, they can't try and convince you to play games they want you to buy instead.

>>51538672

All games are flawed, it's just a question of how significant those flaws are and how much work they take to fix. As long as you don't get stuck in toxic 'It's not a flaw because the GM can fix it' loops.

>>51538653

Nope. In pure system terms the statement has been rendered false.

Can the GM and group manage to make it true again? Sure! But that keys straight into >A bad game inhibits the GM, increasing the amount of work they have to do and distracting them from running the game.

>>51538567
>But if one player picks a Fighter or a Monk, and another player picks a Wizard, Cleric or Druid, that statement immediately becomes false.

Not really. You're confusing the memes for reality.

With it being collaborative rather than competitive, and with spellcasters being rather difficult for new players to get a hang of, it actually takes quite some time for any imbalances to really be felt.

For a brand new group, its rough balance satisfies "play a vast and varied cast of different heroic archetypes, all being able to contribute and build a story together."

And, with more experience with the game, they can work together to avoid or remedy its minor mechanical flaws.

You can't really keep trying to convince people it's a terrible game just be repeating tired memes.

>>51538701

>With it being collaborative rather than competitive

Irrelevant. Balance is just as important in cooperative games, because they're the most fun when everyone is able to contribute and work together. Two people doing nothing while the other half of the group solve every problem is boring, shitty and no fun.

As for the rest of your statement... You're basically saying 3.PF works well before you actually understand how it works... And that after you do understand how it works, you have to fix it? Implying that the flaws and problems it has are, you know, real and significant enough to require fixing?

File: princesses_playing_dnd_by_madam_marla-d74caax.jpg (248KB, 1470x544px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1470x544px

>>51538723
>only mechanics matter
>no one who plays the games matters
This is where your logic is inherently flawed. If blanced actually mattered as much as you say it does, there would be no discussion.

Rifts, WoD, D&D would not exist in any iteration at all by now.

Obviously, your 'logic' is excluding some criticcal and important variable that somehow makes all three of these game makers and all three of these games playable and impossibly fun somehow.

I wonder what it could be.

>>51538700
And yet people play them anyways. It's like there some unsubstantiated quality, some strange, ephemeral thing that makes the game playable despite the issues with it.

Weird.

>>51538653
What I dislike about 3.5 the most is that it goes out of its way to trivialize the resource management aspect of dungeon delving. Wands of cure light wounds can be store bought making HP loss non-issue, as can permanent light sources. It's built around having four level appropriate encounters per day, discouraging use of random encounters. Characters have a ton of HP and abilities right from level 1, which gives the game entirely different feel and tone. It's not about sneaking into dungeon to find treasure and fleeing before you're found out, but being a goddamn fantasy SWAT team clearing up monster lairs.

>>51538810
The logic is not flawed, not really. Because while people who play the game matter in terms of how fun each individual campaign of that game is. The quality of the system itself can not depend on who's playing it. Otherwise it becomes impossible to argue that any game is good or any game is bad, because you reduce everything to depending on anecdotal evidence which won't hold true for anyone but the person providing it.

>>51538810

Nope. Groups and GMs matter, that's such an obvious statement it doesn't even need saying.

But system also matters- Because, for the third fucking time, a well designed system makes less work for the GM, a badly designed system makes more work for the GM.

Rifts, WoD and D&D are all infamous for mechanical problems that need fixing because the people running these games ran into them, and the requirement to fix them detracted from their experience of running the game.

I have never said bad games aren't playable. I stated the direct opposite. But being aware that their rules are bad is an important piece of information that should be supplied with any description of the system, as well a suggestions on common fixes.

I love some games which are extremely flawed. Which is why, whenever I explain them to somebody, I make sure to include a brief summary of the problems and easy fixes, because truly appreciating a system means acknowledging its flaws as part and parcel of the whole thing.

It's not about condemning systems or telling people not to play them, it's about intellectual honesty and fairly evaluating systems strengths and weaknesses rather than only talking about their strengths and handwaving their faults as 'the GM can fix it'. That's just not helpful to anybody.

