Explain to me why your game is better than D&D. I explicit

File: Empire-Bright-Wizard.jpg (188KB, 454x450px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 454x450px

Its wizards are kickass but can't cast spells to solve every problem because Chaos and Perils and shit.

>>53592109
Better than which D&D?

>>53592137
Wild Magic done right?

>>53592153
If you have to ask, I am already dubious of your system.

Non-magical combat is actually fun with meaningful options.

>>53592109
Any multiclassing is decided ahead of time during character creation, creating a working mix of fighter/rogue rogue/wizard or wizard/fighter mechanical features and an explanation for it that leaves behind the silly gamist shit DnD used to do. Classes are not professions, they're archetypes and treated as such

>>53592137
Which warhammer rpg is best?

I've heard it's pretty lethal and I want to try it.

It's a bit of a stupid question, since the majority of systems aren't 'better' than D&D, they're incomparable. I play a lot of games which do things D&D just doesn't do, exploring themes or genres or styles that are completely outside the heroic fantasy umbrella.

I still respect D&D (Well, certain editions) for doing that heroic fantasy thing well, and there are some games that you could also class as heroic fantasy I'd play instead of D&D, but it's never a case of 'this is explicitly better' and more 'this is more suitable to this specific premise'.

>>53592808
2nd edition WFRP, though I've been looking forward to someone adding the new Dark Heresy rules on top of it.

>>53592808

Zweihander is the latest iteration of WHFRP 2e, an unofficial fan mod that became its own game.

>>53592376
Hey, you're the one who wanted explicit terms.
If you're talking about 4e, giving players the ability to contribute equally in play is not going to be an applicable argument.

>>53592809
What does "heroic fantasy" mean? Like, what's the definition, what qualities does it have that D&D has?

>>53592808
WFRP2E is super-tight, has a ton of supplements, and a metric ton of fan created work. ZWEIHANDER is neat, but pretty new, and you'd have to do a lot of conversion work for it. Save it until you get into 2e proper

>>53592878
Heroes in an old-timey fantasy setting go on quests other people gave them

>>53592809
D&D does fantasy, not just "heroic fantasy."

That means it does horror, gothic horror, space-fantasy, grimdark, low fantasy, and even does a fair shake at historical and plain sci-fi.

>>53592109
Don't pay attention to trolls. They LITERALLY only talk shit about D&D because it's popular, not because there's anything wrong with it.

As a classless point-buy system with lots of options available, my game allows my players--assuming their character concept is campaign-appropriate--to simply make their character the way they want to rather than forcing them to jump through hoops and collect a grab-bag of racial abilities, feats, magic items, spell effects, and class features from four different books just so they can do one niche thing.

>>53592109
Fantasy Craft. I'm going to assume you're talking about 3.5 because that's the one we argue about, though from >>53592376 I'm guessing you're just going to be a dickwad and not tell us which system you mean so you can act smug and say "But X edition doesn't have that problem."


>All the core rules are in one book rather than 3.
>The NPC creation system is far more robust and easy for the GM to use, even allowing NPCs to just be scaled up as the PCs level.
>Non-combat characters are viable in a way that they never were in D&D, and martials are on a level with casters without casters being completely neutered.
>Divine magic is actually mechanically different from arcane magic, rather than just being the exact same but stuck to a different stat.
>All feats are actually worth shit.
>The addition of Specialties adds greater mechanical variety to characters early on.
>The addition of Talents means humans aren't the boring basic bitch race they always are in D&D.
>Campaign qualities mean the system really can be used for any style of fantasy, unlike D&D, which can only really do heroic fantasy unless you use a setting with optional subsystems to support other genres like Ravenloft or Dark Sun. (Granted, these are similar to Campaign Qualities, but Campaign Qualities are available from the core book while you'd need to buy those setting books to use their rules.)
>You can play a clockwork robot wizard with six legs.

>>53592137
I wish any of my friends were interested in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

>>53592930
I disagree. Not that anon, but I think DnD pretends to do those things but fucks them irreversibly thanks to the way it handles power levels. It's a system meant for gonzo adventuring, where you go from hero to megahero to godhero

>>53592109
It's so simulationist, it's almost freeform.

>>53592809
That argument hinges on what D&D is good at, which I've never gotten a clear answer for. 0/1e excel at dungeon crawling and quickly begin to fall apart outside of that. Later editions try to look like a jack of all trades while only managing miniatures combat well and being shit at anything else.

>>53592878
Mechanically, D&D is about 95% combat and traps. You play a class that can do specific things that fall within varying degrees of realism and fantastic power level depending on edition. "Heroic Fantasy" implies the characters have abilities somewhere between Robin Hood and shounenshit, with the edition setting the range.

>>53592930
>D&D
>Low fantasy
That's a funny joke.

>>53592930

Sure, just as Paranoia can do gritty trench combat.

Just because you 'could' do something doesnt mean the system supports or encourages that kind of game.
and DnD does 'not' support those examples. At all.

File: revenge-of-the-squirrels.jpg (80KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 670x377px

Two words: Cardboard Crack

>>53592947

Except this is a non-argument which serves only to protect D&D from all criticism, adding nothing to the conversation.

>>53592996
It supports them as long as what you're doing meets how the system handles it. You're not getting CoC horror out of it, but it could do Pitch Black.

>>53592966
You shouldn't. It's a decisively mediocre game, the equivalent to a tie-in that only has a few fans because they're already a fan of the brand.

It's major problem is that it has some of the grossest misuse of Fate points in any game, effectively a band-aid to keep it from falling apart at the mechanical seams.

>>53593000
You mean it's not a COUNTERargument. And even then, the opponents of D&D here would have to first provide an argument.

>>53592972
He's sort of right, though, but only because "D&D" includes so many wildly-different games under that name. For example, AD&D could do horror and low-fantasy, so D&D can do horror and low-fantasy even though the last three editions are so horribly suited for those genres that the very idea is laughable.

>>53593034
Did you read the thread?

>>53592809
>it's never a case of 'this is explicitly better' and more 'this is more suitable to this specific premise'.
Wisdom. Listen to this man.

>>53592808
Fantasy or 40k?

>>53592809
Sure, but the only premise that D&D is explicitly suited for is "A group of adventurers go into a dungeon to fight through a series of encounters (puzzles, traps, combat) until they reach the end." Anything besides that is shoehorned into D&D, badly, and there are systems that do it better.

>>53593031
I just want a fantasy system that has mechanical support for gritty, down-to-earth survivalism but also has rules for magic while avoiding the anti-storytelling wizards of D&D, and preferably involves some kind of corruption system.

>>53592972
No, it's more designed for people playing a few set levels, since it can take years to progress from 1-20.

It's meant for basically anything that you can slap fantasy on.

>>53592991
What? Even if you stripped D&D of all its magic, it's still a robust system that's larger and more in depth than even many specialized low-fantasy games.

The best argument in favor of my game is that you don't play it.

>>53593034

But here's the fundamental problem with your assertion.

You assume that the only people who could possibly criticise or speak badly of D&D are its 'opponents', when in actual fact the people who know and love the system are likely the best equipped and the most vocal about its flaws, because being aware and discussing the flaws of a system you love is useful. It's an effective way to crowdsource solutions and to provide advice for people having trouble with it.

>>53593000
What do you mean? It's not meant to address criticism, it's meant to address retarded trolls.

