There are quite a few articles and rants on the web explaining

>>54540700
>2. Restrictiveness.
Rather than make the character you want, you have to mix and match options to get the closest idea you were striving for. If you want to be a proficient brawler, you have to take a level in a certain class (monk). The character progression is pre-set — why did my back-street brawler suddenly become immune to all diseases (monk class ability)? And why can my witchdoctor take animal forms now (druid class ability)? You can pay an instructor to take riding lessons, but then you can't increase the Riding skill until you gain a level (which can take months in-game, or more, if you’re higher level). You cannot make up your own spells. Many character concepts are banned at starting levels (this is especially true with magic-users). And no, you cannot be a good singer because you chose the Fighter class.

>3. Mystery killing.
How many times have you seen, or thought yourself: “The guy touched my sword. The blade rusted and crumbled to pieces. This must be the Rusting Grasp spell (obvious, right?), which means that we’re dealing with at least 7th level druid. His Wisdom must be at least 14 to cast that spell, so, his Will save bonus is +7 or greater. He also has a good Fort save, so we better use some spell against him that requires Reflex, which is probably his worst. We gotta keep him away from the bushes too, as he’s got no movement penalties there and he can Entangle us if we follow. He also leaves no tracks behind. Druids also have animal companions, so we better be ready for surprise, and if he starts to lose, he’s got an ability to turn into eagle and fly away. Better watch out for that one, as we need information for him.”

>>54540708
Okay, I must state I don’t do this on purpose, but this kind of information just comes to me during the play. In essence, one tiny detail tells me VAST knowledge about the character we’re dealing with. No mystery at all — I know pretty well of what the character is capable of. And if GM modifies things that it isn’t as I think, this is to possibly cause scorned reaction from players: “Hey, why didn’t you tell you allowed such class? I would have really liked to play such a character,” etc.

>4. Logic holes/silliness.
Weapons have damage caps. Roll 1d4 point of damage for hit using a hand crossbow. WTF!? Any crossbow should be a dangerous weapon, and this four damage doesn’t even account for a scratch on most non-starting characters.

Okay, while never mentioned in the books, I can understand that Hit Points are meant to represent also stamina and dodging, not just taking wounds. However, this makes an arrow just as easy to avoid as a punch. Although using this representations is better than having barbarians running around with a dozen of arrows in their chest, it’s still silly. But hey, that’s what D&D is — silly. A friend of mine explained me once how he can make a character who dishes out 1d6+4 damage with a random twig picked up from the forest (don’t remember the mechanics, sorry, but it didn’t require exceptional Strength). It is also amusing that a single shuriken can CONSTANTLY make just as much damage as an average "longsword" (1 damage + 1 point blank shot + 2 weapon specialization = 4 automatic damage). Have fun combining it with the Flurry of Blows and you get a character whose biggest problem is that he cannot physically carry enough shurikens… They just run out before the combat ends.

>>54540723
Also, have you ever-ever seen any PC take cover in D&D against a single archer? Their defence trait vs. bullets/arrows is the same as in melée, so it would be stupid to take cover, as there’s no additional danger in charging ahead to hack the archer down. (Some firearms-based settings have upped the base damage of ranged weaponry to address this issue, but it’s not evident in D&D.)

This chapter also covers the impact of a the d20 roll has on a skill/ability checks. In case of the latter, your characters capabilities make up a miniscule part in the final result. Yes, this means that people with no training can outshine professionals time-to-time, and that arms wrestling contests between Strength 8 and 18 characters are mainly resolved with luck.

And as someone has very wisely said — though the skill ranks certainly help to succeed in tasks, they have more to do with qualifying for a prestige class.

There are more and more detailed issues on it, but they tend to fall into the four categories presented above.

File: 1499209410271.jpg (44KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 277x296px

>>54540700
>>54540708

>>54540700
>It would make a lot of sense for a system define a certain power level and stick to it throughout the game. In D&D it’s impossible, because if you want to improve your character in any way, you get a damn package of abilities with every level. The guard dogs you feared in the beginning of the game will be helpless pups after a couple of “adventures”.
You're missing the entire point.
Going from literal nobody to a badass is the main appeal of the genre.

>>54540899
>main appeal of the genre.
Nope.

>>54540788
I accept your concession.

>>54540899
I just wanna go on adventures. I don't really care about the zero to hero bit

>>54540788

Autism doesn't mean "wrong", though. Everything OP listed is correct, and the only real response is that people who play D&D play it because they are either in ignorance of those issues, or that they don't care care about them, or that some or all of those issues are actually a net draw for those players.

It's only an issue when it comes to sunk costs and refusal to either modify D&D to what they want it to be, or to us another system when those issues come up. D&D is what it is, and people just need to suck it up and deal with that or use a different system.

>>54540700
>There are quite a few articles and rants on the web explaining why Dungeons & Dragons sucks. So, let's take that statement at a face value — D&D gargles balls, plain and simple.


Can you, unironically, never post on this site again?

>>54540700
>Power level
One of the main appeals of D&D in specific, and RPGs in general, is a gradual increase in power level. This is not unique to D&D - in World of Darkness you get experience and power up over time, as well, eventually reaching a point where things that terrified you when your character was first created, are now laughably easy. Most other RPGs do this as well. While you may find it problematic, I'll thank you to acknowledge that this is a "problem" with the majority of RPGs, not simply D&D or even d20 games.

>Restrictiveness
Leaving aside feat choices, skill choices, and multiclassing...you've basically got a point. It's part of the way the system works. Having said that, D&D is a game that openly encourages DMs to customize it, and players to customize it with DM permission. If you don't like shifting forms as a druid, for example, it shouldn't be hard to gain an alternate feature with DM permission.

Re-fluffing is also always an option. Your brawler is immune to diseases due to being tough as nails, rather than any mystical bullshit.

This isn't a bug, by the way it's a feature - the game isn't broken, it just doesn't do what you want it to do by default, but it can be adapted to. The game is intended to run a certain way, but it's more than flexible enough to have that way be changed to better suit your specific variant.

What character concepts are banned at starting levels that are "especially true" of magic users?

>Mystery killing
This is inevitable in any system as you gain system mastery. While classless systems might theoretically cut down on it, functionally a classless system still tends to have characters building towards a *theme* and so you can make pretty good guesses about what they possess anyway. A big ol' black knight is probably not going to call down lightning on you, but he will probably have taken the feature that lets him sunder weapons.

(cont'd)

>>54541400
>Mystery killing (cont'd)
Additionally, many classes and monsters of different power levels share abilities. You might be dealing with a 7th level druid, or perhaps just a monster that has access to 7th level druid spells, or perhaps even just a monster with access to that one specific spell. Equally, it's possible that multiple spells have similar visual effects. Perhaps it wasn't Rusting Grasp, but Disintegrate.

>Logic holes
>Weapons have damage caps.

The weapons themselves, sure, but various modifiers and effects will apply additional damage.

By the way, your overall main problem seems to be that you're still stuck in 3rd Edition. Move on, man. Move on to 5e. Things are better here.

>>54541400
>If you don't like shifting forms as a druid, for example, it shouldn't be hard to gain an alternate feature with DM permission
That's a pretty drilled in mechanic. It would be very hard to just cut that whole aspect out and build something entirely new to replace it. And at that point, it's not even really the same class

>>54541498
>Move on to 5e. Things are better here.
They aren't. 5e is just as fundamentally broken as 3.PF.