>>51538843
I don't think that game type is bad, personally, it's just not DnD

>>51538838
You mean market saturation? McD's is ubiquitous but no-one would say it's a high quality restaurant.

>>51538838

>Calling a game bad, broken or even fundamentally flawed does not mean it is unplayable.

>>51538883
Agreed. 3.PF is the goddamn 4e of D&D, it's a game but it ain't D&D game.

>>51538879
>Nope. Groups and GMs matter, that's such an obvious statement it doesn't even need saying.

Except every time this argument comes up it is thoroughly ignored. "The mechanics say no one can possibly have fun playing X, Y, or Z, so obviously it's impossiblely broken and should be discarded."

Just pointing out an intellectually honest comment that deserves to be stated..

>>51538959

So you're literally ignoring the rest of the post to pretend to have a point?

>>51538939
But you can't tell people that, because they don't know anything else.
I remember when 3e came out, and I, along with other players, were astounded that Wizards had the audacity to throw out everything that came before.
>>51538959
That's because people act as tho it absolves the game of fault.
Read the rest of the post, you negroid.

>>51538969
Sure, why not.

>>51538939
Well, 4e also does that kind of game well, with level 1 characters being significantly bulkier in 4e than in other editions and everyone having a powerful daily to use. The difference is that 4e emphasizes resource management significantly more. With daily powers, action points, healing surges, and only one cheap infinite light source being available early on and it's only available to one class (wizards, obviously)

>>51538838
90% of people have shit taste, don't care, don't encounter the issue because they don't understand the system, or simply don't know any better because they got into the hobby with 3e and think that's how things are supposed to be. I played 3.5. with people who nerfed monks and power attack and implemented feat requirements for skills, and I've been invited to a Pathfinder game run by a guy who once refused to allow 1.5 STR multiplier for holding weapons with both hands. Most people don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and their opinions are irrelevant pertaining the systemic issues of the game. It's like claiming that it's fine for cars to have shitty brakes because pensioners drive them slowly.

Also Stockholm syndrome is real.

>>51539007
I do think 3.5 does have unique qualities not found in other games

It's just that it's biggest, most influential quality that is the main reason I personally keep returning to it is the ungodly amount of material it has, ripe for character building experiments.

3.5 is an amazingly innovative and fun character building exercise with a subpar RPG tacked on

File: D&D Explained.png (221KB, 720x1368px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 720x1368px

>>51539007

Reminds me of this image, which I picked up ages ago and I always find very useful

>>51509814
>Path of the Zealot: Warrior of the Gods

>At 3rd level, your soul is marked for endless battle. If a spell would have the sole effect of restoring you to life (but not undeath), the caster does not need material components to cast the spell on you.
> (but not undeath)
I don't understand what's imply here

>>51539027

3.PF does have an enormous breadth of content. Even if you cut out the stuff that doesn't really work, restricting things to Tier 3/4 and checking any sourcebooks, you still have more to work with than any other RPG in existence.

>>51539007
>Also Stockholm syndrome is real.
So is Penis Envy. Are you envious of D&D's bigger penis?

>>51539031
It doesn't work if you're undead to begin with.

>>51538723
It's not irrelevant, because working towards a goal makes differences in power less noticeable than direct competition. And, outside of the memes, the differences in power are not really dramatic enough to make anyone initially feel useless, especially at low levels.

There's a lot of nuances to the game that people now take for granted, along with flaws that took years of hindsight to appreciate. Combined with the fact that the game was designed with a different generation of players in mind with different tastes and expectations, I can understand why you think the exaggerations of the game's flaws are more valid than they actually are.

>>51539007
What's holding the players captive?
You trolls keep saying Stolkholm Syndrome all the time like you think there's a gun against the players heads.

It's one of the many non-argument memes you trolls are so fond of, hoping to act like the second largest group of players entirely consist of people who just don't know any better.

>>51539038
Not more to work with neccesarily, since there are some games with a comparative list of options, but by far the most that works within a single genre.

And, when you look at the array of options available, it's actually surprising how comparatively well-balanced it is, with other large games falling apart with only a tenth of the amount of potential options.