Are you still going to try and pretend there are not retarded trolls bitching about D&D because it's popular?

>>53593072
WFRP

>>53593000
You're taking the bait. Don't reply, just ignore it.

>>53593074

>What? Even if you stripped D&D of all its magic, it's still a robust system that's larger and more in depth than even many specialized low-fantasy games.

Horseshit. D&D without magic barely exists. At least, from 3.PF onwards, where the 'spell' became the fundamental unit of design.

>>53593087
Here's the fundamental flaw with your damage control.

You're trying to pretend the trolls are not obvious. And that the people who bitch incessantly about D&D are doing it for any reason beyond them hating how popular it is.

>>53593072
>mechanical support for gritty, down-to-earth survivalism but also has rules for magic with corruption system
Sounds like GURPS, senpai.

>>53593072
GURPS has all of that, you know. GURPS Dungeon Fantasy + GURPS Magic using corruption rules/additional corruption rules from GURPS Thaumatology/GURPS Horror. But nobody ever takes a GURPS recommendation seriously because of memes, even though it'll do exactly what they want.

>>53593104
If you're just going to blatantly lie like this, no one will be able to take you seriously.

>>53593116
It's too bad GURPS in general is such a bad game that it sucks with any expansion. The core is so bad, that even if you manage to navigate your way through the expansions to get a game that sort of works, it still is boring and tedious to play through.

>>53593072
Maybe GURPS? By default, it's pretty gritty in terms of combat lethality and has survival rules of various depth scattered about. Magic is along those lines, and GURPS: Thaumatology is essentially Variant Magic Systems: The Book, so you should find something there to your liking. The Horror splat has a corruption system that has worked in my games.

Dungeon Fantasy even includes not!D&D character templates and streamlined rules to make things easier.

>>53593120

But it is. Magic is always the largest chapter of each book, and there are multiple cases where entirely mundane or unrelated things are represented with 'use the rules for this spell'.

Fuck, it's clearest in the monster design. Genies, mythological beings of great power... Have an ability which mimics the 'Wish' spell, citing the magic system for reference. One of their most defining, thematically iconic traits is 'just a spell'. Because spells are the fundamental unit of design in post-3.PF D&D.

>>53593146
Nah, GURPS is great fun to play, even with core alone.

The only disadvantage is that it takes a lot of work from the GM to get started. But once you get started it runs very smoothly.

>>53593169
You're looking at a portion of the game, agreeably a large portion, and somehow misconstruing it to be the game in its entirety.

Look at the Goblin. No reference to a spell there. Or the Hill Giant. Or the Shark. Or Troll. Or the Elephant. Or the Pegasus. Or hundreds of other monsters and animals, including warriors, knights, thieves, and barbarians.

There's so much to the game, that not only is low-fantasy fairly easy to do, it is in fact the standard for low-level play.

>>53593072
Fantasy Craft doesn't have the biggest focus on playing a survivalist but you can make it as gritty as you like with campaign qualities, and magic is fairly well balanced. There's also the Corrupting Magic option for the Sorcery campaign quality.

>>53593188
To be fair, the layout in Basic Set sucks dick; three columns is an unnecessary strain on the eyes and makes it look like a damn textbook, and some of the pretty important rules are placed in horrible easy-to-miss locations.

It's still my favorite system and I'll run it till I die, but man I'd give my left nut for a revised Basic Set.

>>53593188
I've had it run smoothly, but it runs dully. It's hard to actually make the mechanics do anything exciting, like there's a wet blanket over everything, forcing you to go to extra lengths to keep the players interested.

>>53593223

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/pegasus.htm

>Spell-Like Abilities

Try again

>>53593072
You seem like you're specifically asking for Warhammer with the corruption bit. The roleplaying game is pretty solid along the lines you mentioned, lightweight and quick, and it's great at enabling you to focus on story. I've never played 1E, but 2E is pretty fantastic. Avoid 3E...but maybe keep an eye out for 4E, when Cubicle7 release it later this year.

ZWEIHANDER is probably what you're looking for, too.

>>53593246
Sounds like a problem of taste, or GMing. I've never had more fun in a game than I have had in GURPS, and even with mediocre GMs the mechanics themselves are just fun to interact with.

>>53593223
Not the guy you were arguing with, but if I can use a game that's 60% magic and 40% non-magic, or a game that's 40% magic and 60% non-magic, and both cost the same to buy, then for a non-magical game I'll use the 60% non-magic game. The quantity of material is irrelevant if the majority of it is for a purpose I don't need. It's basic e

>>53593261

I actually quite like 3e, although it's a very different game to the prior ones, and its physical components focus is weird and a bit hard to get used to.

>>53593264
>Sounds like a problem of taste

Fucking GURPSfags

>>53593265
*It's basic economics.

I am not a clever man.

>>53593268
99% of what I hear about it is negative due to the boardgame-esque approach, and because it diverged so harshly from the previous approach. I hear the adventures themselves aren't bad, though.

>>53592808
my group is playing warhammer 2nd edition using a slightly modified version of Mutant year zero as the system. Works really well so far.

>>53592808
2nd edition of WFRP is the best, but you'd be surprised by how many systems in general can run the setting. Burning Wheel and Lamentations of the Flame Princess are both fantastic for it.

>>53593265
If one game is 600 pages, and the other is 40, You're still looking at the former having far, far, far more content.

>both cost the same to buy
>what are pdfs

>>53593250
Oh wow, you got me.

>>53593432
You are completely ignoring factors such as information density and content quality.

>>53592137
That seems more like a personal preference. Especially since D&D can't solve every problem; they're run out of spells eventually, particularly in the levels 5-15 range that D&D actually has a tendency to be played at. Not many people actually play 20th level games.

>>53592414
How so?

>>53592770
Again, this seems like a personal preference, not something that's objectively better (or worse).

>>53592949
Give an example, please, of both your RPG succeeding at doing thing X, and D&D failing. And also explicitly define thing X.

>>53592958
This is...reasonably explicit, except:

>Campaign qualities mean the system really can be used for any style of fantasy, unlike D&D, which can only really do heroic fantasy

What are campaign qualities, and how are they so utterly transforming that it's better to have them mechanically statted out rather than D&D's "DM says we're doing gothic horror, so this is a gothic horror game"?

>>53592987
>and being shit at anything else.

In what way is D&D shit at anything else? Particularly from 3e onwards where everything operates under a single unified mechanic, I've never had trouble doing anything non-combat in D&D.

The impression I get from D&D is that it's not necessarily the best at anything, but it's good ENOUGH everywhere. Like, I'd never use World of Darkness (either version) for a high fantasy dungeon crawl, but conversely I'd happily use a reflavored (but mechanically identical) 3e or 5e for a gothic-punk modern horror game.

>>53592997
Actual crack is cheaper than MtG.

>>53593074
All of the math and assumptions of the system assume PC casters are a thing, though. This is most obvious with the removal or sharp reduction of healing magic; warriors are damage sponges focused on taking injury rather than avoiding it (dodging, blocking, DR from armor, etc.), and this works fine when the system is working as intended with druids and clerics there to provide rest and succor to the brave knight between skirmishes. Remove that, though, and suddenly those frontline warriors become by necessity disposable meatshields because they're relying on natural healing and can't be good for more than one or two fights per week. In other systems, this isn't an issue because fighters in those systems rely on more than raw HP for tanking.