>>54541400
>in World of Darkness you get experience and power up over time
That takes a whole lot longer than it does in D&D, and is, above all else, far more gradual than it is in D&D where you're instead handed down prepackaged deals each levels, and only when you level up.

>>54540700
Let me give my stance.
D&D has flaws. So fucking what? Every game has those. Literally every one. Just pointing out that X system has issues won't stop me playing it unless you can find a system that feels the same but doesn't have those issues.

If you're not going to suggest an alternative or a solution, this discussion is pointless.

>>54540700
I'm not fond in D&D but i must say that your criticism is unfounded. I just need one counterargoument for each of your points: you are playing it wrong.
>power level
I assume from your example that in your games characters earn new levels IN PLAY. Wrong: new levels are applied after a Time Skip that justifiy the new earned power

>restrictivness
You assumed that D&D works as a generic framework for every fantasy genre or character archetype. Wrong: d&d is tyed to a genre (dungeon crawling) and to a set of pregenerated archetypes, if you don'f find a fitting one well, shit... you have to play a different one or develop and playtest the one you want.

>Mystery killing
Oh rly?? That's a problem with every rulesystem involving 'rules'. Once you mastered the metagame is automatic

>logic holes/sillynes
You assumed D&D works mechanically as a simulationist game. Wrong: it's a gamis prevalent one, so all mechanics are to be expresses as 'plot devices'

>>54541523
And why is that a bad thing, not being the same class anymore? You didn't even want to be a druid in the first place, you wanted to be a witch-doctor. Druid was the closest thing you could find to that, so we start with that, and then modify it until we had what you wanted.

3rd Edition right from the get-go had an example of this in the DMG, by modifying the Ranger class so that it was more focused on hunting undead; or modifying the wizard spell list to be more "witchy" so that you could have a witch. Pages 174-176 of the 3.5 DMG, if you're curious, though I distinctly remember it in the 3.0 one as well.

>>54541692
>you are playing it wrong.
I specified in the second paragraph that these are the reasons I don't use the system.

>in your games characters earn new levels IN PLAY
In between sessions, which is, I believe, how the books specify that they should be doled out.

>new levels are applied after a Time Skip
This is not something I have ever experienced or heard about people doing.

>You assumed that D&D works as a generic framework
No. I want a system that isn't restrictive enough that you can only play one type of game with it.

>That's a problem with every rulesystem
No, it isn't. Most other RPGs aren't that transparent about their mechanics and bonuses, and many others in fact encourages GMs to not use monsters, for example, as written and instead only use them as guidelines.

>You assumed D&D works mechanically as a simulationist game
No. If I'm going to play a game with crunch I want it to be simulationist. If I'm going to play a game without crunch I want it to be narrativist. D&D is an over-complex system that over-abstracts the one thing that it spends the most of its rules on.

>>54541911
>I specified in the second paragraph that these are the reasons I don't use the system.
Then why shitpost about it if it's just not the system for you?

>>54540708
nothing is stopping you from making your own spells.

>>54541498
>Move on to 5e. Things are better here.
No they aren't, it's the same bullshit just a little less obvious your first time playing.

Either you're bored because you played three campaigns and realized that there isn't that much shit to do when advancing your character or you're breaking shit over your knee because you read through the book and realized that there's still some way to abuse the game to work in your favor.

>>54540700
>Power level.

The game does define it by tiers of play in 5E from Local-Regional-Global-Cosmic. If you don't like that nothing stops you from playing within one level range only. I'd say it's actually a strength of the system that you can play anything from a peasant to a demigod. This is a feature not a big and allows you to see your character progress from weak to strong.

>Restrictiveness

This can be said for any class based game and for the most part the classes and options provided in the various editions of the game provide enough options for most players.

>Mystery killing

Your example assumes a high level of metagaming. I agree that metagaming can ruin the mystery of any game, so don't play with players who metagame. Heck when D&D came out players were expressly forbidden from reading anything but the players guide for this reason. I also don't think most players know enough about the system to make the deductions presented anyway.

Likewise on the flip side it can also be kind of cool that the game builds it's own mets narrative if you obtain system mastery as you can actually become more invested since you can put clues like that together to form a bigger picture. Though this only applies if you do have that mastery of course.

>Logic holes/silliness
Hand crossbows are useful back up weapons and can become more powerful with certain classes and certain feats. Likewise 1d4 damage is enough to kill most commoners who only have 1d4 hitpoints . I.E most of the population of the world. Heroes within the game are simply the exception to the rule and through their training, fortune, resilience etc can suffer a few more blows before dying. Although at low levels a wizard could die to one hand crossbow shot as well in 3.5 at least.

>>54541911
>>you are playing it wrong.
>I specified in the second paragraph that these are the reasons I don't use the system.

Good, but my point it's not about your taste or the game experience you find to have more 'sense', it's about you criticism as is

>>in your games characters earn new levels IN PLAY
>In between sessions, which is, I believe, how the books specify that they should be doled out.

That doesn't matter: you may say that D&D rules sucks 'cause they don't make sense' or use said rules in a way that make sense

>>new levels are applied after a Time Skip
>This is not something I have ever experienced or heard about people doing.

So? I did, and now you heard that from me

>>You assumed that D&D works as a generic framework
>No. I want a system that isn't restrictive enough that you can only play one type of game with it.

And i assume you founded. By the same logic it's like you are complaining that in monopoly you can 't roadkill the other playes when passing in the same square

>>That's a problem with every rulesystem
>No, it isn't. Most other RPGs aren't that transparent about their mechanics and bonuses, and many others in fact encourages GMs to not use monsters, for example, as written and instead only use them as guidelines.

And since you acknowledge that what's preventinh to do the same on D&D games?

>>You assumed D&D works mechanically as a simulationist game
>No. If I'm going to play a game with crunch I want it to be simulationist. If I'm going to play a game without crunch I want it to be narrativist. D&D is an over-complex system that over-abstracts the one thing that it spends the most of its rules on.

So why complain about a system that is a gamist one? That doesn't make sense. Nobody is forcing you to play D&D

>>54540746
Cover has always given you some kind of bonus to AC or defences all editions of the game.

>>54542262
>That doesn't matter
Of course it does. If I have to fix a system for it to make sense or play the way I want to, I could just as well make my own one. Presumably I bought the books to not have to put in that extra work.

>So?
So you're like the only person to have ever done it.

>And i assume you founded. By the same logic it's like you are complaining that in monopoly you can 't roadkill the other playes when passing in the same square
Did you just develop a brain tumor or something? I can't understand any of this.

>what's preventinh to do the same on D&D games?
Player mentality, primarily, as I stated in point 3. Mystery killing.

>So why complain about a system that is a gamist one?
Because it does it poorly.

>>54542241
>and realized that there isn't that much shit to do when advancing your character

There's tons of shit to do, it's just that not all of it is tied into the explicit mechanics of the game. It's not my fault you've never wanted to gradually create a thieves' guild or found a knightly order.

>>54540708
>How many times have you seen, or thought yourself: “The guy touched my sword. The blade rusted and crumbled to pieces. This must be the Rusting Grasp spell (obvious, right?), which means that we’re dealing with at least 7th level druid. His Wisdom must be at least 14 to cast that spell, so, his Will save bonus is +7 or greater. He also has a good Fort save, so we better use some spell against him that requires Reflex, which is probably his worst. We gotta keep him away from the bushes too, as he’s got no movement penalties there and he can Entangle us if we follow. He also leaves no tracks behind. Druids also have animal companions, so we better be ready for surprise, and if he starts to lose, he’s got an ability to turn into eagle and fly away. Better watch out for that one, as we need information for him.”
Literally never.

