When did you realize DnD was shit?

>>53488048
/tg/ made me realize people actually follow the dnd books closely, jesus don't do that you idiots.

>>53488108
>DnD is good if you ignore its rules

>>53488048
>tfw this asshole GMs a few other systems and abandons the hobby because games are all shit

>>53488048
>Playing the worst edition in history of DnD
>Surprised that it is shit.

Play Exalted next, or just apply a hammer to your nutsack.

>>53488048
That's just your fuck-up. 71hp (HIT points, not HEALTH points) means that guy has 71 points of fight in him from being at the top of his health and ability to defend himself to being unconcious/dead. Not that he has 71 points of meat that you need to cut off before he dies.

Classic rookier mistake, don't beat yourself up over it.

>>53488125
>4e actually functions as a game
>Everyone ignores the rules since they're used to 3.5
>The numbers actually matter so it doesn't work if you just make them up
>Everyone hates it.

>>53488125
As a DM way back when i knew i had to wing it more often than not. It was also the same for virtually every RPG i ran over the years.

If you can't improvise, ad lib, and go with the flow at the drop of a hat it's going to be a tough time as DM.

>>53488175
>lets make a brand about roleplaying into a wargame and see what happens
>PEOPLE ARE MAD, OH NO

>has a blade to his throat before initiatives are rolled
>he's not in combat
>not giving the rogue a coup de grâce

>>53488260
more like
>lets be honest about what the game is about
>I CAN'T SOLVE PROBLEMS AS A WIZARD IN 6 SECONDS REEEEEEE

>>53488242
a good dm can make a shit system livable
doesn't mean you should use a shit system

>>53488156
>Being impaled on a giant scorpion's sting and injected with a deadly weapon or being munched on by a purple worm just reduces your vigor will to fight, dude.

DnD would be greatly improved the day it stops being schizophrenic and admits that it is a superhero game where characters can easily take enough physical punishment to kill several normal men.

>>53488284
Characters start being superhuman around level 6 and are completely superhuman by level 20. This is recognized in the logic of the game. 99.99% of people never make it past level 5.

>>53488284
>Being impaled on a giant scorpion's sting and injected with a deadly weapon or being munched on by a purple worm just reduces your vigor will to fight, dude.

If you have enough HP to survive those attacks you obviously don't describe them like attacks that can't be survived.

Are you really this stupid?

>>53488284
I agree with your general point. D&D should really decide what kind of game it wants to be.

I am fine with abstraction though. And in that example, maybe that giant scorpion just smashed the adventurer's shield and threw him off-balance. And maybe the purple worm did get an adventurer's leg in between it's jaws, but the adventurer managed to pull most of it back out in the last possible moment. A little imagination fills these logical holes quite easily.

>>53488272
And OP has no hope of ever finding a good system with methods like rolling for intimidation when the player's are in complete control, making them fight it out with a restrained prisoner they are killing, and managing to lose a fight to a bunch of low level PCs when he can one-shot any of them as a Drow Elite Guard (deals 17 damage and makes 2 attacks, max barb HP is 15). There's such a series of bad choices there that no rules would fix.

>>53488268
>lets be honest about what the game is about

DnD was about solving problems as a wizard in 6 (or other small number of) seconds ever since Mordenkainen and Bibgy debuted as PCs at Gygax' own table.

4E's problem was exactly in the fact that its creators either were dishonest with themselves regarding what DnD is about (a hint: low-powered gritty adventures are better handled by approximately a million of other systems, such as Iron Throne, so most people playing DnD do so because they want to play high fantasy with crazy powers out of the ass), or were mislead by reading CharOp boards and failing to properly parse those.

>>53488242
>if you ignore its rules DnD is as good as the other games (if you also ignore their rules)
A good GM knows what to improvise and adapt rules to the taste of their players and their needs. But this doesn't make DnD a good game.

>>53488306
>describe

Grab and poison are distinct mechanical effects.

>>53488324
4e failed because it felt like playing with nerf swords - even more so than 5e. There is a reason it's fans talk about MM3 math.

>>53488335
Literally retarded mate. If the scorpion has 'grabbed' you with the stinger and it doesn't kill the player, you don't say it's impaled them, you say it's jammed it in their armour

>>53488242
Stop playing shit games m8

>>53488335
"Impaled on a stinger" and "munched", however, are not.

You could have easily said "the scorpion's stinger grazes you, a minor amount of poison entering you through the shallow wound" and "the purple worm tries to bite down on you, but your armor holds/you eke out some space with your weapon"

But no.

You decided you go with the one that upsets you the most. As if you were looking to be offended.

>>53488320
OP here, the person I let roll for intimidation was a half orc proficient in it with advantage, he rolled a 2 and a 3, the rogue got to do 4x damage, the party got a surprise round with all 6 of them plus the 8 combatant prisoners. Once a PC got downed the drow ignored them since he'd have to take a turn to finish them off.

>>53488335
You are being intentionally thick if you can't accept that a giant worm swallowing you whole and digesting you is a trope and you are protected by plot armor.

And as far as a sting poisoning you, it's less dramatic than "implaled" to say you get caught by the stinger and immediately feel the effects of the venom.

>>53488324
>so most people playing DnD do so because they want to play high fantasy with crazy powers out of the ass

So, 4e?

The edition where a thief can literally stole the color from your eyes?

>>53488048
I realized that DnD was shit a few months ago.

>tfw the lowliest peasant with average strenght breaks free of the buff barbarian's headlock because he rolled a little better
>tfw the druid can't track anything in the middle of the woods, with clear sky and perfect weather: all conditions are perfect for following tracks, but she rolled shit so can't find anything
>tfw a peasant with no skill can track better than the guy who is supposed to be specialized in it
>tfw a sailor who rows a boat has a 40% chance of getting beaten by a peasant who never was in a boat before in their life

Well... at least it can still be fun with the right guys.

>>53488359
Yeah, you are bad at DMing, and you should feel bad. Nothing to do with the rules, you made bad choices that detracted from the enioyment of the game.

Next time don't roll when your consequence is "I guess you fight now, but I'm letting you deal bonus damage and I'll take it easy on you."

>>53488398
>follow rules to the letter
>bruh follow the rules, stop making shit decisions

>>53488048
I opened a book, and there were charts for useless shit everywhere.

>>53488376
Well all of those are just cases of "you rolled when clearly you shouldn't have".

>>53488284
This.

>>53488406
You literally didn't follow the rules, you are just so bad at D&D that you have convinced yourself you have followed the rules. Go ahead, quote any source that you should be rolling for every single situation regardless of risk.

>>53488440
>implying there was no risk in the situation
>when there's a meatbag with 71 health that can oneshot people when he gets free

>>53488460
>when he gets free
Did he get free? If not, how did he resist getting his throat cut?