>>53593072
D&D 5e, disallow Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard, use the following rules from the DMG:
- Healer's Kit Dependency (can't spend HD to heal unless someone has a healer's kit)
- Slow Natural healing (character's don't automatically regain HP at the end of a long rest, instead they expend HD)
- Gritty Realism (a short rest is 8 hours and a long rest is 7 days)
- Climb Onto a Bigger Creature (this has nothing to do with the campaign in general, it should just always be allowed in every campaign)
- Madness
- Sanity

Then make it so that every time a character casts a spell, he must make a Sanity saving throw (against his own spell save DC) or lose 1 sanity.

>>53593525
>How so?
Opportunity cost of actions outside of "I attack" is minimal compared to D&D, as is investment, so it's possible to build to concept without being useless because you aren't keeping up with some level curve.

>>53593483
No. I'm sparing you that because saying 600 pages of good, professional content vs. 40 pages of amateur-quality content would just infuriate you.

>>53593169
It's not "just a spell", it's inarguably the most powerful spell in a book, and something that's only available to characters who are so powerful that they can duplicate many of the feats performed by gods or demigods in actual Earth mythology.

Every single thing Jesus did in the Bible, for example, can be replicated by a 15th level 3.5 Druid. Go into the game with that mindset.

>>53593585
Yeah, because it's a pointless comparison that does not even have any relation to the topic at hand.

>>53593586

But that's irrelevant to the central point?

D&D uses spells as a central unit of design. So many things in the system which aren't spells are treated as them, because magic is the single most well developed subsystem in the entire game.

>>53593628
It's more of just hitting the nail on the head gets you upset.
You sound like a dumb cunt though, so I'll leave you to your gnashing of teeth.

>>53592109
It's better than D&D B/X because it's the exact same thing but better-formatted and slightly simpler, so it's easier to use.

>>53593647
I think you are actually getting dumber with each post.
>So many things in the system which aren't spells are treated as them

Yep. This is what happens when idiots who just hate D&D don't even bother hiding how dumb they are.

>>53593702

...But it's literally a statement of fact.

File: a1c3bf440df70ed3140957ce5bbd386c66686944_full.jpg (5KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x184px

>>53592109
The players have a meaningful amount of agency, are encouraged to find alternatives to combat, and are required to have meaningful backgrounds and relationships with npcs.

>>53593525
>Actual crack is cheaper than MtG.
Actual crack is also only temporary. You can play with cardboard crack.

File: it's advanced.jpg (58KB, 500x632px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x632px

>>53592109
It's advanced, says so right there.

>>53593525
>In what way is D&D shit at anything else?
What stands out for me is the system has a certain power level and style of play with features to back it up but never outright states what it is and what it excels at in the rules. This isn't really a failing of the system, but of every DM that doesn't understand the implied style of play and tries to shoehorn their game into a system not built for it at all. Like when I got stuck in a low-combat diplomatic game where I would gladly put up with everything wrong with >>53593730 just because it actually has rules that support that kind of game.

In with this is the issue is an actual problem that many features (especially class related) aren't actually what they say they are and doing what you had in mind is a fucking nightmare.

>>53593907
I'll give you a pro-tip.
Rules for "diplomatic" games? They tend to suck.
The less rules, the better, and D&D already has more rules for running a low-combat diplomatic game than you'll probably need, and does a fine job at it.

>>53593525
>Give an example, please, of both your RPG succeeding at doing thing X, and D&D failing. And also explicitly define thing X.
Gladly. I want to make a fighter that jumps good; it's the one holdover I still have from my ultra-weeb phase (the legend of Cuculain was unknown to my pleb ass). Preferably, I'd like the jumps to be useful in combat as well, such as such as landing on foes after a mighty leap a'la FF's Dragoon.

When I tried this in 3.5, there was one way I found to do it. It required starting as a duskblade, the fighty-mage base class; taking a region-specific feat from a Forgotten Realms book along with another generic feat from one of the Complete X books; taking levels in a prestige class from Oriental Adventures; and equipping myself with a lance that has a specific enchantment on it to take advantage of my leaps in combat. This type of character may be easier in 4e or 5e, but I'm guessing it still takes one of racial ability, magic, or monk not!magic.

In GURPS, I take a few levels of Super Jump. That's it. I can then get on with fleshing my character out.

>tl;dr to make a niche warrior in GURPS, take an advantage; to make a niche warrior in 3.PF, make a wizard.

I'm also free if you want to be regaled with the tale of the evil undead warlord in a "high power, high fantasy game" that was really just a generic cleric because martial can't have nice things.

>>53594014
There's several simple feats that let you jump good. i don't know how you missed them.

Or, ring of jumping.
Are you a special kind of stupid autist?

File: Burning wheel.png (32KB, 1501x141px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1501x141px

>>53593730

>>53594005
I refluffed mouseguard and it was great for it because you could use connections and assets mechanically. Knowing the right people had mechanical weight and your backstory mattered. D&D has nothing like that besides a bonus to a diplomacy roll.

>>53594014
So basically your problem is you want to make gimmick characters instead of people, and are upset D&D forces you to play well rounded adventurers with it's class system.

>>53594133
>Well-rounded
>With its class system

Are you gonna define which edition you're talking about, at least? 5e won't let a sorcerer use a sword without a subclass, feat or race

>>53594133
>D&D forces you to play well rounded adventurers with it's class system.
Pfffthahahahaha. If you think a fighter comes out of chargen "well-rounded," there is no hope for you. "I can hit things" "I can hit things harder" "I can hit things more often" is not well-rounded. It's a gimmick.

>>53594014
So what you're complaining about is that a 1st-level, fresh-off-the-farm, just-finished-training D&D character, is not capable of duplicating the mighty leaps of a participant in the Grail War (I'm assuming), who are explicitly drawn from some of the most potent individuals in all of human mythos and history.

Is that your specific complaint? Because it seems...stupid.

>>53594116
> D&D has nothing like that besides a bonus to a diplomacy roll.

Actually, there's a ton of other features, not even including all the magic you could work into it. Stuff like party reputation scores, the BGs of 5e, and regional bonuses/penalties.

But, most people prefer to keep diplomacy simple and unfettered by mechanics, because it's a part of the game that really doesn't benefit much from mechanical intrusion.

>>53593525
>
What are campaign qualities, and how are they so utterly transforming that it's better to have them mechanically statted out rather than D&D's "DM says we're doing gothic horror, so this is a gothic horror game"?
Campaign qualities are optional systems you can apply to the campaign in order to change the actual rules of the game. Essentially, they're houserules that are put in the book so you can customise the game to fit a certain genre.

Going on the gothic horror example, in D&D the DM would say "This is gothic horror", and that's that. It'd still play the same, just that everyone would have a germanic name and you'd have vampires instead of dragons or something. In Fantasy Craft, meanwhile, the GM would say "I'm going to be using the Hewn Limbs, Lesser Heroes, Paranoia, Savage Wilds, Sorcery (Corrupting Magic) and Tense campaign qualities, and removing Miracles." In other words, the game now has brutal combat with critical wounds that give various different penalties due to wounds and injuries, social situations are more difficult due to rampant paranoia and suspicion, monsters fill the wilderness, magic is powerful but evil and corrupting, the gods are absent from this forsaken world, and the player characters are both weaker than normal due to less attribute points at character creation and more easily affected by Stress damage due to the horrors surrounding them. Suddenly, the mechanics of the game are completely altered, and you're playing a true dark fantasy game, rather than just a standard D&D campaign but with more undead.

