ITT: Wrong Opinions

>>55023647
>The system isn't bad because you can homebrew it!

File: 1457554628587.png (427KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 704x528px

>>55023647

>Age of Sigmar is good!
>40k fluff has always been bad!

>>55023701
>40k fluff has always been bad!
But I will admit, it gets tiresome after a while. the excessively brutal and over-the-top weapons and armor of the setting is always a fun addition

>>55023647
> 5E is a versatile system
> 5E is a bad system because it isn't versatile
> Realism is bad

File: garbo.png (44KB, 478x504px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 478x504px

>>55023647
>DnD is a good game as long as you play (insert number)th Edition here

>>55023821
OSR and 4E are fine

>>55023829
3.5 is objectively the only playable edition.

>>55023908
lolno

>>55023647
>opinions are wrong if I disagree with them

>>55023908
I unironically like 3.PF more than 5E but I can't help but fell your baiting

D&D is the perfect system for an Game of Thrones'like intrigue game.

>>55023947
It;s kind of obvious the wrong is hyperbole for "opinions I really hate"

>>55023970
>>55023921
Jesus Christ I need to proof read
It's kind of obvious that wrong is hyperbole for "opinions I really hate" in this case

>>55023647
>D&D is bad!!!
>GURPS is good!!!
>Point buy is good!!!
>Anima is easy!!!
>40k lore is teenager trash!!!
>Pathfinder is bad!!!

DnD is a good role-playing game.
Rules are more important than fun.
"fun" is a buzzword.
Alignments are not shit.
Learning new systems is hard.
DnD is friendly for new players.

>>55024000
These contradict each other

>>55023999
But anon, this are good opinions

>>55024017
And they are both trips of truth. How will we know which is which?

>>55023685
>the engine is fundamentally flawed because they painted the car the wrong colour

>PF is not 3.5 improved in every single way
>D&D is not a war game
>Women can be good players too
>Shadowrun/Vampires are good solid games
>Futuristic D&D can be fun
>Realism is bad
>MtG is not a p2w game, it has skill
>Starwars TRPGS are good (or Starwars at all)

>>55023685

This.

Sure sign of retards, seriously.

>>55024051
but anon, 3.PF is fucked up at it's core, so your metaphor doesn't work

>Orc double axes are legitimate weapons.

Yes, I had someone say something like this to me. Big weeb.

>Jackie Chan can do it in this movie, why shouldn't my character?

(Because it's out of tone with the rest of what we're doing, you jackass.) This was about using a steel ladder as an improvised weapon to prove he should be able to use something similarly dumb as an improvised weapon. I don't even remember what weapon we were bitching about, just that he used a scene from a very silly Jackie Chan movie to support his opinion.

>>55023987
Nah I get you.

I know people who unironically think their opinions are factually better than others just because they have them, though. You gotta put your foot down about that sort.

>>55024092
These aren't bad opinions
>MtG is not a p2w game, it has skill
>D&D is not a war game
>Women can be good players too

>>55024113
>d20+mod>target number is fucked up at its core
please explain

>>55024145
that casters completely ignore that

>>55024125
But I have my opinions because they are the right ones to have, not the other way around.

>I never had a good game with 3.PF, so I don't feel like playing that

>>55024145
The biggest problem is not what the game does but what it doesn't , at that point your basically playing role assisted free-form and you could do that with pretty much any game

>>55024116
Good post, your opinion is indeed wrong.

>>55023908
Perfect post for the Wrong Opinions thread.

>characters becoming essentialy living legends, maybe gods at the end game of the campaign is shit
You know, you could use these characters that became legends or gods as npcs in another campaign based in the same world.

>>55024259
I don't mind crazy power progression but I would like it to occur at a reasonable pace

>>55024292
sure it would be in a long campaign, where you would "puff i am a god", it would be slow and steady as you get more experience and magical itens.

>>55024051
I could homebrew a combat system for RaHoWa but that doesn't mean it isn't bad as is. That game has broken crunch and is bad because of it.

>>55023821
Depends what you are hoping to do Anon.

>>55024145
For me it is that d20 is super swingy, among other things. Also, a lot of people use it incorrectly because it is easy to do so. If done with RAW, it really isn't too terrible, but it's foolish to divorce it from its toxic applications.

- One-die roll means that characters are generally less competent than they should be, or at least less consistent.

That right there is the biggest issue.

- 5% chance of crit-success or crit-failure is ridiculous.
- Crit-failures are not supposed to make you hit your buddy with a devastating blow, you're supposed to lose some turns, maybe hurt yourself for a couple points. People forget that.
+ Crit-failures aren't supposed to apply to skill rolls, only to combat rolls. People forget that.
- Crit-fishing is something that actually makes sense as a strategy for some people. If it's necessary, you should be legging it.