>>53488460
I'll just quote myself again because you are retarded:
>Next time don't roll when your consequence is "I guess you fight now, but I'm letting you deal bonus damage and I'll take it easy on you."

You chose to DM poorly, and then blame the game for your faults. A different, better system is not going to fix your inability to make an enjoyable campaign.

>>53488478
When the rogue tried to cut his throat she rolled somewhere around 10 damage, which wasn't nearly enough, so I described it drawing blood but not cutting the jugular, rolled acrobatics to get out of the grapple, told them to roll initiative

>>53488460
>they try to interrogate him while the rogue has a shortsword to his throat and botch the rolls, so he won't tell them anything
>they decide to kill him
>10 rounds later he's dead

They had a sword to his unprotected throat, and you still made them roll attacks and damage round-by-round?

Just put the books and the dice down, anon. You're clearly not cut out for this.

>>53488509
>but... but... I have the rogue 4x damage and he rolled 10 total!

>>53488507
Okay, so the rogue slipped with the knife because the guy struggled. He got free and they fought, with their opponent at a 10 hp disadvantage. I fail to see the problem.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 467x271px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 467x271px

>>53488048
Idk man, I run 4e and it works pretty much as intended.

>>53488519
What's even worse is that he fought to the death and didn't have the guard raise the alarm. Now that's a consequence for a series of poor dice rolls.

The book even sets the stage for the party to dive out of this fortress into spider webs below to escape, so this fight with the guard is just about the least interesting option of any possible outcome.

>>53488519
My problem is that the only real reason it was a """hard""" encounter was because he had inflated health and high damage, he couldn't run cause he was surrounded, the pcs all had shortswords and daggers so they're just sitting there plinking away at this dude.

>>53488543
He couldn't raise the alarm since noone else was close enough to hear him (or the fighting) since there's a loud ass waterfall and preoccupied with the vrocks or whatever the fuck it was

>>53488546
There is this strange action available in 5e called "Disengage." Try reading the actions available to creatures, the game is designed with rules to help you be less shit at running a game.

>>53488546
Well yeah, combat in 5e is an issue. People keep saying that 5e combat is actually really engaging but I just don't see it. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

I'm just saying the system is not inherently broken, as it can easily be used to represent any situation that may arise with sufficient accuracy.

>>53488569
>he's surrounded by 14 enemies
>DISENGAGE MAN

>>53488265
Yeah I'm with you, OP is a horrible DM that puts the blame on the system and not himself.
If this is how he is going to act on everything then he will be a shit GM in almost whatever system unless it's a rule light one such as Apocalypse World or fate.

>>53488581
Pretty sure it works by RAW.

Also, doesn't he have racial sphere of darkness? If they are all gangbanging him, he could have just cast it centered on himself and walk out.

>>53488557
>I didn't do anything wrong, uh... I just chose there to be a vrock invasion... and I... uh... made it impossible for the drow to hear anything in their tiny fortress because all of the... uh... waterfall noises!
Some people know the game and the module you are running. We all know how shit you are at running it. It's OK, you can just admit it and improve for next time.

>>53488581
>Surrounded by 14 enemies
>Yeah sure let's follow the rules to the letter and roll attacks for fifteen combatants until the one guy in the middle runs out of HP.

If the fight isn't engaging or fun, just skip to the obvious outcome. 13 guys pile on the enemy and pin him down while guy 14 stabs him in the brain.

>>53488592
He can't walk through occupied squares

>>53488590
He'd be waaay more terrible in those.

A bad GM with PbtAs is a fucking death sentence to fun.

I can imagine him going "but the rules say I HAVE to put someone on the spot! So an Ogre materializes out of thin air and punches you in the face for failing the knowledge roll!"

>>53488599
After the fight I told the group
"Yeah sorry for that, I'm going to stop running this and look for something else. Session cancelled. Hey buddy, next week you DM while I look for a different system."
paraphrasing but that's the gist of it

>>53488590
Nah, since he doesn't read rules he would be even worse at a game like Apocalypse World. OP would probably make Dread characters pull a block to tie their shoes. His only hope is to turn their RPG night into a board game night or get better at GMing.

>>53488156
>fight points
>meat points
So what's the difference? In both cases you just fit on until the points are gone and then you're dead (will soon be dead at least).

>>53488048
Are you really dumb enough to use HP as "you literally need to stab this person 17 times before they die" instead of an abstract value of survivability?

>>53488597
>one of the suggested chances of escape are the demons flying in
>one of the first entries is that there's a waterfall making constant noise
>OP you're making shit up

>>53488624
If you're this inflexible about running your games, another system isn't going to help you.

>>53488048
I mean, an enemy can be made challenging in other ways than having high HP. Dude can be hard to hit and/or have great offensive powers.

>>53488605
So you literally arranged a battlemap with 14 people in a square around the guy, and are defending this?

>>53488627
There are a few differences:

1) 0 hp means incapacitated. It does not have to mean dead, but it does mean unable to fight on.
2) If someone has been unable to fight from the get got (as in this example) the entire hp mechanic does not apply.
3) Fluff differences. For example half hp does not necessarily mean half dead, but more likely battered and bruised.

>>53488605
If he is tough enough that 14 people can't immediately put him down, why can't he push through these chucklefucks and just walk out of there?

>>53488654
I'm saying D&D is shit for encouraging shit like this, it was retarded and it ain't happening again

>>53488415
The rules say that grapple checks are opposed checks, you know

>>53488662
>what is the overrun action?
>what is bullrush?
>what is a set up that only holds water in 2 of 6 editions of D&D?
And thus we show the only retard is anon.

>>53488678
Yes and?

File: 1446152960335.png (5KB, 383x140px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 383x140px

>>53488048
We have this thread, and variations of it, every single day you maniacs.

How many times do people need to bitch about the same structured imagination game in their online echo chamber before they feel like they got their point across? At least pick something else to belly ache about for variety's sake

>>53488683
>make a dex user try to overrun/bullrush the strength users
okay

File: dLUEc2dh.jpg (21KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x270px

>>53488662
>The rules made me do it
I have lost all respect for you.

>>53488658
Hmm you have a point there with the middle thing. Incapacitated or bound or unable to fight and especially when vulnerable to a coup de grace = essentially 0 (or 1) hit point.

>>53488697
>In 2 of 6 editions of D&D
>he forgot you can use tumble/acrobatics to move thru people's squares
Again, anon, you are a retard, and your hypothetical situation is a fucking lie that only someone who has never played D&D would believe.
Also >>53488700

>>53488691
>you rolled when clearly you shouldn't have
Is not correct.

>>53488265
>I put my blade to his throat
>I get a coup de grace now, right?
How do you stop the Rogue from doing this in every combat encounter?