>>53594161
The Sorcerer can use it, he's just not proficient. And the PHB right in it has rules for training to learn to use something without needing another class, feat, or race.

They're not exactly the best rules, but they're there.

>>53594085
Jokes on you, I've been running a group in BW for almost two years now.

Granted, they're all college graduates.

>>53594163
I get the sense you are not even trying anymore. Trip up, so we can be warned to ignore you?

>>53594133
>well rounded adventurers with it's class system.
That's literally the opposite of what a class system does you dummy.

>>53594190
...how is that any different than what I suggested here, >>53593551, for a gritty realism game? For the record you could do exactly the same thing in 3.5, as well.

FantasyCraft seems to have just grouped a bunch of extant variant rules under a single banner. That's convenient, I guess, but hardly innovative, and again nothing that D&D can't itself do.

>>53594194
So you don't get to make a well-rounded character, then. You get to make something with holes in it.

>>53594230
I was talking about 3.5, as stated in the post you replied to.
>I'm going to assume you're talking about 3.5 because that's the one we argue about, though from >>53592376 I'm guessing you're just going to be a dickwad and not tell us which system you mean so you can act smug and say "But X edition doesn't have that problem."
Well would you look at that. Guess I'm a fucking psychic.

>>53594230
>>53594244
Just read that you can apparently do it in 3.5 as well, ignore that last post, I am a faggot. In that case, fair enough, but the other points still stand.

>>53594081
I brought up the old build file. I see Battle Jump, Leap of the Heavens, Leap Attack, and Acrobatics. If there are any others, please feel free to show them instead of just sperging out. Keep in mind though, that four feats across as many books is not helping your case that "you don't need to jump through hoops for abilities that martials should have simple access to in a fantasy game." And fucking Ring of Jumping? Really? You're going to put forth +5 competency bonus as though it invalidates everything else (and it's STILL another hoop to jump through).

Or do you think "jump good" means more than 4' high you raging shitheel?

>>53594224
I disagree.
And based on my experience with /tg/, classless systems are nothing but "Here's a gimmick I want to play and I will gimp my character to do it" despite complaining about how in D&D some classes are limited in what they can do.

>>53594181
But why would I play a glorified dungeon crawler when there are other systems that actually do what I want the way I want to do it? That was my main complaint; faggot DMs can't think outside of the only way they know how to play and will ignore that the shit they're selling isn't what someone else wants or needs to the point that you end up with your post.

>>53594276
>based on my experience with /tg/
First issue. You're playing with fags from /tg/, where stat me threads are full of gimmicks and memes. You're picking your players from a cesspool and bitching that they're a bunch of turds.

>classless systems are nothing but "Here's a gimmick I want to play and I will gimp my character to do it"
This is an issue with the people you're playing with. This is an issue that you will run into regardless of the system you use as long as you're playing with retards and weebs and the system provides mechanical incentives to gimp your character in order to fulfill an ultra-specific function, IE D&D.

Stop playing with retards and weebs.

>>53594270
>+5

It used to be +20, but apparently it was so easy to jump good in D&D they dropped it to just +5. Maybe you just suck at the game?

>>53594295
>But why would I play a glorified dungeon crawler

Because that's not what it is, and no amount of you repeating that bullshit will ever make it so?

>>53594268
I'd also argue against the idea of all feats being worthwhile. I've got the FantasyCraft core book open right now (in PDF form, but whatever).

It looks like just the same minor +2 bonus shit or circumstantial shit, as well as feat chains. You get to deal extra damage, but only against flanked opponents. You can make two attacks, but only if armed with a single weapon and if you take a -2 penalty to attacks and skill checks for the next round. And so on.

>>53594371
Every rule and every mechanic comes directly from or is built on top of a dungeon crawler. That's all it's great at.

>>53594177
You're ignoring that once the character can do it, he only can do it as a setting-hopping Japanese samurai wizard with a nonsensical backstory rather than literally anything else.

The argument isn't that you can't, or that you can't at level one; as you said, that's retarded. The argument is that a fairly common fantastical gimmick seen from Ireland to India is only available through a convoluted and utterly nonsensical series of steps.

>>53594392
Have you ever played it? Those feats are much more useful than the equivalents would be in D&D.

>>53594404
D&D hasn't been a dungeon crawler for a few editions now.
D&D is officially Heroic Fantasy.
t. Someone who wanted to run low level dungeon crawls in 5e but the system doesn't support it well

>>53594428
>D&D is officially Heroic Fantasy.
And it's fucking terrible at that.

>>53594344
>lol it's soooooo easy
>I still won't say how
>this proves I'm right and that you're a retard.

File: Risus.pdf (133KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1x1px

>>53592109
More flexible skill system, better combat balance, shorter rules.

>>53594444
>And it's fucking terrible at that.
With the exception of 4e.

>>53594404
That's a bold faced lie. I'm surprised you even tried.

Seriously. Are you literally retarded?
>is built on top of a dungeon crawler
That's like saying planes can't fly because the first was built from bicycle parts.

D&D is a lot more than you want to admit, because you just don't like people playing D&D. Shouldn't you be in that other troll thread right now?

>>53594344
Please, we all know the real reason it got dropped from +20 to +5. Only martials ever need to roll Jump, and they can't have nice things; casters just use Fly or Dimension Door or Teleport or Tenser's Floating Disk or--

>>53594428
>heroic fantasy

It's fantasy in general. Quit it with the artificial limitations.

>>53592137
Lel, miscasting never fucking happens, and anything less than rolling triples barely affects you at all. Priests have it way worse, even though the fluff text says they don't.

>>53594486
What, to you, is D&D explicitly good and bad at? When do you use another system? What does it excel at doing over another system?

>>53594501
I think it's because with little effort a character can have a +20 to their jump by level 7, and a +40 is just silly.

>>53592918
>WFRP2E is super-tight
If you think having no options for anything except diseases to catch is tight.

>>53594508
Nope.
It doesn't do low magic fantasy.
Doesn't do modern fantasy.
Has to use a bunch of shitty rules to do Gothic Fantasy

Are you one of those idiots who make "How do I run bloodborne in 5e?" type threads?

>>53594479
Correct.

>>53594508
But it's not. Stapling on a clumsy sanity system does not a Horror Fantasy game make because at its core is a Heroic Fantasy system with all the genre-implications baked in.

Trying to shove a square peg into a round hole is what drove people to hate 3.PF in the first place; accept the limitations of your system rather than trying to run everything under the sun in a system not meant for that.

>>53594546
Can you stop with the outright bullshit?
There's no point talking to you when just a casual look at the system is enough to shatter your entire line of argument.

>>53594181
>regional bonuses/penalties
are somehow different from
>a bonus to a diplomacy roll.

>Stuff like party reputation scores
Oh wow, we M&M now! Time to save the Ironfists again! Boy, I sure hope to get that sweet laser soon!
Actual relations with different folks in a region or city are too nuanced, I see.

>Because that's not what it is
Let's see. A system that started out as an early attempt at autistically sim tabletop skirmish game reliant on party's ability to outwit rube goldberg-style traps and skew the odds of an engagement prior to any fight (or even the game), then added on a ton of get out of jail cards and puzzle enemies, then systemized the shit out of it and attempted to broaden its horizons only to abandon it in favor of hyper-optimised dungeon-crawling, and then abandoned that in favor of an updated and facelifted second iteration.