How d20 related stuff handles crits is problematic at best, with RAW, and fucking unbearable at worst, when misinterpreted or homebrewed.

- Because it advances or improves at a constant rate, it encourages munchkiny behavior, and makes advancement boring.
+ Because of linear advancement, challenges also increase linearly, and the difference of success to a very skilled or a very unskilled character is identical.
+ Because of linear advancement, skills never feel different when they've reached a certain point, and there's a system encouragement to go beyond heroic levels to just ridiculous levels.

While there is a practical limit to how far one can escalate, generally the d20 mechanic encourages a style that doesn't know how to not escalate.

There are other problems beyond those.

>>55023647
>I let the opinions of assholes on 4chan dictate what games I like/play

>>55024659
>d20 is super swingy
take 10 should fix this
>One-die roll means that characters are generally less competent than they should be
See above. Also, multiple dice rolls are an unnecessary waste of time.

>crit failures/crits
As you mention, the most egregious thing about these is that people just don't play them correctly. Crits don't apply to skills, and in combat it causes a level of danger even when fighting weak enemies.

>>55023701
As someone who knows most of what he knows about 40k from lurking here, it seems like a cool setting. So long as you never attempt to learn more than what is discussed here. The moment I touched the wiki, I learned the horror that only decades of revision can bring

>>55023999
This isn't a right opinions thread anon.

>D&D is good for some types of games and settings

>everyone else's setting is worthless and terrible, but MINE is the one that everyone should care about
>[System] cannot be enjoyed and you're wrong for enjoying [System]
>Wizards should be literal gods and martials are for retards that just want to live out a power fantasy where they're strong
>Music at the table is always a bad idea
>Music at the table is usually a good idea
>Woman don't belong at the table
>The average woman is as good at roleplaying as the average man
>Cosmic Horror is enjoyable on the Tabletop
>Cosmic Horror is worth anything at all.

>>55023647
>Stat Me threads are always funny

>>55025032
>Stat Me threads are ever funny

>>55023647
>ITT wrong opinions
Isn't that just a regular /tg/ thread?

>>55023647
>my system is better because it supports transgender elves.

>>55023701
>40k is a parody, you're not supposed to take it seriously!

File: Well thats just like your opinion man.jpg (63KB, 625x352px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x352px

>>55024835
>Take 10 should fix [d20 swinginess] and [lack of character competence/consistency].

>Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or distracted...
See http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm

I am explicitly talking about situations in which you have to roll a d20, like tense stealth moments, combat, social checks, etc. Generally, one should take a stance that if there is no risk to failure, there shouldn't even be a roll. There are exceptions, such as if the players or the PCs shouldn't know the outcome of the roll, for tension, etc. If there is some consequence of failure, but the character is not threatened or under pressure, then that is the intersection where taking 10 should live.

>Multiple dice rolls are an unnecessary waste of time.
Pic related.

It really doesn't take that much longer. For a resolution mechanic which I think, subjectively, feels better, I don't mind taking the extra couple seconds to count out two or three extra dice. For some systems, unloading a fistful of dice is part of the fun. Also, in case there is any misunderstanding, I was talking specifically about a "one-die" roll, as opposed to one "die-roll", wherein only one die is cast to constitute a roll, as opposed to multiple dice constituting one roll.

File: T9wSsgG.gif (2MB, 255x219px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 255x219px

>check out my homebrew critical failure charts, I think they're fairly balanced
>it's not like you're gonna immediately critically maim yourself doing something relatively mundane again...

>>55024659
>5% chance of crit-success or crit-failure is ridiculous.
crit failures are a houserule and you should savagely beat your dm with a bag of d20s for trying to use them
crits period are only supposed to happen on combat rolls and are supposed to be confirmed anyway

>>55024835
>take 10 should fix this
if your system has to be fixed by ignoring the system, there's something wrong
also if the only reason weaker enemies are ever a threat is just because of crits, there is also something wrong

File: Curry Well How about that.gif (1MB, 360x186px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x186px

>>55023821
>"I think D&D is terrible!"
>Never lists a replacement fantasy book that isn't just someone's houserules of D&D

>>55024659
>d20 is super swingy
I have never understood what people meant by this.

>>55028355
>if your system has to be fixed by ignoring the system, there's something wrong
It was their attempt to ratify a peculiarity from how people played with non-weapon proficiencies in 2e. People would roll, and the DM would say you fail, but then they would just shrug their shoulders and roll again, and the DM didn't really know how to answer that. Not a lot of people understood the idea of cost vs benefit because it was a fairly new and experimental system that was trying to move D&D out of the Dungeon and into the more familiar territory of the over world and campaign setting. The Take 10/20 system is in there trying to answer that instead of realizing that most skill systems like that are flawed to begin with and weren't necessary in the older D&D games.