>>53488635
>It says use a demon attack as a distraction to allow the party to jump into the spider webs below, but yet your players pinned a random elite guard not dealing with the demons down isolated from the rest.
>the book literally says it provides enough white noise to prevent sound from echoing through the caves, but all checks to hear are done like normal
>and I said, "OP you suck at DMing" not that you made terrain features up. But thanks for confirming you only kinda read the manuals but pretend you know the rules and the module.

>>53488697
Why the bibbity bobbity FUCK are you perfectly able to recognize that the rules for overrun and bull rush won't be functional in this particular scene, but completely unable to recognize that the same applies to the entire fucking fight?

14 dudes had him surrounded and at their mercy.

>Lol let's make the rogue roll to see if he manages to kill him in one go
>He didn't, so now I guess 13 other guys just look on in slackjawed awe as the guy wriggles free
>Now it's a fight!

>>53488727
Grapple being an opposed check does not mean you have to roll for grapple every time you want to pick up a cup or a piece of firewood or a defenseless peasant.

>>53488729
Well let's see.
>I put my blade to his throat
Roll initiative and begin combat, then. He's not gonna stand there and let you do that.

This guy clearly did not begin combat when hostilities begun, therefore he was not putting up an adequate defense.

>>53488713
Didn't think tumble was a thing in 5e
The more you know
>>53488700
Figured that when you're playing an official adventure it becomes easy or as unintended when you don't follow rules, I guess I was wrong

>>53488729
It's not very practical unless the target is at your mercy. Solidly pinned, unconscious or otherwise not resisting.

>>53488753
The only thing you have proven is that you *don't* know the rules. Not even the "spirit" of the rules.

>>53488351
not him but i don't wanna have to do with this bending over backwards in order to shoehorn the gamist mechanics into a plausible combat narrative.

File: FuckTheRules.jpg (39KB, 331x201px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 331x201px

>>53488753
At least read the DMG.

>>53488592
>Pretty sure it works by RAW.
pretty sure it's retarded

>>53488660
and these, ladies and gentlemen, are the kind of debates that D&D inspires

>>53488822
Right. I know that, but since it was an official adventure I made the wrong assumption that the rules should be in play as much as possible.

>>53488822
That segment should really be on page one of every RPG book ever. It's so obvious but gets missed so often.

>>53488833
At least now you're admitting that your assumption was the issue here. Now pick the game back up, don't make the same mistake again and entertain your friends.

>>53488822
sure. but having a ruleset with mechanics that are plausible circumvents the regular resort to GM fiat

>>53488825
>there's no way to escape, he's surrounded!
>there's a rule for it in the book
>that's retarded!

>the party was forced to slowly deal damage to a meat sack for 17 rounds!
>didn't you say they had a sword to his throat? Why not coup de grace him and move on?
>the rules said I couldn't!

>>53488739
>Grapple being an opposed check does not mean you have to roll for grapple every time
This.
If Fezig the Giant wants to arm wrestle a little girl, you don't bother rolling.

>>53488849
There could not be a less true statement about a TTRPG. There are no miraculous rules out there that solve DM fiat, in fact the rules you would suggest probably encourage it more than D&D.

>>53488849
This. That's why I'm going to try other systems. They might all be shit, but I'm damn sure gonna pick the shit that stinks the least.

>>53488376
>tfw the lowliest peasant with average strenght breaks free of the buff barbarian's headlock because he rolled a little better
His muscles dare I say it. Were too big restricting his movement allowing the pencil thin peasant the slip out.
>tfw the druid can't track anything in the middle of the woods, with clear sky and perfect weather: all conditions are perfect for following tracks, but she rolled shit so can't find anything
At that point surely the take X mechanic would prevent the need for a roll
>tfw a peasant with no skill can track better than the guy who is supposed to be specialized in it
Something that happens in any system that uses any form of random resolution mechanics
>tfw a sailor who rows a boat has a 40% chance of getting beaten by a peasant who never was in a boat before in their life
Going to need some citation there, but at that point why not bring up the wizard x house cat fight after all this is d&d you should have realized it was shit a few editions ago

>>53488831
It's not a debate, OP literally is saying the rules for disengaging should be ignored but the rules for a fight should be followed to the letter. That's why this thread is 90% shitting on the OP, they are retarded.

>>53488897
He couldn't disengage cause he was surrounded, and I didn't know tumble existed before this thread

>>53488881
See >>53488148

>>53488849
There's no such thing as a workable ruleset that will efficiently and plausibly handle any situation you can find yourself in.

So the DM eyeballs things and makes executive decisions to keep the game and the story flowing.

If you're looking for an RPG that won't require a DM to ever do anything besides applying the rules as written, you need to stop right now.

Pick up a board game instead.

>>53488916
>>53488881
>gonna pick the shit that stinks the least

>>53488739
Clearly, you and the GM have different ways of doing this then.
>>53488893
>At that point surely the take X mechanic would prevent the need for a roll
No take 10 in 5E
>Something that happens in any system that uses any form of random resolution mechanics
Point
>Going to need some citation there, but at that point why not bring up the wizard x house cat fight after all this is d&d you should have realized it was shit a few editions ago
I didn't play D&D or tabletops before 5e. Only got in recently

>>53488935
>Clearly, you and the GM have different ways of doing this then.
Clearly. And while I won't claim that my way is right all the time, if he is having trouble with his, he could give mine a shot.

>>53488935
>No take 10 in 5E

It's hidden as the "passive" rule.

You have a "passive" score of your skill +10. It can be used for shit like this.

>>53488949
Passive skills are also meant for times when things may not be obvious to a player, but would be to a character. Passive Survival may well have you pick up tracks that you come across without having to ask, but trying to hunt someone covering their tracks, in combat, or extremely rapidly is definitely a rolled check.

File: EyebrowRaisingDanger.jpg (20KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x370px

Pretty sure that if you have a knife at someone's throat in 5e, the attack plays like if they were asleep: The attack is at advantage and is automatically a critical hit.
But if it were a regular mook, I would just rule it as automatically killing him.

>>53488935
>No take 10 in 5E
There's an "automatic success" variant rule in the DMG, if you think your 20 STR barbarian not managing to crush a skull with his bare hands due to a shoddy roll is unsatisfying.

>>53488945
I would like that
>>53488949
As >>53488974 said: if it's tracking someone or something, you have to roll.

>>53488978
The rogue rolled something like 4d6+3 and ended up with somewhere in the low tens, then that gave him a chance to get out

>>53488992
Were they covering their tracks?

>tfw the druid can't track anything in the middle of the woods, with clear sky and perfect weather: all conditions are perfect for following tracks, but she rolled shit so can't find anything

Sounds like they weren't, since that's not "perfect conditions".