First of all, who the hell memorizes the spell list of every class, much less every spell description?

Second of all, what kind of DM stats enemies using player rules?

>>54542435
>>That doesn't matter
>Of course it does. If I have to fix a system for it to make sense or play the way I want to, I could just as well make my own one. Presumably I bought the books to not have to put in that extra work.

That's not a way to 'fix it', it's a different interpretation of the very same rules. It's just plain lateral thinking

>>So?
>So you're like the only person to have ever done it.

But it make more sense? I had to change a mechanic rule? I repeat myself: it doesn't matter since know you heard from me

>>And i assume you founded. By the same logic it's like you are complaining that in monopoly you can 't roadkill the other playes when passing in the same square
>Did you just develop a brain tumor or something? I can't understand any of this.

Phoneposting, sorry. I'll rephase that statement: "and i assumed you founded it (a rulesystem better than d&d). Complainig about the mechanics of a system designed on a concept that YOU find senseless it's the same as complain about the mechanics of 'monopoly' since said mechanics prevent your piece (character) to roadkill the others players pieces"

>>what's preventinh to do the same on D&D games?
>Player mentality, primarily, as I stated in point 3. Mystery killing.

Thats more a game premise problem than a system related one

>>So why complain about a system that is a gamist one?
>Because it does it poorly.

It 'exposes' it poorly

>>54540998
Damn. I think the government made the game on purpose.

>>54541525
>just as fundamentally broken as 3.PF
5E is still heavily flawed in some of the same areas, but you've forgotten how bad 3.PF is. It was the edition that necessitated a differentiation between "practical optimization" and "theoretical optimization" because even the munchkins recognized that there was a point at which you would be thrown out of the nearest window.

>>54542050
>this is a complete roleplaying game
>except the spells suck and you need to make your own because the ones we made are broken

>>54541400

>This is inevitable in any system as you gain system mastery. While classless systems might theoretically cut down on it, functionally a classless system still tends to have characters building towards a *theme* and so you can make pretty good guesses about what they possess anyway. A big ol' black knight is probably not going to call down lightning on you, but he will probably have taken the feature that lets him sunder weapons.

No, happens in rules-heavy systems only.

Not saying they're shit, but it does happen only there.

>>54540700
>>54540708
>>54540723
>>54540746
Have you tried playing 4e?

>>54542953
You mean the edition that focuses the heaviest on combat and which bloated HPs like a motherfucker?

File: 1480076372018.png (1MB, 1219x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1219x1500px

This is literally just copied and pasted from this thread.

https://www.grandheresyforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=271

>>54542500
>There's tons of shit to do
Oh yeah, I can be an Battle Master, an Eldritch Knight, or dead weight. So many options, that's like, at least more than two!

>>54541333
In this case, I would say it's in the firmly 'not caring' category. OP's complaints mainly center around the fact that D&D is class based and primarily uses HP as a method of scaling. The other bits vary from edition to edition, but it's a very opinionated complaint. He's correct that D&D does these things, but that's the sort of game it is. Even the most elaborate overhauls to D&D I've seen still keep classes and HP

>>54543090
He's suggesting you can do stuff in role play (which is bullshit because you can do the same thing in almost any other system)

File: 4e MM3 on a business card.gif (7KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x200px

>>54543012
You realized they fixed HP bloat in 4e right? In fact, it's the only modern edition of D&D that attempted to fix the HP bloat problem from 3.PF.

Besides, I'd rather the game focused on meaningful options in combat and than dedicate the bulk of the PHB to spells that only mages truly benefit from.

>>54543135
It's also just promoting freeform which is a concept D&D players otherwise hate.

>>54543135
Then he's a fool, because anything that has to do with roleplay will always depend on the quality of the table, assuming you even get such things at all.

>>54543012
>You mean the edition that focuses the heaviest on combat
You mean all of them?

4e doesn't focus any more or less on combat than any other edition, it just makes it good.

>>54540746
>Also, have you ever-ever seen any PC take cover in D&D against a single archer?
Yes. Me. I play DnD like I play XCOM. Fire and maneuver wins fights.

>>54543159
Please stop posting this, it's wrong. The guy who made it went back later and redid the math, and you actually want 3 less health per level across the board.

>>54543195
That's still overall less HP than what you'd see in 3.PF or 5e relative to the damage you could deal.

Also, can you actually provide evidence or are we just going to awkwardly dance around it until the thread auto-sages?

>>54543090
Consider that in 5e, even playing the most bare bones champion Fighter still nets you plenty of skills and the ability to contribute to fights in a meaningful way, unlike 3.5 where you get no skills and the presence of a Druid's animap companion will make you wonder why you even showed up.

5e isn't perfect, but it narrowed the gap by enough to actually be a team based game. It's only if a spellcaster actively tries to use all their spell slots to replace you that any problem occurs, and that's still better than 3.5 where a caster can replace everyone without really trying.

>>54543184
>My anecdote is totes evidence guys.

>>54540700
Y'know, every time I read the corebook for an RPG, they always have an example of play. Usually goes like this.

"Here is an example of play that doesn't get into the rules (we'll leave that for a later chapter) but rather demonstrates roleplaying. The DM is Chris, John is playing Urthden, a Human Fighter, Giles is a Dwarven barbarian, Gwen is an Elven Ranger, and Billy is playing a Human Wizard! They've just come to the entrance of Malik Hur, a terrible tomb of a lich that buried eons ago!

Chris: The crypt awaits before, a large stone slab of a door taunting you with its immobility.
Billy: Blast! How shalt we get through this door? King Darod and his Kingdom are depending upon us to retrieve the cure!
Gwen: Don't worry, I have an idea! Remember earlier when we were interrogating that skeleton? He mentioned that the water moves when the stone strikes it...
John: And that stones move when water touches them! Brilliant! Alright, I'll go and grab some water from that creek that Chris mentioned earlier-"

And on and on in perfect harmony. Who has ever REALLY played a game like that? ITT we write more realistic game session transcripts.

>>54543265
DM: You're at the crypt. There's a door.
John: I open the door.
DM: Can't there's no handles or anything.
Billy: I fucking break it down then, I thought it was implied if the door doesn't open the first time we BREAK IT DOWN.
Giles: Hey, hey can I lockpick the door?
DM: We-
John: No, you're a goddamn barbarian *Snort*, that, that's like me rolling to cast magic missile.
DM: Hey! HEY! Pay attention. Anyway, the doors made of stone.
Billy: I can break stone.
DM: What.
Billy: I can fucking do it, I have a magic +1 hammer, it doesn't break.
DM: So you're going to spend all day hitting a chunk of stone with your hammer.
John: Yeah, and by my measurements, if my calculations are correct, and assuming this door is like, two feet thick, it'll take thirty two hours to bust down, we can do this.
Giles: Hey, hey, hey, I have an axe, I can, I can help!
Billy: No, no you friggin' can't, it's a plain axe and you made a shitty barbarian so, like, you'd make it worse.
DM: Look, maybe GWEN might remember that interrogation- Wait, where's Gwen?
Billy: She showed up one game, and hasn't come back you've been playing her character dingus.

>>54543133
The only things in DnD, specifically 5E, that really detract from the type of game that DnD is meant for are that one mundane combat doesn't have enough depth for a game that's so combat heavy, that casters have so much more utility, and that the game isn't that versatile in the types of settings it can run

>>54543238
>I choose not to see it or do it so it doesn't happen!
Well, this bait thread was fun for a bit.