>>51539143
>Combined with the fact that the game was designed with a different generation of players in mind with different tastes and expectations
Anon, you have that backward. The game wasn't designed for those players, the players were molded by a design paradigm that even it's creators admit is warped.
As for less noticeable, I would say that is far less so, because many of the flaws of 3.PF were discovered by players, not by devs, and never actually confronted or resolved. The issue with full casters got by devs because their playtesters treated the game like 2e, where the roles of classes was very defined, and the devs themselves not truly understanding the game (see the Hexblade compared to the Duskblade) on a mathematical/analytical level.
>>51539027
>>51539038
Which makes it popular on the internet, people who do not actually play the game, and with autists, who coincidentally fall into both of the former.
3.PF makes it's play as a thought experiment rather than a game, while Basic/2e/4e do not. All the latter have either openly explain mechanics, or do not feature murky lines to traverse in order to be able to do X.
>>51539195
>What's holding the players captive?
If you can answer that question, I'll give you money.
It's hyperbole, anon, to explain why players are so damn unwilling to try ANYTHING else besides what they have played for years. I mean, I have played some two dozen systems, some good, some not, some with good memories, some bad. I shit on 3.PF, but I am still willing to play it with people I trust to recognize it's failings and accommodate for some of them, as well as place reasonable limits. Hell, I'm in a 3.PF 32pb, LA1 ignored spelljammer game with a gith sun monk, kobold cloistered cleric, human swordsage and me, a draconic goliath ZS warder, and we are all having fun (I think). But I'll still shit on 3.PF for being mechanically poor.

>>51539290
I can answer that question.
The game isn't as bad as you imagine it to be, and the people who play it like it better than other games.

WHAT AN AMAZING SECRET, CALL THE PRESS, WE STILL MIGHT MAKE IT IN TIME FOR THE EVENING EDITION.

>>51539290

>If you can answer that question, I'll give you money.

The sunk cost fallacy is the biggest thing. 3.PF uniquely rewards system mastery, more than almost any other system on the planet. Learning that, as well as how to use its otherwise broken CR system and the various skills required to play and run it gives people a sense of deep investment in the system.

For some of them, they assume that learning another system would require that same level of investment, and don't want to undertake it. Others might just feel like they'd lose something if they ever stopped playing the game they worked so hard to internalise. Still others have had their habits and expectations so strongly established by 3.PF that anything outside that paradigm just doesn't make sense to them.

>>51539320
Can you put on a trip already? This old bullshit is pretty tired at this point, and it would be good to mark you so that people know that you're just a rabid troll not worth talking to.

>>51539318
>The game isn't as bad as you imagine it to be
>>51539290
>I shit on 3.PF, but I am still willing to play it with people I trust to recognize it's failings and accommodate for some of them, as well as place reasonable limits
>all having fun
Anon, you need to read the whole post.
>>51539320 actually attempts to make a reasonable argument that isn't REEE shitposting. If you can't do it, boards like /v/ exist for you.
>>51539320
I started with 2e, and I just don't get it. D&D is fun, yea, but it's not everything out there.
It's not Star Wars, or 40k, or Paranoia, or World of Darkness, or Legend, or Shadowrun, or GURPS.
Sure, you can have a lot of fun, but why not a variety of fun?
And ignore the twat.

>>51538939
That doesn't make any sense

>>51539350
If you came off Basic or 2e, it makes a lot of sense.
3e basically broke off with the prior nearly 20 years of design ideals D&D carried. It wasn't "D&D", it just carried the name and some buzzwords.

I like 5th, and I liked 4th but 3.5 was always just an over regulated mess where you had to min max at least as hard as everyone else. I don't really like any of the Wizards settings that much.

That said I've only played good short games of 4 and 5 and and only overly drawn out and complicated games of 3.5. Maybe 3.5 is good if you throw out 80% of the books.

>>51539349
That argumeny is just pure "anyone who plays this is dumb", just with a fair amount of unsubstantiated bullshit mixed in.

Basically, you've swallowed the memes hard, to the point where you can't even recognize the good points of the games you play, and spend most of your time being a bitter cynic. Like I said, not as bad as you imagine it to be.

>>51539320
There is no "sunk cost fallacy" except for the idea there is a sunk cost in it.