>>53594568
It's time to accept you may need to learn more than one system.

>>53594568
When you have to ban core rule book material for being too fantastic, you can't say D&D does any fantasy.
Following that logic, any system can do anything because you can just house rule and ban until you arrive at the ruleset you want.

>>53594527
+40 is just silly
Not necessarily in a setting where wizards bend reality over a table with a wiggle of a pinky finger and some piglatin and druids literally talk to trees.

Don't limit martials in a system where casters aren't limited.

>>53594566
People largely only hate it because of its popularity.

You hate it specifically because they'd rather play it then whatever horse you are backing, so here you are, trying to come up with some argument as to why people shouldn't just use the system, and you've settled on "It doesn't do what it's been doing for decades, stop playing it, wah."

It's pathetic.

>itt a flaming queen op trolls everyone
Truly, I hate myself, for I've answered one of his posts.

>>53594591
>When you have to ban core rule book material for being too fantastic, you can't say D&D does any fantasy.

This is the worst argument all thread.

>>53594407
>You're ignoring that once the character can do it, he only can do it as a setting-hopping Japanese samurai wizard with a nonsensical backstory rather than literally anything else.

You're letting your class levels dictate what you are. But even in 3.0, Wizards of the Coast was advancing the idea that, say, "Rogue" is just a name under which a bunch of abilities are grouped. When Wizards of the Coast and AEG teamed up to make Oriental Adventures, for example, the book points out that Rogues make excellent diplomats and courtiers, not just thieves.

>is only available through a convoluted and utterly nonsensical series of steps.

Or grabbing a pair of Boots of Striding and Springing, which net a +9 bonus to Jump (+5 from the boots themselves, plus +4 from having a base speed of over 30 feet).

They're a Minor wondrous item worth 5,500 GP, so you could be getting them as early as level 1 off of a random treasure generation table (3.5 DMG pg. 52). Say level 7 as a more reasonable point, though.

7th level 3.5 character's Jump could reasonably be expected to be:
- 10 Ranks in Jump (+10)
- 5 ranks in Tumble (+2)
- 20 Strength (+5)
- Acrobatic (+2)
- Skill Focus (Jump) (+3)
- Boots of Striding and Springing (+9)
- TOTAL: +31

With a modifier of 31, the character's minimum Jump check result (on a natural 1) is 32, which is enough to jump 8 feet in the air. His average result (natural 11) is 42, or a 10 foot jump. His highest jump (natural 20, so 52) is 13 feet.

World record for a high jump is 8 ft 1/4 in, set by Javier Sotomayor of Cuba in 1993.

>>53594609
>People largely only hate it because of its popularity.
Really? It's not the trap options and caster supremacy?

File: Rooty Toot.gif (226KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 500x281px

Explain to me why your thread is better than this thread. In explicit terms. If you're going to highlight a negative of this thread, you better point out how your thread does it better.

>>53594626
So how much damage do you do with a spear if you jump really high and hit someone with it coming down?

>>53594624
>Want to play in Lord of The Rings setting
>Lord of the Rings is fantasy
>Have to ban more than half the races, and more than half the classes ( even a core class like cleric doesn't work right), make new classes, and ban a ton of spells.
"D&D can do any fantasy" - you

>Doesn't work against the GM
>Is fun to play and doesn't need system mastery to make a competent character
>Is easy to understand and make new characters with even if the player never played an rpg before
>Allows diverse genres and types of play without having to work against the rules of the core game
>It is cheap and doesn't need a gazillion supplements to work
>It encourage players to roleplay their characters instead of making statblocks to kill things
>Doesn't expect that violence and combat will be the main solution to any problem
Guess the game

>>53594632
>muh buzzword arguments

Nah, because if they hated games for being unbalanced and having tons of shitty options, they'd troll Exalted and GURPS long before looking at D&D. But, since they're not popular, they're here.

>>53594638
In explicit terms? What you posted as a post, not a thread. So since your post isn't a thread, this thread, being a thread (even if a shit one), must by definition be a better thread, QED.

>>53594666
GURPS!

>>53592814
>>53592813
>>53592808
There is a new edition in the works as well, no saying if it will be good, though.

>>53594649
+1d6 per 10 feet, to a maximum of +20d6, for each 10 foot increment after the first (DMG pg. 303, "Falling objects")

>>53594663
>wah, the books have options that let me play so many different kind of fantasies, and I'm upset because I want to argue that the only way to play is with ALL the options!

Literally retarded.

>>53594638
My thread doesn't mention D&D

>>53594666
0e
>>Allows diverse genres and types of play without having to work against the rules of the core game
Or not.

>>53594649
This made me realism that for all people despise "weeaboo" martials that D&D fails in basic physics
>No rules for falling onto other creatures despite elementary "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and "it's not the fall that kills you it's the stop at the end" obviously implying that the thing that is fell on takes just as much damage and what is falling
>No rules whatsoever for this

>>53594666
Fate!
Nice digits Satan

>>53594723
>No rules for falling onto other creatures

AGAIN, 3.5 DMG pg. 303, "Falling objects". I'm not going to claim that the rules are good, but they are there, you moron.

>>53594671
So the problem is that it's shitty AND popular so you can't escape it?

>>53594708
If it's in the core rule books and not explicitly states as optional ( as is stated with some rules ) then it's a RULE, not optional.
Otherwise why would they go through the trouble of labeling some rules as optional and not others if all the rules are optional?
Talking about 5e by the way.

>>53594700
Is that with the implied falling damage attached?

>>53594749
The problem is that it's popular, making it accessible, making it more understood, so people make mountains out of molehills since they understand the system better.

>>53594743
We are talking about different editions because as soon as I saw your post after I posted mine I tried to look it up. Nothing in the index about that at all.
And since 5e is the most popular edition...

>>53594671
>implying Exalted and GURPS aren't trolled
>implying exaltedfags didn't accept that their system is shit
>implying gurpsfags don't outcompete d&dfags in sheer denial of any flaws of thier system
>implying d&dfags aren't shitting up half the board, with the other half taken by wurhams
D&Dfags function on solipsism. It's a wonder why they don't play Mage... Maybe because the mages aren't powerful enough for them.

File: Block.jpg (133KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x1024px

>>53594666
Not sure but I'm curious what the answer is

>>53594666
F A T E
A
T
E
hope we won't summon the fatehater

>>53594743
>At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.

PHB, page 182.

Sorry, that's not for imapling people like a dragoon would. That's the damage done to the creature upon sudden impact with the ground.

>>53594774
It sounds like the problem is that it isn't universal (ie. it only does things one way within the genre) and the more you understand the system, the more you hate how it is used for everything because of the popularity.

>>53594666
>>53594805
It's obviously risus!

>>53594846
No, it does everything. Just use optional rules!

>>53594626
The Duskblade and the prestige class from Oriental Adventures (Blade Dancer) have spell progression; you're right that the Japanese samurai part is something that can be easily ditched, but the warrior is still a wizard at heart.

The Blade Dancer was required for a few reasons.
>+10 to Jump and Tumble every few levels
>Bonus movement speed for bigger jumps
>UNCAPPED JUMP DISTANCE

>>53594766
It's not implied, it's outright stated. Fuck it, I'll just post the whole thing.

>Objects that fall upon characters deal damage based on their weight and the distance they have fallen.