>>54543301
>One person doing a thing that's uncommon automatically makes it the rule, not the exception
Whatever senpai.

>>54540700
5e's real problem is that it fixed combat, but nothing else. If you're not a caster, you're not going to contribute to dick when it comes down to problem solving.

I actually had a pretty solid conversation yesterday about how I thought DW just ignored all of 5e's problems and that made it a bad game. Having thought about it, I think DW is better in a lot of ways because it gives characters as many out of combat utilities as combat utilities. If not more.

>>54543301
Anecdotes are poor arguments because there is no state of disproof. I can PROVE nobody uses the cover rules by going on twitch and finding 4-5 cancerous D&D streams where in their entire run nobody uses cover.

>>54543287
Yeah. I'd argue the biggest thing 5e needs is to really expand on maneuvers and make them more widely available. I do think some of the optional rules in the DMG and feats can help alleviate things further, but overall I don't think OP was complaining as much about mundane combat being boring.

>>54543330
>If you're not a caster, you're not going to contribute to dick when it comes down to problem solving
That's retarded. You're retarded.

>>54543396
I agree that the state of fairs is retarded, but I dont see how that reflects on me at all.

File: image.jpg (171KB, 1050x556px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1050x556px

>>54543265
Fell's Five got you covered, senpai.

>>54543396
In two parties, one that's all martial and one that's all mages, the former is going to have way more trouble dealing with out-of-combat shit than the mages.

Searching for food
>Martials use survival to find and prepare food and hope to god that nobody fails a check to avoid predators, find a nice place to sleep, or know what is or isn't poisonous.
>Between Tiny Hut, Create Food and Water, Alarm, Locate Object, as well as the benefits of having WIS, the casters manage to safely thrive in the wild without worrying about danger.

>>54543330
Depends on the amount of combat encounters your players experience, if your players had to drain there spell slots for combat they can't use magic to solve every problem

>>54543517
Or one person took Outlander and the entire thing is trivial either way.

>>54543517
Excepting, of course, that they've just blown a bunch of spell slots. What happens when the random encounter comes along, as is inevitable?

>>54543529
Sure, but they can just rest and then solve the problem. Sure in a pinch a strong set of arms is important, but you cant deny that casters have always had much, much more utility. It doesnt help that they're not pushovers in combat.

>>54543556
Nothing stopping the Druid from taking Outlander either, and you're ignoring the fact that you'd still have to make the rolls as a martial character while the mage just goes "meh, I cast X and do the thing."

>>54543558
You're right, which is why the whole problem could be solved if casters had about half the spells they do, making each one an important or even a desperate choice. But they didnt do that, so the problem remains, outside of encounter structures specifically designed to fuck up casters.

Even then, its still a bad situation when martial's only utility is acting as caster's bodyguards in case they run out of spells.

>>54543558
>>54543633
You cast those spells at the end of the day and generally, shit like Tiny Hut or Alarm basically means that you're rarely going to get attacked in your sleep by a random predator.

Even then, Wild Shape will cover most of your combat needs.

>>54543579
You're right but the problem varies in size depending on the style of campaign, (don't play 5E if you don't want 7-8 combat encounters every in game day)

>>54543595
An Outlander can't get lost and can find food for 6 people without a check.

You're acting like Wilderness survival in 5e is some big excruciating challenge when it really isn't.

A group of mages will be relying on the Druid to do all this, and having to do it fairly often since theyre blowing all their spells on Easy or trivial skill checks. A group of Martials can have a Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian and survive just fine for extended periods while also not having to atop and sleep every 5 minutes because they ran out of spells.

>>54543656
That sounds like such a drag. Are you being hyperbolic or is that what the game is actually balanced around?

>>54543054
Old thread too.

>>54543681
I haven't crunched the numbers but I've found throwing that at your players keeps the classes balanced

>>54543681
The game assumes 6-9 encounters per default, the more deadly the fewer you can have.

It is certainly a pace most people wouldn't like. I usually recommend the gritty rest variant for that reason. It essentially lets you pace out those encounters over the course of a week rather than a day. A few fights along the road where you're going, the, a dungeon crawl of 2-4 fights and you've got it covered.

>>54543661
>An Outlander can't get lost and can find food for 6 people without a check.
Cool, then that's one less spell to spend on Create Food and Water.
>A group of Martials can have a Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian and survive just fine for extended periods while also not having to atop and sleep every 5 minutes because they ran out of spells.
Until the Ranger goes to bed and the Barbarian/Rogue has to wrestle with their shit WIS scores. Then they all end up dying in an ambush because they missed a pack of wolves stomping into their camp ground.

File: State-Fair-of-Texas-Deals-and-Discounts.jpg (204KB, 927x766px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 927x766px

>>54543421
>state of fairs

>>54543728
Can you explain gritty rest.

>>54543722
I really thought they got away from pigeonholing the game as being all combat. Guess I was wrong.

>>54543761
Im using a bluetooth keyboard from like 5 meters away. Sometimes it skips a letter.

>>54543748
>Rogue
>Shit wis

A Rogue literally only needs Dex to function, and can put their second stat basically anywhere for whatever skills they want.

Enjoy Expertise Perception Rogue seeing absolutely everything ever.

And you're still acting like any of this is difficult.

>>54543748
Both the barbarian and rogue could reasonably have high wisdom, of course rolling perception instead of simply casting alarm is the worse option

>>54543795
He doesn't understand 5E but that doesn't mean caster aren't better than martials

>>54543221
I love 4e, but yeah, the health numbers need to get fixed on that.
http://blogofholding.com/?p=782

>>54543282
DM: Alright, the man with the rifle looks at you angrily.
Zack: Probably jewish.
DM: He says "What the hell are you doing on my farm?"
Daniel: How much HP do you think he has?
DM: You can't ask that.
Daniel: Well, does he have armor?
DM: No.
Zack: Hey guys, have a look at this thing I got on my mobile phone.
Tom: Hey, that's awesome. Gimme that.
Daniel: I covertly draw my pistol and shoot him in the head.
DM: Why?
Daniel: He's got money and he's in my way.
DM: That's stupid.
Tom: I agree. Daniel, you're a fag.
Daniel: Total 18, 16 to hit, 15 damage.
DM: ...He doesn't see you... you hit him, he dies.
Zack: Ha, the jewish guy died.
Daniel: I loot his body.
DM: A young boy runs out of the house and sees you searching the corpse on the ground. He looks at you in horror.
Daniel: I shoot him too.
DM: No, you can't do that. It's against your alignment.
Daniel: Chaotic Neutral.
DM: That's not what CN means.
Daniel: My character acts on an impulse. He doesn't realise what he's doing until it's done.
Tom: So, I heard Daniel was a fag.
Daniel: What? Well, you're fat.
Tom: Oh, you did not just say that. Right, I shoot Daniel. Roll for initiative.
Daniel: It's on, fatass.
DM: Goddamn it, both of you shut up. You can't fight unless your characters have some reason to.
Daniel: Well fine, I just shoot the kid then.
DM: There are other people who heard the shot, too. They'll see you.
Daniel: Well, I point at Tom and say he did it.
Tom: Oh, you bitch. That's a motivation. I shoot Daniel in the head.
DM: You don't actually say that, do you, Daniel?
Tom: I got a 19. That's a hit. Damage... 19.
Daniel: What the fuck? I'm on low HP.
Tom: Ooops. Oh well, I loot your body.
Zack: Wait, what happened? I was just doing stuff on my mobile.