>>55028655
It's a single roll modified by one number, which results in lot of successes and lots of failures which leads to ludo-narrative dissonance with the skill system implemented. A wizard trained in magic and specializing in the knowledge of Arcana has a ridiculously high chance (relatively) of failing any check to know things about magic, something he spent his life doing. Meanwhile, within the same party, the Barbarian gets a lucky roll and knows everything the party needs to know about X for no real in-game reason that isn't an after-sales excuse.

>>55028655
Then you don't really understand probability. Compare it to a bell curve system like 3d6: you're astronomically more likely to roll average than you are an 18 or a 3, bonuses for characters who are succeeding on a 10 are far more powerful than those who are succeeding on a 5(assuming it's roll over not roll under) to the tune of a +2 being a 24.07% increase in success chance for the former and a 1.84% increase for the latter, while penalties punish the more skilled of the two far less than it does the guy who's only succeeding half of the time.

>>55028465
Runequest and GURPS dungeon fantasy, Warhammer fantasy role-play

>>55028846
Sorry, whenever I point that out, I usually also point out that they have to be good.

>>55028884
What's wrong with Runequest?

Hey guys, I found another wrong opinion!

>>55028884

>Perfectly valid system suggestions aren't good for unlisted reasons.

>>55028985
The fact that it's a d100 system.

I have dice autism and I find d100s and d6s to be the least aesthetically and kinetically pleasing dice in the bunch.

Also I don't like skill systems where you just build percentiles and roll it.

The "d20 is super swingy" people are people who have never read the rulebook and didn't see the part that goes "You don't have to roll a strength check if you can carry the contents of a small village on your back".

>>55029108
That's because they've never played a game outside of that one time at a friend's house playing pathfinder. That's why a lot of these mouthbreathers think that crit fails are in the rules.

>>55029129
Mathematically theirs more variance with a d20, still it's not a bad resolution mechanic even if d100 is better, DnD is bad for other reasons

>>55029168
there's

>>55029168
Your only really supposed to roll for tasks that are difficult for your character to accomplish, the variance is a purposeful gamification of that difficulty.

>>55029207
Other anon; the problem I find with that is just having the mechanic there encourages you to use it even when you know in the back of your head it might be ridiculous, and often times there is no real hard and fast rule for how NOT to use it other than "Use your best judgement", which is usually buried in the back of the DMG if anywhere at all.

I tend to prefer OSR games though. I find that skill systems in general are a bit of a flawed idea to begin with, but that's just me.

>>55029207
Which is a problem when you have multiple people rolling on the same check and bonuses are so small that you end up with untrained Wizards beating fantasy Bill Kazmaier on strength checks.

>>55029343
It's generally a problem with the bonuses rather than the die.

>>55029372
People get screechy when bonuses are actually appropriate for a d20, so I don't know what to tell you.

>>55029129
"Fumbles" have been in the rules as at least a variant rule since 3rd edition.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2/is-a-fumble-on-a-natural-1-an-official-rule

"Critical failure", as such, has not appeared, to my knowledge. It is, however, ingrained in the popular culture about the game, which is not to be dismissed.

>It is possible to claim objectively that x game is bad, or that y game is better than it.

Let's be honest, it comes down to personal preference every time.

>>55029676
FATAL

>>55029108
>>55029129

Even WotC knows its swingy, which is why bell-curve rolls showed up as an alternate rule in the 3E Unearthed Arcana. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm

In situations where the characters aren't superhumanly good or where the modifier on its own isn't enough to overcome the challenge, they still have to deal with the die roll. Skirting around the die roll with taking 10/20 or with situations where the character is so good they simply won't fail is not addressing the issue. Don't prop up strawmen.

A single d20 is, mathematically, more swingy than multiple dice of any kind. It is empirical, objective fact.

>>55029734
True but d20 works with appropriate bonuses

>>55029695

Ah...ur...hmm. Shit yoy got me.

>>55029734
>>55029777
It'd also be much better with degrees of success.

>>55024051
Homebrewing would be fixing the engine. Repainting the car is closer to refluffing.

>>55023701
Age of sigmar's rules are good though.

The lore is shit, and the new rules are distinctly not for the people that really liked how fantasy worked before, but the rules are still fun.

>>55029824
It depends on what kind of homebrewing. I'd say it's closer to swapping out some spark plugs, maybe swapping out the radio and sound system, maybe even doing something drastic like supercharging it or something, but still using the same base engine mostly intact.

>>55023647
>anyone who doesn't love my system is a moron

>>55029466
You're right, I tend to forget that 1 is an automatic miss, not just "a number so low you shouldn't even bother with the math".