These are people who buy miniatures and games they will never fucking play and dice they will never use, just because the books and figures are interesting and the dice are cool.

I'm sure the brain damage is real - because the butthurt sure is.

>>51539350
Basically the majority of complaints leveled at 4e by 3.5 fans are complaints about issues in 4e that are bigger issues in 3.5.

Like "not feeling like DnD" or "healing is too easy" or "It feels like a video game" or "The classes are all too similar"

>>51539380
>you can't even recognize the good points of the games you play, and spend most of your time being a bitter cynic
>still play the game, still have fun playing the game while recognizing it's flaws
I think I've found one of those 3.5 apologists.
Also, stop it, Virt.

>>51539349
I had a feeling you were a bitter grognard. You reek of the "i don't get it, why's everyone having fun, stop having fun, your fun is wrong" that comes from people who don't ever bother to learn anything about a game beyond how to criticize it.

>>51539364
No, logically the statement makes no sense
>3.5 D&D is the 4e D&D of D&D

>>51539398
Recognizing the flaws is good. But not if that's all you do.

If you don't understand what makes the game good, and not a silly sarcastic meme answer, it's fair to call you a bitter cynic.

>>51539425
see
>>51539398

File: 4e is not all that.png (25KB, 1609x440px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1609x440px

>>51539395
4e did the same thing that DSP did - it tried to make everyone operate on the same principles. Unlike 4e, it didn't eliminate the parts of the game that people enjoyed.

4e was built around the idea that building characters was the fun part, and that as long as everything looked different, no one would realize that all it did is make for a very simplified minature combat game.

>>51539435

Uh... No? That's not how 4e works at all?

>>51539433
Shit, I mean >>51539395
>>51539435
>it tried to make everyone operate on the same principles
Lolwut

>>51539435
Clever, but sarcasm is mostly told through voice and body language, so using it in text is liable to get your message confused

>>51539444
He's obviously making a joke, note how all of his complaints are more accurate when you replace "4e" with "3.5" and what post he's replying to

>>51538653
>the house rules
Worst part of DnD fans; pretending that slapping on a few dozen house rules means that the core system is just fine.

Protip: if it's not broke, you don't need to fix it

>>51540128
The worst part of you guys is thinking that your games have any value, when slightly modified D&D knocks them out of the water.

Maybe that's what needs to be discussed? How much better D&D+ is compared to whatever game you happen to be playing?

File: Wow Incredible.jpg (289KB, 832x469px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 832x469px

>>51540186
It's times like these that I wish I maintained a reaction folder.

The stupidity in your post is so great that I have no words to express.

Seriously, easily the stupidest post I've read all week. Not just on 4chan, but on the entire internet.

There's really no easy response to this, so I've attempted to find an image to capture some small portion of the awe I feel for your post.

>>51540327
>i got reckted so hard
>please, delight in my butthurt
>my transcendant, no rebuttal, pure and simple, butthurt

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

>>51540186
>>51540327
>>51540455

The phrase 'Trolls trolling trolls' has never been more appropriate.

>>51540186
>when slightly modified D&D knocks them out of the water.
Just to use the system I'm playing as the moment, no, D&D would be absolutely shit for a superhero game. You'd need to completely rebuild it for it to even partially replace Mutants and Masterminds

>>51540616

Well, being fair, M&M was an OGL game, based on D&D.

It also only really started being good when they shed almost all the legacy mechanics and bullshit, which is my M&M 3 is great.

>>51540616
Yeah, you're ri-

OH WAIT. YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG!
Ha, what a fucking loser you are.

>>51540616
I dunno, 4e can be reskinned for it pretty easily.

>>51541882
From personal experience I can honestly say that 4e is fantastic for super-sentai games, which is pretty close to superheroes

>>51528113
Underrated post

>>51535182
GURPS is basically the complete opposite of D&D and it completely defies their expectation that rules will be arbitrary and made with grid based combat.
Telekinesis in GURPS has bits of text encouraging you to pull the pins on the grenades tied to an enemy soldiers belt. Telekinesis in D&D has clauses that state you can't grab creatures or objects worn/held by creatures and that you can't take these specific actions using it.