>>54543766
The gritty rest variant essentially makes Short Rests 8 hours, and Long Rests 1 week.

Thus, rather than setting off on the morning, fighting one thing on the road, and getting a long rest, you sleep and get a short rest instead.

This means that fighting things while travelling is actually meaningful, and it also means you can have a handful of encounters each day, rather than needing 8. Long Rests are effectively restricted to towns and downtime, which is also nice so players have breaks between adventures.

It also has the added bonus of making some spells less viable. A tiny hut to sleep in for 8 hours isn't as amazing if you only get a short rest and not a long one. The only major flaw in that regard is Mage armor, which lasts a full day normally, but now won't be to useful throughout the week, but even then it's still handy to save for days where you know there will be many fights.

Generally, it vastly improves the pacing and,makes D&D function more like people seem to be used to, with wandering monsters and a few fights each day

>>54543652
>You cast those spells at the end of the day

I feel you don't understand the concept of "random" encounter.

>shit like Tiny Hut or Alarm basically means that you're rarely going to get attacked in your sleep by a random predator.

No, it means you're rarely going to be SURPRISED. You're by no means immune.

Tiny Hut in particular is not as useful as you think it is, since nothing prevents a creature from entering it, and in 3.5...

>Although the force field is opaque from the outside, it is transparent from within. Missiles, weapons, and most spell effects can pass through the hut without affecting it

In 5e the Hut prevents creatures you don't want from entering it, but that would suit some creatures just fine: it just means that they wait outside until the Hut disappears, and set up a trap outside the Hut's entrance.

>>54543777
Well that is literally entirely your fault, isn't it?

>>54543238
People do use cover though, and it does give bonuses. You're just an idiot.

>>54543821
I never said they weren't, but people vastly overexaggerate the gap. In 3.5, an all caster party could probably breeze through a dungeon that would be a near TPK for an all martial group. In 5e? Not as much. The casters might have things easier, but both would still end,up challenged but victorious

>>54543879
Yeah, if it means that much to you I can get my cat'o nine tails

>>54540700
1. Runquest. CoC. Aberrant. WoD (two dots is the difference between barely survivable and UNSTOPPABLE - literally). Rolemaster (percentile based system, with 1-100 levels in spells and combat techniques for every class).
This is literally one of the stupidest attempts at a complaint in the universe.

2. FantasyCraft. Runequest. WoD (holy fuck does having to fight the system to fit your character into WoD happen). Exalted.
Basically, any system that isn't either next to free form or utterly generic has this issue. In fact, his is exactly NOT a problem in D&D. Most systems force you into a strictly linear progression you can never, ever break out of.

3. Like that's not a problem in any game that doesn't have 15 splatbooks. The only time you DON'T run into this problem is when you use monsters and tools from a book your players don't have or you make it up whole cloth. Fate and Amber Diceless are the only two systems this CAN'T happen in, because you literally have to make everything up for them. You can do this in EVERY. SINGLE. GAME. EVER. All you have to do is have a good memory and read the books.

4. You want logic holes and silliness? Play a game of Vampire the Requiem. You literally have to make rolls not to attack your fellow vampires because they're fellow vampires upon meeting them. god help you if you have to enter another vampires territory to talk to them. You need to make a fear check to enter a room with an open and lit fireplace. Oh, how about Exalted? You're demigods who have been cursed to fail miserably at your long term goals. You literally cannot defeat this curse. If you do, you're literally not playing the game as intended. At least having weapon damage as a function of class levels is something that does have a logic to it, unlike you presupposing it, compared to say, weapon damage being a function of how well you can crit with said weapon, like in Rolemaster.

>>54543870
Thats interesting, but it still assumes a fairly on-rails encounter progression. If you give your players any freedom to choose the pace they'll just slow down everything to cast the spells that trivialize certain aspects of their goals.

Thats why I suggested just cutting number of spells in half.

This copypasta is made from 2007 and is one person's personal rant.

>>54543933
Problem 3 isnt that big of a deal in games which allow for greater freedom in abilities and how they're represented. BoL being a great example of this.

>>54543968
I'd argue it offers the players more freedom of pace, since while resting 8 hours for a Wizard to get a slot for a spell back is reasonable sometimes, resting for an entire week rarely is.

It gives you a lot of flexibilitt with time constraints, simlnce most things the players will want to accomplish will take more time than that.

And of course, a random encounter in the middle of those 7 days of rest will force them to start again.

It basically does the same thing as cutting spells in half, since it's easier to consistently offer the proper number of fights to actually put strain on the caster's utility.

I mean, in a normal adventure, you could have a canyon each day and the Wizard could fly over each. With Gritty rests, he'll run out of spells halfway into the week.

>>54543968
You can put pressure on your players by limiting the amount of time they have, it still puts an emphasis on combat though

>>54544103
It definitely helps to be sure, but it still has its problems. It basically takes control of when players can rest reasonably away from the players and puts it entirely in the GMs hands. You can make preparations and figure out if an area will be safe for the night, but no such preparations could be made for an entire week on the fly. Its basically up to GM discretion if the party EVER gets spells back, which I think is a bit too domineering. When you're resting you're not actually committing to anything, you're just asking the GM if you can get away with it, and he has much less reason not to just say "no".

>>54544128
I agree. Its a decent solution, but I still dont see how its necessarily better than simply scaling back how many spells players have. They're going to TRY to rest whenever they can anyway.

I am surprised that this thread is so civil right now, probably because "DnD is a versatile system" anon isn't here

>>54544168
I'd argue you'd be equally domineering by simply slashing the number of spell slots in half across the board.

Unless a DM is a really big control freak, then the expectation is that you'd be able to safely stay in towns or cities, with the wilderness being a danger zone. This cuts out the 5 minute workday and a lot of master's dominence in utility by simply putting a more easily enforced reasoning behind it.

And of course, any DM who would interrupt your sleep in a safe city with a dragon attack or what have you still can, but they'd probably do it anyway.

>>54543988
>>54543988
>>54543988
>>54543988
>>54543988

Do some googling. OP doesn't care, it's a troll thread, go home.

>>54543748
>Then they all end up dying in an ambush because they missed a pack of wolves stomping into their camp ground
Yeah, because wolves have totally been known to just sneak their way into camps of armed men and fuck their day up.

Once again, this sounds more like a "shit DM" issue.

>>54544289
Eh, there's an interesting conversation going on right now, I'll leave if the thread descends into shit

>>54544264
Then you run into the problem of casters dominating problem resolution in any city.

>>54544307
Armed men who most certainly have a fire and some mundane alarms at that.

Plus odds are good that the Barbarian can just talk to them

>>54544319
If your campaign features the city heavily, the city shouldn't be a safe zone, don't get me wrong I am not a fan of 5E but it functions within its niche

>>54544319
Except no, because you're still taking a week to get any spells back. Arguably, gritty rests work even better for city based campaigns, since you can have the one or two fights per day that are fitting for investigation and intrigue.

But it will still take 1 week for the caster to get their spells back. Do you really think that trying to hunt down a serial killer or the like is something the group will wait a week for?

>>54544357
Cities do give the players easier access to safety than the wilderness, of course you can work around this

>>54544353
I wouldnt go that far, but I think we mostly agree.

>>54544357
Bad players certainly would, and the game encourages them to do so. Mediocre players (see: the majority of the recently emergent 5e playerbase) are going to rest whenever there's no imminent danger, regardless of circumstances. Its part of the reason I dont run 5e.