If they were, you could give the druid advantage, and disadvantage for the check of the ones they are following, which'd make them very unlikely to beat the druid (assuming the druid doesn1t have negative WIS and didn't somehow untrain nature).

>>53488729
Maybe have your enemies not want to have a knife at their throat and try to stop him?

>>53488376
>tfw the lowliest peasant with average strenght breaks free of the buff barbarian's headlock because he rolled a little better
Barbarian was complacent? Headlocks are piss easy to get out of anyways. It's not surprising a lowly peasant pulls his scrawny neck out from a muscle-barbarian's arms. I'm guessing the followup was the peasant layed out?

>tfw the druid can't track anything in the middle of the woods, with clear sky and perfect weather: all conditions are perfect for following tracks, but she rolled shit so can't find anything
The Druid spends a few hours tracking the wrong animal? The tracks lead to a river or end up obscured by something that prevents the end result of "find animal by tracking it" a failure.

>tfw a peasant with no skill can track better than the guy who is supposed to be specialized in it
The peasant spots a broken branch, drop of blood, steps in animal poop or accidentally leans up against a tree with claw marks. The "fool/idiot accidentally discovers the answer" is a well-used trope.

>>tfw a sailor who rows a boat has a 40% chance of getting beaten by a peasant who never was in a boat before in their life
You've never punched above your weight? Sounds like an opportunity to develop that peasant into a more interesting NPC.
I once knew a heavy-set kid in college. A real doughboy. The kicker is he was raised on a pig farm and tosses 200lbs hogs like nothing. You'd never know it, to look at him.

>>53489008
Probably should have doubled the damage for the crit, but still, he was apparently a tough bird.

DnD (any edition) is only as good/bad as your DM is
example:
>in my group we rotate who DMs with each adventure
>we play 4e
>previous DM - everyone had mad fun and the campaign we played for three years was a blast
>this guy /understands/ 4e
>next guy DMs
>deeply entrenched in muh 3/3.5 mindset
>convinced he is the best DM there ever was
>doesn't look up encounter groups
>doesn't look up damage levels
>disregards game balance
>makes DM PC for us to fight at our level with complete player character creation because muh book monsters have barely any skills
>outright refuses to use grid and figures instead resorts to scribbles because it worked for him in muh 3.5
>then gets mad nobody knows what the fuck is going on on the battlefield and we can't coordinate
>drags out most boring encounters with minion level enemies for 4 hours (this is mainly because he refuses to award us any level appropriate gear because he thinks 4e is too easy for players)
>nobody has fun
>we address this with him as a group
>hurr this edition is shit and ya'll shit players

>>53489252
a good gm can make a shit system livable
doesnt mean you should play shit systems

4e is a good combat game but a shit roleplaying game

>>53489282
Which is still a step up from being a shit everything game.

Like the rest of D&D.

>>53488175

Started out as a 4e hater, but came to like it.

Works exceedingly well for combat focused games, particularly on virtual tabletops.

>>53489282
>4e is a good combat game but a shit roleplaying game
I don't agree, I had a blast doing both when the DM could handle that
I don't understand how developed combat rules would in any way affect your ability to RP

>>53489297
5e is passable
3.pf is waifu wars and powergaming and nothing else at this point
2e is at least better than 5e but still meh
haven't played any other editions

>>53489315
>shit roleplaying game
outside of combat you have to not use combat abilities or else it gets stupid, and once you agree not to then it just becomes freeform at that point.

>>53488876
i didn't talk about solving GM fiat but about reducing the need for it, making it less frequent.

>>53488918
again, that is a strawman. the goal isn't to eliminate it but reduce it beyond D&D levels. and that seems to be a highly achievable design goal.

>>53489327
OD&D is pure, but OSRs do everything better.

5e actually wouldn't be bad, but it's just a downgrade from 4e in everything but appeal and streamlining (I do enjoy the streamlining, credit where credit's due).

>>53489346
That design goal is achieved in board games. Now fuck off.

>>53489342
>outside of combat you have to not use combat abilities
I think my perspective might be warped because I've been playing 4e for as long as it's been out and I came to appreciate it greatly but I can't see anything wrong with that.
You know you have non-combat abilities and there exist non-combat encounters.

>>53489408
I actually don't see why you couldn't. A bunch of combat abilities for the wizard (like walls and bigby stuff) even notes that they may be used as impromptu bridges, aids to scaling walls, etc.

>>53488918
>If you're looking for an RPG that won't require a DM
you know 4e has rules on how to play it as a skirmish game without a DM
I'm pretty sure this could work for someone who just want to role play with his friends as a bunch of mercenaries on a rampage

>>53489422
that too is a thing
What would stop any player from using, say, dragon breath (an encounter power) as a dragonborn to burn/corrode bars in a prison or rope he'd been bound with?

>>53489402
>the design goal for one school of RPGing is X
>just play boardgames, trollololol

>>53489346
I challenged you to give examples, and you failed the lowest bar of defending your point.

>>53488048
Good on you OP for getting out of D&D, it definitely is shit.
Explore what kind of system you like, there's quite a lot to chose from. Runequest 6, Risus and Savage Worlds all give different angles on how the game plays out.


However, since this is also clearly a bait thread, at least remember to not use this scenario again, because the coup de grace rules do exist. Try it with caster supremacy (don't forget that druids are actually worse than wizards in many aspects), boring static combat, martials having to play mother-may-I with the GM to do cool stuff among other things

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>53488048
Have you, maybe, realized you are just a shit GM?
Use an encounter calculator. Example deadly encounter (something you should use for a final boss) for that party would be, for example, an ancient brass dragon with about 400 HP and a shitton of lair actions.

>>53488048
>When did OP realize he's a terrible GM

>>53488614
>Ogre materializes out of thin air and punches you in the face for failing the knowledge roll
Example of a good rule, yes.

Saying the entirety of DnD is shit is like saying all cars are forever a wreck because your particular brand is.

Can we please stop biting?
OP is an idiot, but we are all pretty dumb for encouraging him by not just ignoring him.

From this point on, let's just act with the understanding that OP will say anything for attention, and the best move is to just ignore him. There will be some stupid arguments, falseflag bumps, and other forms of unscrupulous conduct, but please, see through it and just ignore it.

>>53488398
>>53488440
Holy shit will you shut up I'm here watching you just aggro this dude that hasn't done anything to you and you don't know jackshit about his problem but you're here judging it's literally annoying me to watch

Why don't you go run a 4e if you're so fucking perfect?

>>53490546
>>53490237
>>53490176
It's funny because I have never, absolutely never, seen anyone so fucking obsessed with aggressing and libeling some stranger on the internet when he just came to describe a problem he had. Fuck get a life.