>>51538653
For the Wizard maybe.

Druid literally has to put in no work at all to trivialize a Fighter or Monk beyond picking Druid(since the animal companion is almost as good at either of them at combat by itself).

Plus it's completely reasonable for even a new player to go

>Wow, Druids can turn into dinosaurs/bears! And have a dinosaur/bear pet! Awesome
>Oh cool, this spell lets me summon MORE dinosaurs/bears!
>And look, this feat lets me do that summon spell thing WHILE still a dinosaur/bear!

and shatter the game over his knee by complete accident. Less likely for a Wizard or Cleric to break the game by accident admittedly, but still possible for new players.

The issue is that it takes a lot more work than it should to keep a Wizard or CoDzilla from breaking the game than should be necessary.

>>51538608
Groups that started with them anyways. It creates the assumption that all tabletop games are just as bad/complicated to learn, and with as bad as 3.PF is they'd rather stick with it then waste all that time learning a different system.

I've found groups that tried 3.PF later on tend to drop it fairly quickly. Admittedly I've been only part of 2 long-term groups, but neither started with 3.PF, both decided "Hey, this game gets a lot of shit, let's try it so we can judge for ourselves," and both dropped the game within a month.

Which is a shame, I was actually enjoying the necromancer bard in the first group.

>>51541921
4e with inherent bonuses can also run low-magic games quite well, since an all-martial party can function just fine.

I also found it pretty fantastic for Dark Sun with the way healing surges worked, even if the defiling mechanic needed a bit of....fixing I guess.

>>51533902
yea thats what I was thinking. Thanks.

>>51528647
>Vancian magic (which in concept isn't even bad)
Yes it is. A mechanic that makes spellcasters spend most of their time *not* casting spells is a bad mechanic.

File: 2d5d22aac27fd5d866eb7a94ffa077f524960c914a9dff9324a43b52529fc411.jpg (16KB, 245x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 245x255px

>>51537015
>1. The core elements can be said to have been retained.
No, are you kidding? See:
>>51538843
>>51538883
>2. More than the name was retained.
I didn't suggest otherwise
>3. You're failing to appreciate the preferences of players.
Of course I am, what do you think corporate motivations are except the preferences of the mass market?
>4. Your opinion, and you have to remember that this was award-winning design.
>5. You wouldn't be able to play what's fundamentally flawed.
See:
>>51538062
>>51538879
>6. That helped revitalize a failing industry.
Why is this a good in itself? Some people would prefer the hobby stayed independent, built by hobbyists for hobbyists for no reason less noble than the desire to make and play good and interesting games.

But keep trying to criticize real D&D by characterizing its fans and arrogant and pretentious like it's an argument. I'm so arrogant, I waited to reply knowing the answers would arrive in the course of the thread because 3.PF and it's successors are just that fucked up the criticisms would flow naturally, even if it's from a perspective of other WotC cancer and not the actually well designed originals.

>>51536809
Check out pg 246 - 247 of the DMG.

http://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering/objects/

Objects have AC and hp, you need to go through these to break it down.
Wood has an AC 15, and if it's a solid oak door it'd probably have 18 hp, ie medium resilient object.

Guess the Atk average of the cat and how much damage it's doing.

Troll had ran the same "flaws don't matter" circles in >>51508195, except without saying he's talking about 3.5.

He's probably going to shit up any mechanical discussion thread for the next few days.

>>51547840
Tl;dr: those retards had no fucking clue what they were doing and tried hard af to justify their idiocy.

>>51547878
I don't see that happening anywhere in that thread.

You seem upset, and frankly, a little crazy.
Are you taking enough of your medication? It sounds like you might want to ask your doctor to up the dosage.

>>51548093

Then you have literally no reading comprehension. It's half the fucking posts.

>>51547121
>no, are you kidding? see these random people on the internet saying wrong things

Okay.
You still sort of failed to show anything other than that you're upset about people liking a game you dislike, so you've tried really hard to rationalize your hatred.

Sadly, it's like water off a duck's back, because your frustrations don't mean anything to people who actually understand the game.