>>54544413
And thats part of the reason I suggest this variant, because players who opt to rest for a week at the first sign of trouble will never accomplish anything.

>>54544397
You really can't. Giving your enemies 7 days,of running amok without you doing anything to try and stop them is basically going to boil down to a failed quest or another group stopping them.

How many D&D adventures do you go on where the players can take a free week or several to solve it? How is this somehow not a massive improvement over the players getting 7 times as many spells under the normal rules?

>>54544413
>Mediocre players (see: the majority of the recently emergent 5e playerbase) are going to rest whenever there's no imminent danger, regardless of circumstances
And a good DM keeps mediocre players on their toes by making them think like ACTUAL FUCKING ADVENTURERS rather than numbers on a character sheet. "Hey, we need moar spell so let's rest!" "Yeah, except maybe resting right here in the middle of the road isn't really a good idea what with those rumors of orc raids and whatnot."

Again, shit DM problem.

>>54543870
Yeah, I use this too. The players using their abilities makes me cringe, so I limit it as much as I can.

>>54543179

If your table sucks at roleplaying, why are you playing roleplaying games again?

>>54544669
I too enjoy not reading and,making backhanded insults.

>>54544669
Are you bitter at 5E or the suggestion that the default rest rules are shi?t

File: 1490127103360.jpg (27KB, 296x341px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 296x341px

>this entire thread

>>54544759
*Shit?

>>54544763
?

>>54540700
D&D isn't the only system in existence, why don't these people understand that?

>>54544726
What the fuck are you talking about? I said I agree.

>>54544851
The problem is that people use 5E for games that it's not meant to run and that it's a huge chunk of the market, crowding out other games

>>54545036
Well let me hit the lottery so I can devote my life to perfecting my universal RPG system

>>54544313
It's fun to read but it's very one-sided, and to no end.

Plus the original arguments are dated by virtue of being 10 years old.

If people enjoy arguing on the internet this much for another 180 posts, I'll grab the popcorn.

>>54545110
Right now in the thread it's just two guys talking about the rest rules for 5E and it's fairly civil, maybe my standards are low but the quality of conversation is better than what I am used to in these threads

>>54543221
Less than 5E, which is fucking stupid because the entire reason 4E has this 'issue' is in service of tactical combat and therefore there is no reason for 5E to ape 4E, not even fucking CLOSE to less than 3.5 unless your metric is something retarded like sword and board Fighters. 3.5 in the hands of players who know what they're doing is rocket tag from the word go. It never stops.

>>54540700
Then OP tell me what is your ideal roleplaying system?

>>54545373
I don't think OP is still in the thread

>>54540700
my experience is quite different
>Power level.
my players actually prefer slowly ratcheting up
they are quite pleased when strong enemies they used to fight are now helpless before them
> Restrictiveness.
thats weird because even veteran players i have choose PHB classes even when i allow UA, they just really want to use the classics

> Mystery killing
this one is a bit subjective, since there is a certain charm to batmanning your way to victory
this one is also easy to work around, since you can easily prepare different stats to throw your party for a loop

>Logic holes/silliness.
i accept these whole heartedly

>>54544575
I dont even play 5e. Its a New GM problem, which given 5e's audience makes it just a regular problem.

Didn't read a single post, but if you want the straight dope on the situation:
Everyone loves to see the #1 champ fall, and there's plenty of folks that will do nothing with their lives but shit all over #1.
>success breeds jealousy

>>54546415
My big gripe is with how people use the system more than with the system itself, people try to use 5E for everything when it's a fairly limited system

>>54546515
Bro, I'm sure there's a thousand reasons why D&D 5e (and many other editions) and it's associated playerbase sucks giant aids infested monkey dick, but the same can be said for every system.
Nothing is perfect, and I sure as shit 110% believe ppl use the system for not!IntendedPurposes and that adds to the (usually justifiable) hate, but my point still stands.
>alternate timeline
>mazes and monsters is the dominant system
>tg_complaint_dept.gif
>Have you tried not playing M&M

>>54546567
5E defenitly isn't the worst game and a good amount of the hate is due to its popularity but there are some serious flaws

>>54545110
>the original arguments are dated by virtue of being 10 years old.
On the contrary, I find it hilarious that none of these issues have been dealt with even though they've clearly been known about for at leaast 10 years.

>>54546415
>Everyone loves to see the #1 champ fall
Not really. I mean, I don't think it's necessarily ideal that any one game is as prolific and dominating as D&D currently is as I see no real benefits to it but a whole lot of drawbacks, such as new players who are intruiged by the idea of roleplaying being turned off by the emphasis on combat and loot in D&D and assuming that that's how all RPGs work, or the opposite; new players being conditioned by D&D to think of combat as the highlight of the evening.

That said, if any one system has to dominate the market, then I am at least somewhat relieved that it is a narrow game like D&D and not an actually universal system like GURPS as then it would actually be impossible to convince people to play anything else, as the argument "why use another system when this runs it just fine?" would actually be valid.

>>54540700
>>54540708
>>54540723
>why does D&D suck?
>1. Power level.
>2. Restrictiveness.
>3. Mystery killing.
>4. Logic holes/silliness.
>t. not a gamist
I can make it even more succinct:
guess what? D&D appeals to a lot of people because of those things. because they are gamist players and D&D does hack&slash, level&loot fantasy quite decently. i can't follow because i am a genre simulationist myself but there you go.

Guess it is time to resurrect the corpse of 3.5 general.

>>54540746
>In case of the latter, your characters capabilities make up a miniscule part in the final result. Yes, this means that people with no training can outshine professionals time-to-time, and that arms wrestling contests between Strength 8 and 18 characters are mainly resolved with luck.
that is because, and get this,
D&D IS NOT A SIMULATIONIST GAME
d&d is about killing the monsters, getting their loot and leveling up. it's like 40K where you can hit flyers with handflamers. the game does not try to pretend that it's more than a game. it's all about getting the cool powers and combining them into a potent build.

do i think this sucks? yes. does it bother me? no, let people play whatever they fancy. what DOES bother me is that it is so predominant and is bound to shape the perception of our hobby in the eyes of normies entirely. roleplaying is way more than hack & slash and i wish more normies would get that.

>>54546415
>Everyone loves to see the #1 champ fall, and there's plenty of folks that will do nothing with their lives but shit all over #1.
i genuinely believe the hobby would be better off if normies were aware of at least 3 different RPGs which play vastly differently from each other. lets say D&D, CoC and... Fiasco.

File: e.jpg (33KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1280x720px

>>54548592
Do it

>>54540899
No, you're missing the point. He's not saying he doesn't want that option, he's saying he doesn't want it to be mandatory that you play that way, mostly for narrative reasons. Look at it in context of what comes below.

>>54541641
>no dish is perfect so let's keep eating shit

>>54543396
>>54543396
He means mechanically. Spells bring a lot of tools to the table that mundane characters don't have, mundane characters bring only a few tools to the table, most of which casters can also sort of do.

>>54540700
D&D (the past couple decades) is a fantasy superheroes game about the journey from incompetent rat catchers to literal reality warping demigods.

That journey, the level 1-20 spread, is the core of the games whole progression system.

If you're wanting something that stays in the lower half of that power spectrum, unless you're in it for the published adventures or for a specific d&d setting, you're better off playing a game that's better suited for what you want to play.

Id consider some form of Unisystem with dungeons and zombies, or maybe open quest, or mythras, or maybe dungeon fantasy, or d6 fantasy, or savage worlds and its fantasy setting, or Rolemaster. Each one of them is better at it that the past several versions of d&d.