>>53490668
The way he "described a problem" was by coming in to let us all know that the fault was in the system, which is objectively shit and anyone that likes it is deluded or something.

Obviously he's going to get some shit thrown at him for it.

>>53489884
examples for what? all i claimed here was that a ruleset with plausible rules requires less GM fiat

>>53490176
>every encounter we have on the road is miraculously balanced around our capabilities
wow, how immersive. shitty gamistfag detected

>>53490530
it's more akin to saying that one automaker only produces crap. but then again, i don't think that's fair. i think that D&D is great for its gamism niche but that it's not for me because it's not very good outside of it.

>>53488376

Not intending to be a jerk here, but there is a serious lack of real world experience going on here - which likely feeds in to your inability to narrate what is going on.

>>tfw the lowliest peasant with average strenght breaks free of the buff barbarian's headlock because he rolled a little better

Ever wrestle around with a little kid? Nine times out of ten it is you just over powering them, but now and then they manage to get away. Maybe you made a mistake, maybe they just surprised you, maybe they just did the right thing. But now and then it happens.

>>tfw the druid can't track anything in the middle of the woods, with clear sky and perfect weather: all conditions are perfect for following tracks, but she rolled shit so can't find anything
>>tfw a peasant with no skill can track better than the guy who is supposed to be specialized in it

The only reason the Druid will always track successfully is if the prints are so obvious no roll is needed. In reality even the best trackers miss evidence and the noob on occasion goes 'hey, what is this'.

>>tfw a sailor who rows a boat has a 40% chance of getting beaten by a peasant who never was in a boat before in their life

Not aware of that, and I really doubt it. Unless there is something weird going on with stats.

As others have pointed out, most of your complaints here will apply to any system that uses random numbers as a modifier for determining success. The trick to being a good DM is knowing how to narrate the outcome instead of saying 'yeah, the numbers just said that I dunno why'.

Rule: If you can't articulate a way to describe why the character failed, then you should not have demanded a roll to determine success.

>>53490668
>It's funny because I have never, absolutely never, seen anyone so fucking obsessed with aggressing and libeling some stranger on the internet when he just came to describe a problem he had.

You must be new here.

>>53488260
You don't know the origins of roleplaying games, do you?

Do you know what Chainmail is?

>>53488150
He said 5e, not 3.5

>>53488265
Coup de grace doesn't automatically kill in 3.5

It just deals an auto crit with a chance of instant death, (Con save allows them to live).

An auto crit could easily deal only 2 damage, leaving the boss still at 97% hp.

>>53488125
Awww, you're a babby role player ain't cha? Let me guess; 3e got you started?

>>53492489
So why not just say "it kills him"?
I mean come on; I've literally never ran into a game that I didn't have to houserule liberally, and back when I started getting into roleplaying this was an understood fact among every other GM I knew.

It's only when 3.X rolled around and "system mastery" became important that this "the core rules and only the core rules" mindset became a thing.

>>53492582
If you use rule 0 in favor of the PCs, you can wind up steamrolling through encounters that were meant to be challenging.

If you rule 0 in opposition to the players, the players get mad.

>>53492582
>>53492667
To be clear, if the players explicitly have a blade at someone's throat, and their victim doesn't have some sort of unnatural throat protection, then I'd absolutely say they can kill them at will.

If your big bad has a blade at their throat, and no contingency plans, then they've already lost.

>>53488800
>bending over backwards
>saying that it scratched a character or bounced off their armor is bending over backwards
Jesus christ. Not every fucking wound is lethal.

>>53492667
What I love is how you can tell newer roleplayers by their absolute adherence to extremes and only extremes.
No, it doesn't have to work that way.
Because I did both things last Thursday in the same encounter and in neither case did either of those things happen, anon.

It sounds like you have a really bad GM.
Or maybe you ARE a bad GM, which is actually better news for you because if you're shit and made aware of it you can take steps to make yourself less shitty while dealing with a bad GM outside of yourself is just relying on luck.

>>53492742
New GMs are bad. They don't know what they're doing and trust the system to help them run a game. Having them run a shitty system where using the rules results in less fun (i.e. D&D 5e), then telling them to ignore the rules and just make shit up makes me wonder why you would recommend the system at all.

>>53491575
>hurrr durrr rules are stupid because
>no, you are using rules wrong
>hurr durrr you are stupid for playing according to the rules

>>53492742
>it doesn't have to work that way
no, but it often does

Perhaps I should have said "if you use rule 0 TOO OFTEN". It was implied, but...

>>53488376
You know, a lot of this nonsense could be avoided if we stopped using stat modifiers and instead added the stat number itself to the d20 rolls. Having Str 20 vs Str 10 situation would change from a difference of 5 to the roll to a difference of 10, much favoring the stronger person.

>>53492844
I didn't recommend the system.
If anything I'd tell them to do 2e with a few of the optional books because it has both hard rules for certain things and then forces them to learn to make shit up on the fly for the rest of it.
>>53492902
It is implied nowhere in your text, which is a absolute statement with no ambiguity to it whatsoever.
That said, subtly implying by using text alone is trickier then when you have a voice to add proper inflection, so I'm also inclined to believe you did mean to just imply it and the error was textual in nature.

>>53492719
let's drink a healing potion to that. skal!

>>53491575
>it's more akin to saying that one automaker only produces crap

Even then it doesn't apply because D&D has been produced by an entirely different company for half its life.

Swear to god the mongs who make these threads have either never actually played D&D or are so stupid they're playing it horribly wrong and blaming the system for it.

>>53492849
i didn't make a single comment on particular rules in this thread. apparently deendeefags can't hold the thought that more than one person could be critical of the game in their brain.

>>53488125
The rules are functional in combat. But using hit points in a "knife to the throat" situattion, or action economy and grapple rules when trying to silently strangle and drag someone etc. is just retarded.

>>53488125
Literally every edition ever states that you can do what the fuck you want with the rules in the book you're reading. Every rule in the game is a guideline for you to choose to follow, a framework, so to speak. 5e is arguably the most like this, with AD&D being a close second. It literally states you can use whatever rules you want out of the books.

>>53493288
This thread in particular proves it

>>53491575
And yet you have yet to prove your point, because you are just a contrarian looking to get more (you)s

>>53488376
Ahh yes, the classic "If it shouldn't happen in real life it shouldn't be possible in the game" argument

Do you also get upset when you stab someone with a sword and they don't die immediately because in real life even the smallest of injuries could be potentially devastating in a fight?

>>53490668
Are you enjoying your first day on 4chan?

>>53490668
>libel
>on an anonymous message board
You don't know what words mean, do you anon

>>53492937
That's what AD&D did.