>>51548122
If you can point to where anyone said flaws don't matter, I'd appreciate it.

But really, up your dosage. Or, better yet, take a break from the internet. It doesn't seem to do you any good.

>>51548122
I wonder how old he is.

Maybe he's a 12 year old trying to pretend to be retarded on purpose.

>>51547878
Are you the troll who keeps calling anyone who disagrees with you Richard Petty?

You never get tired of being a sad little prick, do you?

>>51548168
>>51548151
>two posts literally 1 minute apart

Okay, yeah, sure.

Enjoy your (You)s I guess.

>>51548093
>>51548168
>replying to a troll
This one has issues. Leave him alone. Seriously. No joke.

>>51548191
>I can't point anywhere in the thread I spent the other day trolling where anyone said "flaws don't matter
>I guess I should start calling people samefag

Get off the internet already.

>>51548397
Stop. Stop.

File: b2455253a682515ddbd7e523fec577f4dd841ea19f87dd86a0568b8485530adc.jpg (38KB, 601x446px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 601x446px

>>51548132
>make points against the game
>'those points are not valid. they're just meaningless rationalizations! literally stoplikingwhatIdontlike.jpg'
>demonstrate all points are valid
>'OK, those points are valid. AND they're just meaningless rationalizations! literally stoplikingwhatIdontlike.jpg'
Why are you arguing so emotionally? What do you have against honest discourse?

>>51548651
I'm sorry, but those points aren't valid at all. CLW wands are cost efficient, but don't last particularly long especially at higher levels, since 5 HP per charge means its spent in about four battles or so. Add that to how whether or not its even available in shops is up to the DM's discretion (and by the book's suggestion is supposed to be rare and hardly a pick-and-choose at a supermarket), and the point falls apart, even without considering the DM that would allow plenty of CLW wands would likely also up frequency and numbers of monsters.
Light source tracking is fiddly bookkeeping that most people don't care for, and permanent lights weren't really a new thing introduced in 3rd edition.
It's actually built around a variety of encounters a day, and in fact is supposed to include more frequent lower level encounters with equal encounters used sparingly.
And so on and so forth.
Look, I understand you don't like the game, but you're really not doing yourself any favors by having people pick apart posts that basically say "I want the only way people to play to be the wrong way so that I can complain about how they play."

File: 647a2332e0915d69c9fc334a09ff3e47e28eeaa1b7cec1f57fc2d0d2d3a0f314.jpg (41KB, 310x240px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 310x240px

>>51548873
Are you seriously asking me to explain why modern D&D is not designed with the same kind of core style of play in mind as the original games? And yet you actually expect me to believe you have any familiarity with the old games? You don't have to bother looking anywhere further than getting the majority of your XP from combat, not gold.

>>51548978
No, what it sounds like is that you don't understand the edition you dislike.

>You don't have to bother looking anywhere further than getting the majority of your XP from combat, not gold.

That really depends on how you want to play the game. A game centered around rogues (or simply roguish adventurers) may very well get most of their experience through avoiding combat, disarming traps, and even just hauling back ridiculous amounts of gold. This is explained rather clearly in the DM's Guide.
I think what you're having a hard time seeing is that the game is more versatile than you are willing to admit. There are a fair amount of dungeons from older editions that were converted over to later editions, without as dramatic of a change as you might expect.
You're right in the sense that they're different games, and there's a different level of emphasis on different things. Many of the updated adventures included a few more combat encounters because that's something more modern players had come to expect. However, to try and claim that its a dramatic departure is just trying to pretend that minor differences are far more important than they actually are.
As someone who's enjoyed going through many now-classic adventures and then the nostalgia of revisiting them in newer editions, I've found that while the "expected" style of play is different, there's absolutely nothing that keeps people from playing in a style that they prefer.

>>51549302
>No, what it sounds like is that you don't understand the edition you dislike.
At this point it's worth noting I'm only familiar with 3e and 4e, I've not had experience with 5e, and it's generally 3e that I'm discussing, since 4e clearly understands itself to be a departure from the original games.