>For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

>Objects that weigh less than 200 pounds also deal damage also deal damage when dropped, but they must fall further to deal damage. Use [Table] to determine how far an object must fall to deal damage.

[Table]
>200-101 lb. - 20 ft.
>100-51 lb. - 30 ft.
>50-31 lb. - 40 ft.
>30-11 lb. - 50 ft.
>10-6 lb. - 60 ft.
>5-1 lb. - 70 ft.

Keep in mind that when you are a dude dropping on someone with a spear, you would be using not just the spear's weight, but also your own (that's the whole point of the stupid jump to begin with, after all), so Guy + Armor + Spear + Carried Equipment can easily exceed 200 pounds.

Side note, it's not 100% clear from the table but I believe that an object of less than 200 pounds in weight only must fall the stated distance to deal the initial 1d6 falling damage, but thereafter it uses the standard +1d6 per 10 feet.

>>53594846
I actually like how it's used for everything, since when I play a game with my friends, the story and character interaction is a bit more important than the specific mechanics.

The spell system slots into the turn and resource economy more neatly, gives low level wizards more spells they can cast per an adventure and and prevents nova-ing so hard at the mid/high levels. It also gives more flexibility to spell loadout and wizards could theoretically never run out of spells in a day.
HP is higher at low levels but doesn't ramp so aggressively with level to avoid the hit point inflation of d&d.
Fighters get more options in combat without adding tons of rules to the system since it's a basic stunting system.
It uses a unified mechanic
[?]The secret is that it's just a heavily homebrewed version of basic d&d[/?]

>>53594894
I meant the falling damage to the person falling, anon, obviously.

What edition is this from anyways?

>>53594894
An archer, standing atop a wall, shoots at baddies down below. He hits. The distance to the baddies is 35 m. What's the damage inflicted?

>>53594927
Why not choose a system that isn't working against you, then? System matters. If you don't care about the mechanics pick something with less mechanics

>>53594542
What do you mean?

>>53594873
You could also, as have been pointed out, just go Monk. Since every 10 feet of movement above 30 feet grants a +4 bonus to jump checks, and since in 3.5 Jumping distance is just uncapped anyway (go check out the SRD! Capped jump distance was a 3.0 thing that was ditched for 3.5), this means that the monk gets +4 to Jump at 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, to a total of +24 at 18th level.

A 7th level monk in Boots of Striding and Springing, then, has: 10 (ranks) + 2 (tumble) + 5 (strength) + 2 (acrobatic) + 3 (skill focus) + 9 (boots of striding and springing) + 8 (50 ft. base speed), for a total Jump modifier of +39.

His minimum result gives him a long jump of 40 feet and a high jump of 10 feet.

>>53594990
Normal weapon damage probably. An arrow isn't heavy enough to qualify for those rules.

>>53595009
Okay, but this still doesn't deal damage by commonly understood mechanics. The only mechanics ITT that seem to work for it are in the dmg, implying this isn't intended to be a combat option

>>53594987
AGAIN

3.5 DMG, PG. 303, "FALLING OBJECTS"

>>53595006
Because I have never once felt that the system is working against me.

>>53594990
An arrow has negligible weight. A object that weighs less than 1 pound deals no additional damage from falling distance.

>>53595072
Nobody plays 3.5e, dude. Your argument is invalid. 5e has no rules for this shit.

>>53595046
It is not, by default, a combat option, no. However these are not "variant" rules that I'm quoting, these are the standard 3.5 falling rules. A player who wants to make a Dragoon, then, should approach his Dungeon master and let him know that he intends to make use of these rules, so that the DM can brush up on them.

For practical purposes it works out that the character wants to have a variation on Sneak Attack. It's not overpowered by any means, and it's using the Rules As Written.

>>53595072
Don't use all caps to literally avoid the question, anon. Does the person FALLING take FALLING DAMAGE from pulling this stunt, yes or no? Because I'm pretty sure falling damage is in the rules, too, and it applies to people, whereas that rule is literally named falling OBJECTS, so at best it's less specific

>>53594894
So, if a guy jumps good and attacks someone on landing, he either takes damage and gets bonus damage for falling, or lands safely and deals normal damage.

>>53595090
The person who I'm arguing with explicitly wanted to limit things to 3.5, so I am.

>>53595168
>Does the person FALLING take FALLING DAMAGE from pulling this stunt, yes or no?

That would depend on the result of his or her Jump or Tumble check, I suppose, or if he or she has and utilizes Slow Fall, all of which prevents YOU from taking falling damage; it doesn't negate the thing you hit from taking damage as normal by any rules I'm reading.

>>53592109
Cortex Plus does heroic fantasy better than all D&D editions in my opinion.
The reason I rate it above D&D is due to it's modularity and ease of creation. Just by having a SFX table open you can pretty much create the mechanics on the fly by combining a dice range with some mechanical effects and bam, magical items on the fly, new powers for your players to learn from people in the world and so on.

Combat is also very, very open and because the number ranges follow the dice you use (d6, d8, d10 and d12) people under optimized can still contribute in the combat.
Strategy and how your use your shit is better in the long run.

Finally, progression is mostly lateral. You discover magical items that give you new powers and effects, yes. But due to how the dice range works on the system the difference between the cap and lower die rolls isn't that big.

Finally OP, I think "being better at D&D" is a very vague thing. Shadowrun Anarchy eats D&D lunch when it comes to cinematic shoot outs and colaborative adventure creation, L5R curbstomps it when it comes to social interaction and lethality and Warhammer does low level adventures in an unmatched manner.

All of these systems, including D&D, are valid and fun in the end of the day. Unless you are trying to learn more about them and try them yourself, I feel you are just trying to justify D&D on your mind.

File: Dummy.jpg (47KB, 733x277px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 733x277px

>>53594014
Play a warblade.

>>53595326
So you move a random distance in a straight line. Very useful, anon. This clearly solves all problems and gives codified value in damage and such to the archetype they're trying to play

>>53592109
Anima has a wide variety of potential characters you can make but the balance is very close outside of a couple specific options and everyone feels fun but also unique to play.

There's no shitty rigid class system so you can make basically any concept you want without having to become a multiclass of shit from a half dozen books

The setting is endearingly stupid and has room for a large amount of campaign types

>>53595419
As a swift action you get a short amount of movement. At level 5 you are GUARANTEED 10 feet of free movement.

That means you can jump, then full attack an enemy.

If you can't fluff that into a dragoon strike then that's your failure as a roleplayer.

>>53595219
Looking at SRD, Jump check has no rules on falling damage or preventing such. Also, the highest you get when you do a long jump is 1/4 of DC beaten, so if we take +39 and nat 20 on such a jump, it'll be 14,75 ft at the maximum highest point. So you get +1d6 bludgeoning for that.
If it's a high jump, then it's 14,75 ft (59/4) at the highest point, giving you +1d6 bludgeoning.

Gainful exercise indeed.

File: 1446427811088.png (56KB, 342x266px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x266px

>>53595509
>roleplaying is a mechanical consideration
Typical.

File: Dummy2.jpg (43KB, 793x363px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 793x363px

>>53595326

>>53595602
Any character concept is inherently going to require you to add fluff to the base mechanical systems. If you can't do that, then you can't roleplay.

>>53594392

The Basic Combat feats are overall the most boring.

There are some basic "bonus and minor ability" feats, but read the weapon tree feats for a start, especially things like knife tree or Whip tree.