>>53488048
>they try to interrogate him while the rogue has a shortsword to his throat and botch the rolls, so he won't tell them anything
This is on you. Nowhere in the rules does it say a failed roll equals a roadblock.

The mark of a good DM is knowing how to fail forward.

>>53492937
Better yet, only roll dice if there's a reasonable chance of success or failure. Why would you roll dice to see who is stronger? You wouldn't make a height check to see who's taller.

>>53494518
"Fail forward" is the worst kind of cancer in the hobby right now and we're all a little more dead with it being brought in.

>>53494567
There is a reasonable chance of success or failure, dude. -1 vs. +4 only favors the +4 73.25% of the time. The other 26.25% of the time, the -1 wins. Unless you're saying you shouldn't roll if you expect to pass 75% of the time, because that will have serious reprecussions on combat.

File: make b8 gr8 again.jpg (158KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1000x1000px

That enemy is many levels higher than your PC, you retarded nigger.

>>53488150
>Playing the worst edition in history of DnD

He said 5e, not Pathfinder.

>>53488156
>"I swing my axe at the warrior... AC 19, 11 damage if hit."
>DM looks at statblock, writes down the damage
>"Uh... you see how he staggers under your mighty blow as he deflects it with his shield."
>"Guess I didn't hit him. I don't feel like I can beat this guy, let's run."

>>53494612
I think he is saying 'from a realistic stand point'. Not from a pure game mechanics stand point.

A guy with 10 strength has a decent chance of scoring higher than a guy with 18 strength from a pure game mechanics stand point. But those two people side by side 'if it were real' there would be no chance of that.

If I understood him correctly.

>>53495121
Well, that makes even less sense. It's D&D, not GURPS. It's supposed to support heroic randumb antics like goblins suplexing barbarians and such. If it wasn't supposed to, the mechanics wouldn't support it. If you want something realistic, play another game.

>>53488156
>OK, I slit his throat with my knife
>GM is a kind fellow, says the hostage can't defend and makes the attack an automatic crit
>2D4+3 damage
>After slitting his throat, the hostage has 40 health left

>>53495182
No. That's a consequence of flattening the effective ability bonus. The difference between a 10 and an 18 in any pre-3E game is effectively +8.

>>53495199
>what is coup de grace

>>53495250
You mean in OD&D, and only for skills, which were roll under.

For combat, it was even flatter, since +3 was the max, and you only had 1 in 216 chance for that.

>>53490613
Eh, I'm with the asshole. Fuck off and stop butting in, ya tosser.

>>53495351
Something people always ignore in these conversations so they can be right.

>>53495250
Even if it was -1 vs. +8, that's still 13.75% of the time that the -1 is winning, and if we make it a straight +0 vs. +8, that's over 15% (16.5%) of the time the +0 is winning.

Face it, the mechanics support a goblin suplexing a barbarian at least some of the time, and not one in twenty; over one in ten times. It's a consequence of the die, not the effective ability bonus. You would need +10 to give the -1 goblin slightly less than a 10% chance of winning the contest because of how swingy the d20 is. If it was 3d6, rather than 1d20, that -1 goes from winning 26.25% of the time against a +4 to a mere 9.65% of the time, which sounds a lot more palatable to me.

>>53495762
3d6 has its own peculiarities and drawbacks that I dislike more than needing a larger number of bonuses for a d20 for things to be at the level of difference I like them at 5e would be a lot better played with d10 imo.

Do note that the 13.75 chance is for the goblin to trip or keep the barbarian in place; both can be adequately explained in fiction without making the barb look like an jobber with just the goblin being lucky or very tenacious. To both hold in place AND trip you are looking at 13.75^2 (and two turns with the barb -who btw gets advantage to this shit while raging- not just squatting him like a fly), which is a low enough chance to be acceptable imo.

>>53488048
I realized it was a shit system when I played my first monk (4th character ever) even though he had two 18s and two 16s.

Eventually I realized that it could be fun too if the group made some adjustments.

>>53488048
>71 HPs
>Killed by 1st level chars in 10 turns
>1st level chars survive 10 turns of combat
Man, you fucking rolled like shit I assume

>>53488048
>level 1 pcs surviving 10 turns of combat against a monster with 71 HPs

>>53488048
>what is Coup de Grace rules
>When you attack a helpless opponent as a full-round action, it's an autocrit. Also, the opponent must make a Fortitude save of (10+damage dealt) or die.

You're just a shit DM and a terrible person to be around.

File: 1280084104597.png (84KB, 341x226px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 341x226px

>>53488048

I watched several edition wars go past. 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 to 4e & Pathfinder to Essentials to 5e and so forth. Watching people make the same arguments over and over made me want to just not bother with any of it.

I like all the editions for different things, but it's a vanishingly small amount of people that are like me. Rest just want to fling shit at each other over inane shit that ultimately doesn't matter.

>>53488048

When will you realize "When did you realize [THING] is shit" posts are shit?

Shithead.

File: okaywiththis.png (18KB, 379x214px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 379x214px

>>53496345
>I like all the editions for different things, but it's a vanishingly small amount of people that are like me.

I'm with you.

I mean I like one edition overwhelmingly more than the rest, but I can still have fun with them all.

File: X3GRJKL9rbTUsd8Ew3yp1MSds0OOZJLlrW5vYxtPquvtFaE85S-Klkbt4Yez933LwwHb7FOeARjBKLVJU_Wb_0XUPCOIgOWW6Ob-1jyeJ1VJyCM5E8uuQdzuyzrkptH5xSKNB5Jrkb-pug=w443-h332-nc.jpg (38KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 443x332px

When did you realize that DnD haters constantly bitch about it but DnD fans never bitch about other systems?

I guess not having DnD in your life just makes you a bitter lonely person.

>>53496345
I just want people to stop begging me to play 5E despite explaining at length why I don't want to play it ever again - and then the alternative they want to bribe me to join with is fucking core 3.PF.

Seriously. Fucking. Stop.

>>53496451
Untrue. DnD fans constantly bitch about all other editions besides their favorite.

>>53496345
>I like all the editions for different things, but it's a vanishingly small amount of people that are like me
Online

Most people in the hobby don't know or care and play what the GM runs.

>>53496492
>>53496451
It's hard to tell who's bitching. It's not like they have "D&D fan!" tattooed on their forehead.

Or in their signature or whatever.

>>53496513

The local playerbase here is actually pretty damn heavily split by edition war bullshit. I basically got kicked from one group for daring to like a new edition and suggesting we try it. Twice. (4e and 5e)

I could have looked for really casual people who just want to throw dice. But as it turns out, those people will also play other non-D&D systems perfectly fine.

>>53496492
Meh, there's really on the 3.5 and 4e fans that do that. 5e has been pretty good, and TSR editions have fans that think anything made past 1995 is plebeian.