>there's absolutely nothing that keeps people from playing in a style that they prefer.
Yes, if home-brewed appropriately. You can also homebrew OD&D to play like 3.PF, by changing the core mechanics, which were not retained between editions (unless you're talking about the transition from 2e to 3e)

>>51549875
>At this point it's worth noting I'm only familiar with 3e and 4e

I'm familiar with 1e AD&D onwards, with brief experiences with OD&D, only enough to get a taste. In general, I'd say the biggest differences are between OD&D and AD&D, and that if I had to mark a dramatic departure point, that would be it.
In fact, it's rather easy to say that's the moment D&D stopped being D&D, because that's the moment it became AD&D.

>Yes, if home-brewed appropriately.
Not really. Choosing from the options available isn't considered homebrewing, it's simply establishing preferences. While the mechanics have a floating idea of what the "default" style of play should be, you can find some early adventures that cater very well to "modern" sensibilities (and have recently regained interest through revisions and reprinting), as well as plenty of "retro" adventures in later editions. Though the community's tastes have generally changed over the decades, that's only ever speaking generally, and you'll always find outliers and people exploring different ideas, and the systems are versatile enough to enable them to do so.

File: 1484345593065.png (148KB, 996x1015px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 996x1015px

>>51550248
Imo, AD&D 2e is a bigger departure from 1e than 1e is to OD&D and squarely on the side of new school than old school. I agree with most of pic related

> Choosing from the options available isn't considered home brewing
What options are there besides gold for XP and 3d6 down the line, which requires heavily adjusting all monster scores to retain balance? There isn't an option available to minimize player-facing options in chargen to minimize the time it takes, builds are built into the game and make it impossible to have high lethality without slowing down play heavily. You have to fight the system to get it to play old school.

>>51548978
He's obviously an idiot who only plays 3.PF.

>>51539373
>Maybe 3.5 is good if you throw out 80% of the books.
Yup. The problem is that you get a better game by throwing out the core classes and using the far better balanced replacement classes instead.

>>51523494
>because being a half-orc by default means that you're retarded
>because having daily discussion of when 'recharges at dawn' 'per day' were way too fun to have
>because all orcs must be barb by default
>what is reliable talent and stroke of luck
>playing with WotC's setting by default
>same as above
>what is magic items/feats/archetype/playstyle

trully the king of cuckolds

>>51528113
although you are correct, the game (and any game) is played the way that your group wants to play it. i played numerous 5e campaigns (shorts and long) and had several social oriented, and several dungeon crawling-ish, and had a blast with both
The problem is not the system, but the way it is played(and yes, i agree the system is pretty shitty)

>>51550938
>the troll continues to try

>>51509814
I was forced to play world of warcraft for 10 years with my group of friends because no one wanted to try something else.

D&D is no differant

>>51550702
>There isn't an option available to minimize player-facing options in chargen to minimize the time it takes

There's quickgen rules right in the class sections. "If you want to generate a character quickly..." and then prepicked options. There's also a "roll your character randomly" thing in one of the UAs.

>What options are there besides gold for XP and 3d6 down the line, which requires heavily adjusting all monster scores to retain balance?
>builds are built into the game and make it impossible to have high lethality without slowing down play heavily.

Okay, these are at odds, unless I'm misunderstanding you. You want to keep balance but you also say that the game is too easy... balance only has meaning relative to the challenges the players face. So making the game more lethal would change the balance, you can't have both.

Also, you are making a false equivalence between builds and lethality, for some reason. You could remove death saving throws and half health to make the game more lethal, and leave builds intact, and the game would be more lethal. I don't advocate you do this, I only want to illustrate that there's no connection between builds and lethality, a game with a lot of builds can be as lethal as it wants... unless you mean that rerolling characters slows down the game heavily, hence you can't make it lethal, which I didn't consider so far because it is so stupid.

Even with builds you make an very low amount of choices. You pick a class and race, this basically tells you what your stats will be and where your ASIs go. Then at level 1-3 you make 1 choice, and that's basically it. You get a starting pack, maybe roll a random background or pick one, and you are good to go. Every class having unified save/to-hit/ mechanics also makes actually filling out the sheet fast, even for less experienced players.