Fantasycraft isn't radically different, its intent is more or less a balanced, more engaged version of 3.5, an answer to people who like 3.5, but don't like the lack of balance and trap options.

>>53592991
I think e6 pathfinder emulates low fantasy pretty well.

I just like that it removed all the fiddly bits.

>>53594671
Confirmed pleb. GURPS isn't about balance.

>>53596634
then why the point costs

aren't they supposed to represent the relative strength of options

>>53596699
Nah, they're arbitrary.

>>53595072
>Because I have never once felt that the system is working against me.
Yeah, but you're a downie fuck who thinks that mechanics don't actually matter, so why should anyone with a brain care?

post pdfs better than D&D

>>53597073
Legend's PDF is too big for 4chan.

File: 1479367128835.pdf (246KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1x1px

>>53597073
ok

>>53597107
prove it, give size

>>53597152
17.4 MB

>>53597152
http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Legend-1.1.pdf

File: 1495064499827.jpg (91KB, 800x902px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x902px

>>53597129

>>53593054
If you want 40k there is rougue trader. We once played it, and it and you can build such nice kingdoms.

>>53595661
Note that that's a 10 foot enhancement bonuses, not a 10 foot horizontal jump enhancement bonus. You go from being able to jump 1 foot into the air to being able to jump 11.

>>53594822
>arghleblarghle unintelligible words purported to be reasons Fate isn't a good game engine

>>53598079
Fate and FAE has some problems. The Discover action should have made it into Core at least. Also, FATE dice is sorta annoying/pointless.

Nothing too major though. Definitely at least on par with 5e.

File: FC Edged Weapons.png (361KB, 869x1195px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 869x1195px

Weapons have different attributes and all of them are usable, unlike in D&D where some weapons are completely identical or straight up upgrades over others. Also, all weapon categories (ie hammers, axes, whips, ect) have several feats related to them which makes them all serve distinct roles in combat and give you more to do than just roll to attack.

>>53596699
Roughly.

>>53593072
you just described fantasycraft to a T.

File: you_are_wrong.jpg (37KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x480px

>>53595525
>Looking at SRD, Jump check has no rules on falling damage or preventing such.

First, pic, next, read.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

>Jumping Down
>If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15. You do not have to get a running start to jump down, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.
>If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.

You can also check pg. 77 of the 3.5 PHB for the official printed rules. I further just checked the errata; the only skill the official errata deals with is Listen to correct a misprint on the Listen table.

Tumble has a similar rule.

>>53596993
I didn't say that the mechanics don't actually matter. The original assertion here, >>53594846, was that the more you understand d20, the more you hate it because it's not a universal system.

To which my counterpoint was that it functions just fine as-is for any given thing you want to do with it. It might not be the BEST at anything, but it's GOOD ENOUGH at everything, so I don't see a need to learn one entire system for post-apocalyptic games, a separate system for Gothic-punk vampire games, a third system for dungeon crawls, a fourth system for Star Wars, a fifth system for superheros, and so on. Apocalypse World or World of Darkness or Force and Empire or whatever might have their own particular quirks that make them simulate their given worlds really well, but they can't be adapted nearly as well to something else, while d20 can and has been adapted to everything adequately.

>>53598285
>unlike in D&D where some weapons are completely identical or straight up upgrades over others.
You are correct that fantasycraft does weapons better than D&D, but every weapon in D&D has a specifc reason to exist, even if that reason is not very good.

>>53592109
I like 3.5 as much as any other game, so hear me when I tell you that the only other game that is comparable is fantasycraft, but each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Fantasycraft has a narrative structure to the game, where stats/mechanics aren't objective. I dislike that, but I think if you mixed the best aspects of 3.5/PF/FC and a few other games (fallout 1&2, wasteland2, dragons dogma), you'd have the perfect game.

>>53599345
>glaive and halberd are identical in all but name
>trident is a more expensive spear and also a martial weapon instead of a simple one

>>53599390
>>glaive and halberd are identical in all but name
Glaive has reach, halberd can be set against charges for double damage and is slashing or piercing.
>>trident is a more expensive spear and also a martial weapon instead of a simple one
Trident is a 1d8 one-handed spear, rather than the "spear" which is 1d8 and two-handed or the longspear which is 1d8 and two-handed and has reach.
Try harder, tardo.

Next!

>>53599461
>clearly referring to 5e

>>53599477
You're either a retard for not noticing that I said 3.5 here:
>>53599345
or you're a retard for not realizing I was talking about 3.5 here:
>>53599461

Either way, you're a tard.

File: 1e-weaponstable.jpg (104KB, 900x824px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 900x824px

>>53599345
>but every weapon in D&D has a specifc reason to exist
Yeah, that reason is Gygax read a book on polearms and decided they were cool and should all be in his game.

>>53599461
Oh yeah? And how strong is a Pitchfork, you know, a literal trident?

>>53599272
>but it's GOOD ENOUGH at everything
But it's not and anyone who says that it is is blatantly retarded.

>>53599272
>Why would I delve into any of the DnD settings when i have Middle-Earth? If I want Horror, I can have that on Arda, I don't need Ravenloft.
That is absolute pleb levels you are sinking to, anonfriend.

>>53599570
The really offensive statement is that DnD is more adaptable than other games though.

>>53599558
Improvised spear-like weapon.

>>53599813
Damn, I guess D&D can really do anything.

>>53599570
>>53599604
You guys are just bitter about D&D's popularity, AND versatility?
Is it because a mildly retooled D&D runs better games of the genre your favorite system is geared for, and you're the only people hopelessly wishing that D&D can't do what it does, because otherwise your favorite game is rendered obsolete?

Is that what you're hopelessly, desperately trying to shut out? The truth that if you don't campaign endlessly to carve out a niche for your favorite game, D&D will just keep smothering it until it fades away like all those other, poorly-designed competitors?

What's her name? What's your crippled baby system no one loves?

>>53599830
No, DnD is terrible. I'm not the guy you were debating spears with, but everyone knows about improvised weapons.

>>53599887
Funnily enough I'm not one of the guys arguing about spears either.

>>53593246

> It's hard to actually make the mechanics do anything exciting

Just fighting people with a sword if you use hit locations, crippling injuries and basic wounding modifiers gets very damn tense.

>>53599883
Because d20 Modern is a paragon of good game design and not living proof of what everyone else is claiming, right?

>>53599883
That you can hamfistedly shoehorn genres and mechanics into D&D does not make the system versatile, it makes you autistic.

>>53599883

D&D is versatile! That's why it is six different games that aren't mutually compatible and relaunches as a new incompatible edition every four years!

>>53600084
To be fair that's because that's good business.

5e could be the most versatile system on earth, and we'd still be getting a new one in a 5-6 years.

>>53599883
nice bait, mate. but making plenty of provocative assertions without argument to back them up is kinda waaaaaay too obvious.
4/10 because you got some morons hooked, it seems

>>53600111
well, it's as easy to make CoC into D&D as it is to make D&D into CoC: just take the steps in reverse order. the whole "D&D is more adaptable" is all smokes and mirrors, trying to distract from the deficiencies of the system in a number of departments.

every RPG system has its strengths and weaknesses, D&D's strength is relatively abstract, gamist combat and tons of game options, especially when it comes to magic and stacking magic powers. also the sheer amount of content.

can you turn that into something else? sure. just as you can homebrew WFRP into something else, just as readily. give characters more wounds, do away with criticals and make magic more abundant. BAM! just as easy as making D&D more gritty.