>>53488175
>Everyone ignores the rules since they're used to 3.5

Except the 4e rules were also shit. And loads of people played 3.5 as RAW, they ignored certain rules but acting like they ignored the vast majority is retarded. I'm sorry but 3.5 isn't even that complicated, jesus christ.

>>53496591
That's fucked up. I've not run into that situation before, but I like liv

>>53496614
I like living in cities.

>>53496606
>Except the 4e rules were also shit.

There are levels of shit.

Sometimes 4e was kiiinda shitty, but by the end of its cycle it was pretty solid.

>>53496606
Name one game more complicated than 3.5.

>>53496705
Shadowrun.

>>53488605
So? Roll athletics/acrobatics against a difficult check for him to slide under their legs or somersault over.
Forget the DM's guide, did any of you even read the PHB?

>>53496748
Shadowrun players are the first people to say that Shadowrun is a terrible system.

t. Shadowrun player

>>53497238
>>53488605

Fuck I have more ideas, how about Strength/shove check to just push somebody out of the way? How about doing literally anything but attacking while getting stabbed by several people?

You people aren't having zero fun with DnD because it's a bad game (though it arguably is), it's because you're fucking uninventive and autistic about the rules.

>>53488742
>>53488758
>>53489050
Nowhere in the OP or the post I quoted is it stated that thier enemy was helpless. If they are, then yeah no shit.

If he wasnt helpless but just standing there with the sword across his throat, it becomes a problem to allow a coup de grace at that point but not whenever it another encounter of party vs. one guy.

>>53496451
>DnD fans never bitch about other systems?
There are no other systems.

>>53488150
He said 5e, not Pathfinder.

>>53488048
About the time that I realized every game was shit and then stopped worrying about it. Now i can have fun with any system I play.

File: wat3.jpg (52KB, 454x304px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 454x304px

>>53488324
>low-powered gritty adventures are better handled by approximately a million of other systems
>4e

Nigga what? 4e is the antithesis of 'low-powered and gritty' Your starting character always has enough HP to not be concerned about being one-shot at all, even as a low health class like a wizard. Epic levels are baked right into the core game. It ain't gritty at all and it's only low-powered when compared with charop caster shenanigans from 3.5.

>>53488048
>It took until 5e to realize D&D is shit
Unfortunate.

I knew D&D was shit when they started writing those weird-ass character option books for AD&D

>>53500182
>I knew D&D was shit when they started writing those weird-ass character option books for AD&D
In hindsight, was that the point where it became shit, or just the point where you realized it?

>>53488150
Regardless of the fact that 5e isn't worse than Pathfinder, he's not really wrong. Arguing place in a pile of shit is a waste of your time and dignity.

>>53500209
>In hindsight, was that the point where it became shit, or just the point where you realized it?
Given that those started appearing in 1994, and glancing at the list of available alternatives in 1994...

I'd say that's the point it became shit. Perhaps in answer to all of the other shit being put out at that time.

i.e. OWoD, Earthdawn, Rifts, and if you stretch a bit, Hero System, Shadowrun, Sword World...

It was a dark time.

>>53500925
>Shadowrun 2E
>shit
opinion discarded

>>53488048
> what is gm fiat

>>53495199
Then that's up to the GM. Personally, if someone managed to get into that situation, I'd just label it an insta-kill, unless there's a specific in-universe reason why he'd survive, not just a mechanical reason.

>>53488376
> not just fudging rolls, or allowing players to reroll something when it's something simple like tracking with perfect conditions
You're the GM. You should be able to come up with a reason as to why they should be allowed to reroll.

>>53488581
Disengage allows the character to avoid every single Attack of Opportunity in a given turn, not just a single one. It doesn't matter if there's two, twelve or twenty-two enemies - Disengaging nullifies all Attacks of Opportunity.

>>53492844
> tfw running first game
> tfw 5e
> tfw all my players are fucking loving it
> tfw we've been playing for over a year
Guess I'm just lucky

>>53488048
3.5 was bad.
5e is good.
You are a bad DM.

>>53488048
>71 HP

So, the elite drow warrior, then. How in the fuck did you manage ten rounds of that without one side or the other being wiped out? The elite deals 17 damage on a hit, can reliably hit all but the most heavily armored characters, and has a fucking multiattack. He is going to chew through 1-2 party members per round on average.

>>53488313
If the scorpion just smashed the adventurer's shield and threw him off-balance, why is a dwarf's poison resistance reducing the damage at all?

>>53488515
Bear in mind also that Rogues get sneak attack damage against any opponent they get to roll advantage against. If you don't get advantage against an opponent whose neck you are literally pressing your sword against, your GM is shit. So this Rogue is rolling 8d6 damage and got a 10. Anydice says there is a 100% chance that OP is full of shit.

>>53501397
SR3 is objectively the best version of Shadowrun ever published.

Why open your mouth and confirm you're an idiot, anon, when we could have been left to speculate?

>>53502309
Because the dwarf is also a stout motherfucker and therefore endured the impact better.

>>53503068
So why doesn't he get the same damage resistance against attacks that just do regular bludgeoning damage?

>>53496748
I'm kind of surprised it wasn't GURPS. Either way, there are maybe four games as complicated as 3.5 that anyone knows. GURPS done poorly, Shadowrun (depending on edition), 3.5 D&D, and... there has to be another popular and complicated game... I mean, besides Pathfinder.

>>53488376
>Druid rolled like shit under perfect conditions

What is take 10? Unless the sky is falling or there are real/interesting repercussions for failure, why the fuck are you rolling? Also, just because something has a strength value doesn't mean they know how to use it. A peasant has no idea how to get out of a headlock. You think you hit the bench for a few months you can suddenly just 50/50 beat out a joint lock from an MMA fighter?

>>53503516
because your parents don't love you

>>53490668
Yeah, well welcome to new /tg/ where asking a question leads to either someone giving you the cold shoulder or jumping at your throat if you did something he perceives as wrong.

Do yourself a favour and if you are actually looking for some advice about some problem, go to an actual roleplaying forum. /tg/ is for memes and arguments now.

>>53488048
I'll be the first to say that OP is 100% right (even though he sucks ass the DM) and that using Rule Zero is instant admission that the game is dog shit

>>53508507
Using rule 0 isn't instant admission that a game is dog shit. There's not a system in the world that never forces a GM to use their own judgement for things outside of the rules, or change rules to fit their specific game. It's when you have to change or ignore a bunch of rules to get it to do what you want that it's bad, and if those rules are being ignored or changed so they can run the game's premise (i.e. homebrewing D&D 5e to actually run dungeon crawls)? That's when it's dogshit. When it fails to support its own fucking premise.