But if you want that full spectrum, or you want the upper half of that spectrum, or you specifically want to play in one of the published d&d settings, possibly with one of the published campaign paths, some variety of d&d (probably 5e) may well be the beat system for the purpose.

>>54540708
>restrictive
D&D would be better if it was classless, with classes as a convenient grouping of abilities to save you time, like in gurps. I concur.
>mystery killing
Only if you're playing 3.x otherwise enemies don't use pc rules. Otherwise, even if he has rusting grasp, that tells you nothing else about him.

>logic holes
Yes. D&d is a goofy videogamey system with ridiculously scaling hp. A big part of why I called it a superhero system.

If I'm not looking to play an over the top fantasy capeshit campaign in a d&d world, I use a game better suited to what I want to play.

>>54541196
Then I suggest you consider the systems I mentioned near the top of my post. They're all way better for your use case.

>>54540708
>3. Mystery killing

This entire section is a problem with player mentality, not the game. If I heard my players meta game that hard, I'd almost certainly change the enemy completely (actually I wouldn't cause it wouldn't follow player rules anyway)

>>54541911
>I want a system that can handle more than one type of game

D&D has *never* been that. Each edition does one thing it's designed for. They're not all designed for the same thing.

Osr editions are about dungeon crawling.
AD&D 1/2 are high fantasy adventures with a dungeoncrawls subtheme.
3.x is zero to hero capeshit in eberron/faerun.
4e is a fantasy skirmish wargame with a level system, focused on killing 3nemies by the dozen, diablo style.
5eis a toned down version of 3e, simplified for the masses.

None of them are a generic universal roleplaying system, or a uni-system, or a basic roleplaying system, or fantastic adventures in tabletop entertainment.

Those games exist. They can be good games. If that's what you want to play, play them.

But d&d is not and is not trying to be those games.

>>54545065
Alternately, why not just pick a system that's appropriate to the situation?

>>54550319
What if Pathfinder is the appropriate system for the game I want to run?

>>54550347
Then you should confirm with your players if that's also the game they want to play. If not, find some kind of compromise which may or may not be pathfinder with some houserules. If so, then congratulations, your group has personal taste that conforms well to a well-supported game.

Just don't come on here making threads complaining about simple problems to which the solution is "try not playing D&D".

>>54550347
If pathfinder is the system you want to play, and 5e won't do, that's a narrow niche. If you're in that niche. Enjoy.

But don't try to run pathfinder or 5e for your damned gritty realistic viking campaign. You're trying to use a screwdriver to do the job of a hatchery, and you're gonna have a real bad time, and have nobody to blame but yourself.

File: Agreed.jpg (83KB, 678x751px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 678x751px

>>54541333
>people who play D&D play it because they are either in ignorance of those issues, or that they don't care care about them, or that some or all of those issues are actually a net draw for those players.

Now can we move on and talk about other things, guys?

File: beating-a-dead-horse-gif-11.gif (216KB, 512x422px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 512x422px

>>54550609
Hatchet
>>54550628
Not in this thread! This thread is all about this dead horse.

File: 1499642719755.jpg (71KB, 422x493px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 422x493px

>D&D
>goes on to describe like one of the latest editions with arguments that aren't even remotely applicable to older ones
Full retard.

Please at least try to make an original thread, instead of copypasting stuff you found on the internet.

>>54550347
This is almost never the case. In nearly every instance that Pathfinder is the right choice, Exalted is the better choice.

>>54548887
It certainly sells itself as the Alpha and the Omega.

>>54546415
You wish. When a product is poorly made and generally low quality its success certainly does not breed jealousy. It breeds disgust.

>>54546567
Yes, but many things are better. What you're saying is like pounding nails with a brick when there's a whole box of hammers right next to you.

>>54550885
Nobody gives a fuck about your OSR garbage. You like it. Thats great. People these days want more than a tin-can-telephone of a game.

>>54551200
Is the biggest game.

But in no way is it any good for realism or historical campaigns .

I find it laughable (and very sad at the same time) that there's a middle earth setting for 5e.

All d&d is stored to run is d&d. What that means varies very widely from one edition to the next.

>>54551793
Suited to run*

File: lol15.png (41KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x640px

>tfw too intelligent to have any major complaints with D&D
>tfw my group has literally never had a problem with any of the things you "people" complain about
>tfw the d20 system is the best core mechanic ever made
What's it like being too autistic for D&D?

>>54551880
>d20 system is the best core mechanic ever made
I'll kindly disagree with you on that one, but none of the group's I've played with ever were this autistic over a game either

>>54552077

Alright.
Mind if I ask what your favorite core mechanic is, friend?

>>54551880
You are mathematically incorrect.

>>54552320

Thanks for answering my question!
>>What's it like being too autistic for D&D?

>>54552348
Nice ad hominem.

>>54552363
Fascinating..

>>54552109
>inb4 shitstorm
My current favorite is 2nd Ed AD&D, minus all the superfluous splatbook bs. Taken at it's core, it harkens back to the heady days of original role playing for me and is as familiar as an old friend
>inb4 it's shit
It's just like any system: it takes good players, a good DM and some common fucking sense.

>>54552320
I know the other guy was baiting for you specifically, but this response is so stupid, you must genuinely be an idiot.

>>54540788

>>54540700
>D&D gargles balls, plain and simple

Thanks for stating the obvious, dumbass.

>>54540700
>Dungeons & Dragons sucks
this

>>54560408
>necromancing this shit thread

Pathetic.

File: 8c1.png (709KB, 819x714px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 819x714px

>>54560416

thats why I play dungeon crawl classics, where you dont get spells upon leveling up, where the dm is encouraged to break the games ruleset constantly, and being boring and familiar are hated

>>54540700
I just hate the swinginess of the d20 to be perfectly honest. And also how a lot of the rules solely exist to cuck the players. Enemies get a lot of really interesting abilities that players can never even touch, at least not without drawbacks and strange conditionals. At least in 5e.
And then the balance is a little bit of an issue as well...

Also, fuck Jeremy Crawford. Fuck that guy, and his fucking rulings.
Dumb nigga honestly believes that if a person jumps more than 30 feet but doesn't take their dash action, that their attack should be moved to the next round.
Every fucking word that he says or types, solely exists to turn the player into a useless piece of shit.

>>54560633
>I just hate the swinginess of the d20 to be perfectly honest.

A d20 vs 3d6 by themselves is one thing, but what you're supposed to be looking at is the fact that it is trying to meet a target number with a binary pass-fail result. How the dice roll is achieved in this regard is considerably less important than what the target number is set as.

Want less "swingy"? Reduce the target numbers to make the pass results more consistent. It's actually considerably easier to do using a flat distribution roll, since the math doesn't start to become unwieldy as you stray towards the extremes.

The question of "can we make the d20 rolls more reliable aside from lowering target numbers" was also addressed in 5e, with the inclusion of the advantage system.

>>54560666
Not this shit again.

>>54540723
I think the whole point of D&D originally was to be a TRUE RPG. Whereas, starting out fresh really does mean you're barely more dangerous than a badger or a ferocious squirrel. Thus, a dagger is 1d4 because in your hands it's essentially a sharpened butterknife and you swing with about the finesse and skill of an osteoporosis victim. The problem, is that the game at least in 5e does not tackle conditionals. There are no coup de grace attacks, there is essentially NOTHING that accounts for the fact that something small like a dagger can be horrifically dangerous, even to huge or gargantuan enemies(unless you fit a very specific role as a rogue with sneak attack).