>>53600847
What bait? Telling everyone why you're trying so hard to pretend D&D has limits it doesn't have, so no one's fooled by your lame repetitive insistence?

I guess people desperate to perform damage control would see that as "bait."

>>53601161
How would I run a game about mafia bookies in D&D 5e? Could you show me how? I've been looking for a system to handle it, but haven't found one yet, and if I could use 5e that'd save everyone a lot of hassle.

>>53601224
I can tell you this much.
I could run a game of mafia Bookies using the core of 5e D&D. I like advantage and the d20 and the six stats and all that jazz, and most of the rest would be refluffing some stuff and keeping things nice and neat. Probably would take me about three hours to iron out the details, especially since it would probably be a low combat game and focused more on world building.

You might not be able to do this. You might simply not know the system well enough, be shitty at design, or might even just be dumb.
But can you tell me that I shouldn't do something that's pretty easy for me to do? Sure, I can find and use other games, even if just to ultimately use them for inspiration, but if I'm in a rush, I'm going to spend those three hours just adapting a system I know, be it 5e or whatever else I'd decide, than hoping that some random system I pick up isn't just some amateur shitting the bed after watching the Godfather trilogy.

Because, I can tell you this, there's a lot of really shitty systems out there, and I hold no grudge against people who prefer to adapt what they know then to fall prey to another designer's godless plea to the world that his game, ultimately what is his own reinvention of D&D, will somehow suit my needs better.

File: download.jpg (10KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 263x192px

Ok, i already know what op is gonna say (or at least i think i do) but i wanna be a part of this trainwreck. Here are my current two favorites.

>deals exclusively in the subject matter but can be adapted with minimal effort.
>almost all rolls have more than one die and usually more than one type being rolled at the same time
>rolls have clear rules for using the result narratively giving bonuses and penalties as appropriate and changing the story and combat flow through more than just dm say so
>Has good rules for diplomacy and non combat characters which don't amount to either magic or single rolls

Second system
>easy to use system with bounded accuracy and few modifiers to add to rolls
>very deadly without modifying or using variant rules
>classless and skill based for further ease of use and ability to create just about any realistic character wanted
>lots of weapon rules and variation to help with subject matter and make the setting more gritty and realistic
>rulebook is under 50 pages

>>53601539
This thread can probably last about three hours, so I'd really appreciate your help.

>>53601695
I don't know if you're fucking with me, or if you really want me to spend three hours building your system for you.

Go and play Fate if you just want something quick and simple. You'll learn the game in an hour, and while it won't be great, it will work, and you can adapt it to just about anything.

But, if you want a good Mafioso game built out of 5e, you're first going to have to identify what kind of style it's going to be, since it's still a pretty wide genre that you need to narrow down to fit your personal vision.

I like the idea of gun combat being super deadly while fist combat is a lot less scary, and that puts me in the realm of thinking keeping the HP low, fist damage also low, the guns ridiculous, but the gun laws also pretty strict. The sort of thing where the players will have no real qualms of getting into tussles, but when someone pulls out a gun, everything gets scary. Something in the realm of most people having about 10-15 HP, fists being 1d3-1d4, and guns being 2d10-3d10. It might make sense to use the target area rules to keep things interesting.

I don't even really think leveling up or experience needs to be a thing, because most of the rewards would be story based and revolve around eliminating rivals and getting the boss's approval.

>>53592376
>>Better than which D&D?
>If you have to ask, I am already dubious of your system.
Oh, so you're either trolling or completely fucking retarded. Great thread OP.

>>53599390
>glaive and halberd are identical in all but name

Assuming we're referencing 5e, yes, and there is a clear reason for this, it's just a meta one: it's a joke reference to 1e's polearms table.

God forbid the publishers have a little harmless fun every now and again.

>>53600023
SpyCraft 1.0 is actually better, I'll admit, but that still leaves you with a d20 system that can be used to run modern games.

SpyCraft 1.0 is also great for being ground-up designed to actually be Player verses DM (or Agent verses Mastermind, in this case) and being balanced and fair in the process.

>>53600041
It's not even hamfisted, though. D&D can handle literally anything you throw at it and still come out the other side as a functional game.

I mean, give me an example of something that can't be done smoothly with D&D.

>>53602723
Realistic combat.

>>53602723
>I mean, give me an example of something that can't be done smoothly with D&D.
Wuxia not that LotW can do it smoothly either but when it works, it fucking works.

>>53602723
>I mean, give me an example of something that can't be done smoothly with D&D.
A mechanic for failure resolution that isn't taking 20, going around the long way, or bleeding out.

>>53593551
The one problem I have with this is that sanity doesn't really have the quantifiable mechanical effects I'm looking for in a corruption system. Sure, I like the roleplay opportunities offered by corruption systems in games I like too, but I also want something that actually has a chance to put a detriment on my character beyond flavor.

File: 1289127871207.gif (491KB, 742x418px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 742x418px

>>53602842

>>53602723
>I mean, give me an example of something that can't be done smoothly with D&D.
Actually playing the game.

>>53601161
>trying so hard to pretend D&D has limits it doesn't have
no roleplaying game has limits. i can just go play D&D and tell my friends it is a heavily homebrewed RIFTS. in fact if you were to run a game that was 50% D&D and 50% RIFTS, would that be possible because D&D was so "adaptable" (lulz) or because RIFTS was so adaptable?

the question isn't if something can be homebrewed into something it is not. the question is how much work it is to rework it into what I want. for example, if I like games in which everyone gets to roll for parry instead of having a static AC defense, there's no point in adapting D&D rather than run, say, harnmaster.

>>53601539
>Probably would take me about three hours to iron out the details,
yeah, right. i am calling BS. do you have any idea how much work goes into creating the content of decent sourcebooks for ANY given system? you can cobble some loose ideas together in 3 hours, none of them properly thought through, and that's it.

>>53602723
>I mean, give me an example of something that can't be done smoothly with D&D.
this is not possible as i can take system X (which runs whatever smoothly out-of-the-box) and claim it is a heavily homebrewed D&D. and while this might sound absurd to you (it is), it is only meant to demonstrate that there is a point between running pure D&D and pure system X, where a mish-mash of both kinda still allows the game to be run smoothly for whatever purposes you have in mind.

case-in-point: all games are adaptable but they differ in the work it takes to get certain things out of them as they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

>>53602692
I was trolling (was bored at work) and it did turn out great, you mankey cunt.

>>53592930
I've only ever managed low fantasy in D&D and I required a LOT of work on my end. and when I suggested it, everyone seemed to pick martials anyways. So it was easy enough to pull off, the rest of those are things D&D has tried to do but didn't do very well.

D&D is made for High fantasy adventures now. Everything on your list except grimdark requires work on the system. Grimdark is a setting thing to me, I'm running a grimdark campaign in 5e with relatively lower fanatasy, but its taking a lot of work.

D&D is meant for high fantasy.

>>53593072

The dark Sun setting for D&D does that doesn't it? With defilers and such? I haven't played it, but I thought i'd point it out in the D&D thing thread. I'm ignoring that OP is a butthurt faggot about this.

D&D isn't perfect
9 years of D&D

>>53593112
>>53593116
>>53593160

GURPS is boring
^^ what did I say? ^^

>>53593702

>Spell-Like Abilities

Man, just...

...just stop.