>>53506551
Not necessarily. /tg/ discussions always arrive at truth. Not necessarily The Truth, but A Truth. We argue because we know arguments lead somewhere, and we meme because we need the levity because we argue so much. We could try not being asshats, but that only works if everyone agrees. Instead, we've decided to make the natural course of our actions more efficient by arguing harder.

Eventually, some bright minds will reach an epiphany over the course of the discussion, and post a single, brilliant truth which we can take something from... This will then be disparaged and savaged like so much trash and we'll keep arguing until the next one occurs, and so on. Eventually it'll all wind down and we'll have a thread with so much wheat and so much chaff that we can sort from.

>>53508673
Can you shut up already? You're a moron.

>>53508683
No. I enjoy the conversation too much. And thank you for noticing my stupidity, I worked very hard on it.

File: 1353869834059.jpg (183KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 600x375px

The same day I realised that all medieval fantasy TTRPGs are shit.

>>53508673
Arguments like the kind /tg/ has don't lead anywhere. It's a shouting match and neither side concedes. The best you can hope for is the other side to stop replying. Rarely, very rarely, will civil arguments be held that lead to genuine learning or improvement. Sometimes people get help, but oftentimes that help is hijacked to bitch and whine and foam at the mouth about the help being provided, or the way it was provided, or something else. Sometimes bad advice is rightly called out, but most of the time the argument spirals out of control and whoever was asking for help is left to pick out rubble in the wake of that argument. /tg/ fucking sucks. The only thing it's good for is an initial idea or spark before you fuck off and have fun elsewhere, far far away from this board.

>>53508734
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. What is /tg/ good for? Whatever good you can take away from it. Most of it's argumentative filler, but on occasion there are a few pearls of inspiration or discussion that you can use elsewhere.

>>53508759
>/tg/ discussions always arrive at truth [...] we argue because we know arguments lead somewhere.
But they don't. That's the point I was making. The few kernels of good you can glean from /tg/ aren't worth the price of admission. You can find it elsewhere, easier, without all of the bullshit.

>>53508759
Basically this.

Arguing in /tg/ usually doesn't lead to anywhere, since most of the times it's either just fanatics shouting at each other, or trolls trolling trolls. Even partaking in that can be a sort of fun, if dumb, mental exercise.

But sometimes I learn something from it. Sometimes I make somebody else learn something from it. Sometimes the thread gets derailed and both of the above happens. It's why I keep coming here.

>>53488918
>keep the story flowing

You blew it. The story is the culmination of the results that happen when characters take action in a simulated world.

Otherwise, just sit around telling a story and flip a coin every now and then to give the illusion of logic.

>>53508584
>>53508584
>>>53508507 (You)
>There's not a system in the world that never forces a GM to use their own judgement for things outside of the rules, or change rules to fit their specific game.

DnD is dog shit though. And every tard uses File Zero to justify terrible design because you can officially ignore any part. Ultimate cancer.

>>53509039
I agree that D&D is bad. I also agree that using rule 0 to deflect criticism is bad. But using rule 0 once doesn't make a system dogshit. Having to use it all the time does. The system should function every session without the crutch of rule 0 holding it up.

>>53509078
I originally meant that using Rule Zero as an argument in defense of a games flawed design is bad. Using it in an actual game where the situation rules are ambiguous is fine.

>>53509039
5e is good though. The best edition actually... It's the most bland edition ever. All of its problems can be traced back to "It's so middle of the road it doesn't even do what it's trying to do all that well."

Which is what makes it so great. 5e is incredibly popular, and has an extreme bent towards Role over Roll-playing. However, Every player, sooner or later, reaches a point where they get bored of 5e, and wants something more.

Some want something more granular, others want to be able to run/play in a different genre. 5e can't do that, no matter how hard you try... so people try other systems.

5e's greatest strength is that you can get bored of it, and that it doesn't completely ruin you as a roleplayer like 3.PF, or make you a stalwart defender of how great it is, like 4E or AD&D. It helps players get the D&D bug out of their system, and preps them for trying new systems altogether.

It's the best edition because it makes you want to try something other than D&D.

>>53494754
>You see how he staggers under your mighty blow, raising his shield to prevent your axehead from cutting him in two, his footwork crumples and his legs lock as you bear down on him with all your weight.
If you leave the last image in his head that he's adequately defended then your player will naturally assume they didn't breach the AC, if you explain that the enemy is instead simply trying to avoid being killed. Then it becomes easier to see the hit.

>>53495762
A single skill check is six seconds of activity going by D&D round time. An arm wrestle isn't a six second burst, it's a solid thirty seconds of continued pushing (I.e A 4e skill challenge.) Factor in multiple checks as time goes on (probably about five opposed checks. Winner is the one with the most successes) Your average joe has a lot less chance of winning.

>>53488048
The entire point of that module is that the players are outnumbered and outgunned slaves of powerful Drow and have to use their wits to escape as fighting the Drow head on will most likely fail.

Your players are bad as are you.

>>53502278
Silly anon, the PCs killed that elite drow because that story is made up, duh.

>>53510063
>A single skill check is six seconds of activity going by D&D round time.

That's... not how it goes.

Unless you think a thief opening a lock either happens in 6 seconds or never.

I agree with your recommended course of action, though.

>>53510063
It's a shame goblins and barbarians don't arm wrestle in combat, then, because you'd get believable results.

>>53509115
>make you a stalwart defender of how great it is, like 4E or AD&D

Maybe people defend these because they actually are great?

>>53510114
It doesn't matter for the argument Anon is making.

His (imo, pretty stupid but whatever) point is that 5e is the best D&D because it's a good introduction, but shallow enough that you move on from it (you don't become a "fan" of that edition).

>>53510089
Ah. True, kind of forgot about that...

>>53510107
If they're not doing anything other than opposed feats of strengths there are many ways for a goblin to come out on top.

>>53488260
>Implying D&D wasn't just a wargame all along.
Shitty meme desu. D&D ain't an rpg.

>>53488048
>I ran a game of 5e and a thing happened that didn't go how I liked, so all editions of D&D are bad.

>>53495559
Can you point out where in the 5th edition rules that is? I'm assuming the previous poster was referring to a rule there and not just the concept. I ask because I couldn't find one and I thought it was a bit strange.

>>53515000
Checked.

Paralyzed and Unconscious conditions:
>Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

I think that's as close as you get in 5e.

File: Bradstreet - Shadowrun - NAN1 - Ram.png (285KB, 311x808px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 311x808px

>>53502987
>objectively
nice meme spouting

>>53488156
People always say this kind of shit when it's NPCs being killed by things that would logically kill someone, but as soon as you use the same reasoning to kill a PC everyone starts whining and crying unfair. You can't have it both ways; either combat is sport or it's war.