>no damage die increases, no nothing

All for the sake of simplicity. And it ruins the immersion at higher levels.

>>54560694
If you're going to post something mathematically incorrect, getting mechanically proven wrong is healthy for you.

>>54540700
>Class systems suck
...most RPGS have them, but I don't disagree.

>>54540708
>can't change gold for character abilities
GOOD, fucking hell that would be bad.

>can't make your own spells
Blatantly untrue.

>can't be a singing fighter
Says who? Cross class skill are a thing.

>"Have you ever blah blah blah"
No. Literally never. There's enough class variety in 3.5 that predicting a class based on one spell is impossible. Try expanding beyond the PHB.

>Weapons have damage caps
Nope. Str bonus, weapon enchantments and critical hits exist.

>arrow easy to avoid
It's a fantasy setting, so...yeah, I'm okay with this. Alo HP as an abstract is horseshit, it's health, you are hit, you lose health. You didn't lose "stamina" while dodging, you're just that tough. Again, fantasy.

>>54540746
>Take cover?
At low levels when a single archer is a threat, and I'm not playing a guy in heavy armor/with a tower shield? Hell yes.

>>54541498
>Move on to 5e
Don't listen to this man, despite his reasonable opinion earlier in his post he shit the bed here. Come to Legend instead.

>>54541641
>find a system that feels the same but doesn't have those issues.
Have you tried Legend?

>>54541911
>many others in fact encourages GMs to not use monsters, for example, as written and instead only use them as guidelines.
You mean like DnD does, constantly?

>>54560666
I agree. As a DM I try to introduce various levels of "passing" when I can. For instance, a DC15 to determine the true nature of an object might be set, but someone who rolls a 13 total might still understand a lot such as its origins and nature, etc.

>>54560709

the point of DnD is that you solved obstacles in different ways and managed your resources carefully. monsters rolled on reaction tables and could potentially be friendly to the party if you rolled high.

You have fighters that bash monsters to death and have more hp to gamble health away in fights. you get better saves if you stumble on a trap, so you're in front, faggot. You have more hp so a trap doing 1d4 damage might kill a wizard but only wound a fighter.

Wizards can magically overcome all obstacles. Magic missile hits all monsters guaranteed for 3-18 damage. spider climb goes over gaps. Ventriloquism can fuck with enemy guards, start fights in camps. Knock unlocks doors and sleep kills a group of orcs.
Thieves can undo traps and shit too, but they can try forever, since its not magical, and if they get behind someone they generally can kill them.
Clerics can turn away most enemies that dont have reaction tables. Also, they can mitigate damage and make the current crawl last longer, because healing spells.
The demi-human classes were just flavors of those four.

DnD lost its identity when you stopped getting XP for gold you looted from dungeons and started designing its entire system around resolving straight fights. fuck 3.5. fuck 4e. fuck 5e.

>>54562062
But let's be real here. The whole "XP is equivalent to gold" system is to put it lightly....mentally handicapped

It makes little to no sense.
I totally agree with the notion however that successfully clearing a dungeon should net a lot of bonus experience

>>54562094

Tomb Robbing vs Hero-being. Up to you.

>>54562298
>complete a dungeon
>rogue steals all the gold
>none of us level up just because some stupid chaotic "neutral" fucker decided to be greedy, even though all of you contributed a lot

Pretty fucking retarded

Also. NOT EVERY FUCKING BATTLE TAKES PLACE IN A DUNGEON. Should I really not get any kind of reward for defeating an ambush or defending a city from a horde of zombies or something?

D&D may be about dungeons and dragons...but that's not ALL there is to it. To say that gold should be experience is fucking stupid I'm sorry.
If you really want to go that route, i think making up exp as you go is fine or just use milestones

>>54561761
I'll come to Legend when it's a complete game.

>>54562604
>walk into room
>murder everything in room
*boop*
>WOW WE'RE ALL LEVEL 5 NOW BECAUSE WE KILLED A BUNCH OF FUCKING ORCS

Dumb. Also, you get XP for killing monsters, and every edition, XP is shared. The rogue doesn't get more Xp because he stole all of the rogue.

Monsters give XP based on hit die. They give a little more for monsters with special abilities.
Monsters fucking murder PCs at most levels. Tons of save or die shit everywhere. So you A V O I D the battles, steal the loot. Herp. Play tactical if you have to fight. But fighting isn't the reason you're in there. It's to get rich and become fat with wealth and power

>>54563153
Well no shit.
If players tactically and intelligently avoid unecessary combat encounters, that deserves a lot of exp. Maybe even more so than the fight itself. Like I said, I'm not totally opposed to the idea.

But you say "hurr durr we killed a bunch of orcs we're level 5 now" is somehow MORE retarded than...
"Oh wow I found a treasure chest in the middle of fucking nowhere. I'm level 5 now"
At least with combat you can say they're becoming tougher due to experience. Swinging their swords and casting spells in combat situations is making them a better adventuring team. Instead of "OH I GOT A MILLION GOLD IN THIS DUNGEON SO NOW MY STRENGTH SCORE GOES UP TO 20". At least the other way they had to physically wrestle some foes, break down some doors, push some boulders and jump over obstacles which (naturally) increases their strength.

>>54563246

YOU DONT GET ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM LEVELING UP IN OLDER DND GAMES YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND YOU'RE BREAKING DOWN DOORS, PUSHING BOULDERS, AND JUMPING OVER OBSTACLES IN OLDER DND

YOU ARE THE FUCKING BIGGEST DIPSHIT ON THE PLANET. READ THE FUCKING 1981 B/X RULES BEFORE YOU START TALKING SHIT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

D&D is bad. It’s really bad. It’s a trash pile of a game. Getting into tabletops via D&D is similar to getting into video games off of shovelware platformers - it might work, you may have a good time, and it might encourage you to branch out into other, better games, but you are playing garbage to get there. It doesn’t even matter which edition you get - they’re all pretty bad and mired in legacy mechanics and poorly thought out decisions and this weird idea that only spell users get to have or do anything cool.

>>54545340
But not because 3.5 doesn't have bloated HP. It -does-. It just stops mattering almost immediately. The HP bloat is still there, however. It's no LESS of a problem, it's just a problem rarely encountered because it's buried under ANOTHER problem.

>>54563735
what would you recommend over dnd then senpai?

>>54545340
HP bloat exists in 3.PF but it doesn't matter because mages end combat without dealing damage anyways.

If you're an all-martial party though, you can be looking at 5-10 turns of slog because everyone has so much HP

>>54540700
Bump because I want a board filled with bait thread only.

>>54565794
this. i hear people shit on dnd in this board a lot but they never say what's good in their eyes.

>>54568660
Mostly because that ends with defensive D&D fanboys shitting on their game instead.

Plus, it's hard to recommend a single thing, since each WotC edition is different, so what works as a replacement for one, won't work as a replacement for others.

For example, you could generally recommend OSR games instead of OD&D, but that doesn't really help people who want 3.5 alternative that is neither 4e or 5e.

>>54568716
okay, so i guess i'll just keep playing 5e, what a pointless thread

>>54568716
>Mostly because that ends with defensive D&D fanboys shitting on their game instead.


God, you trolls are so pathetic.
People who play D&D have no reason to shit on other games.

You do it because you can't stand something being popular. What reason would they have, aside from the games in question just genuinely not being all that good?
Your troll logic is making quite a few leaps.

>>54568724
Why did you reply if you knew the thread was pointless?