File: At least you tried.jpg (99KB, 588x546px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 588x546px

>>55029734

>Says "Don't prop up strawmen."
>Brings up the Take 10/20 rule which neither poster talked about or addressed at all in their statements

>>55029971
Raw d20 is worse without take 10/20 so if anything he's doing them a favor

>>55023647
>core only 3.5 is the only way to play 3.5

>>55029077
That is every dice system. It all comes down to percentiles at the end of the day.

>>55030036
When I said that, I actually meant "Roll vs a static target number with some situational modifiers" as opposed to "Roll vs a target number decided by the situation and add static modifiers". d100 tends to encourage and play the former as opposed to the latter. Also, even if it did play the latter, I think having a one percentile degree of granularity is far, far too much. Most people just tend to pick multiples of 5 and are done with it.

>>55030027
The only way to win is not to play

File: failure.jpg (73KB, 677x503px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 677x503px

>>55029108
>d20
>not using 2d6+3 on a 1-20 scale instead

>>55029971

>Thinks that arguing in a way that assumes the best of the opposing side is propping up a strawman.

Wew, lad.

>>55030071
Mechanical it's the same, I could see why it would feel wrong to you though

>>55030121
>Thinks that addressing any part of the 3.PF cancer is "the best of the opposing side"
Strawman.

>>55025201

i miss these days where Doom and Quake ruled the noosphere and space = demons = human greed inviting literal hell upon them. Where 40k really was a light, if ineffective, commentary on the fears of our modern corporate world's amoral, ever-consuming hunger for short-term profit, wondering when the day is that they'll cross boundaries universally agreed upon to never be crossed.

a duhhhh doyyyy duhhh i mean uhhh the inquisitors are admirable duhhhhhhhhh

>>55030160
Mechanically it winds up being the same, but psychologically it creates a different approach to situations and world building. It also makes a statement about the condition of the world that is juxtaposed with the rules.

In Roll vs Static Target with Situational Modifiers, your GM is saying "All tasks of this nature are equally difficult, and it is only outside modifiers that alter this". All locks are the same, all boulders are of equal weight, etc.

Roll vs TN Decided by Situation with Static Modifiers allows the GM to subtly imply the difference between tasks even within the same category. The lock you're picking is a bad lock compared to the lock you're picking that is a good lock. This boulder is heavier and requires more strength than this boulder.

While in the former, you can always add modifiers such as "This is a HEAVY BOULDER™, so it gives you a -10%" or "This is an EASY LOCK™ so it gives you a +20%", that makes the impression on the player that the lock is granting them the bonus as opposed to showcasing how good they are at the skill.

>>55025201

If only that was still true.

File: 10720649.jpg.png (160KB, 298x289px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 298x289px

>>55025760
that fucking anon though, holy shit

>>55029676

Maybe that isn't possible, but it's certainly possible to say that some shit works better or worse than some other equivalent shit.

File: 15036369_858546750947771_7958312588106593649_n.jpg (21KB, 480x305px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x305px

>>55030036
Eh, not really. The primary difference between what I call "binary" (roll, either succeed or don't) and other systems is that other systems inherently have built in 'level of success' mechanics. Like in a dice pool system, not rolling enough dice above a threshold means that a simple action could take one or two more turns, whereas in a binary system a failure means "nope. Failed."
Imagine this: in real life, you're going to go do a social action. Walk up to a lady and social her.
-if you do well on your initial roll, she's more receptive to subsequent attempts or other types of rolls, like bartering or decieve or whatever.
-if your initial roll is a middling success or minor failure but she doesn't have anything else to do, it may take a little while for her to warm up to you. Imagine that your icebreaker joke was poorly delivered or whatever. Roll next round.
-if you blow the roll, a failure is a failure. She has a boyfriend, or she laughs stiffly and mentions that she needs to find her friends.

In a binary system, the only outcomes given a stated objective are Yes and No. The same general shape of conversation can be approximated with descriptive GMing, but you can hardly rely on that. In fact, I consider that a successful system should feel mechanically like doing a thing. Big handfuls of dice for exciting dramatic actions, few dice for inconsequential things, sequential rolls for actions happening over time.
Imagine rolling a d20 to determine the outcome of Russian roulette!

>>55024850

>As someone who knows most of what he knows about 40k from lurking here
>As someone who knows jack shit about 40k
FTFY

File: 1413579226940.jpg (42KB, 282x341px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 282x341px

>>55023647
I once was told that not having fun with 4e was impossible because balance is the key to a fun rpg, so therefore I must have memed myself into not loving it.

The guy who said this also unironically declared himself to be one of the most mentally mature people on the planet, so I'm guessing this is one of those wrong opinion things.

>>55024850
The cool part of 40k is growing up with it. It doesn't hold up to time any better than Pokemon or yugioh cartoons or redwall books or anything else you liked as a kid. The fact that it's being revised literally only matters to people who kept caring for longer than they were supposed to.
And I don't mean that in the 'grow up and stop playing game' sort of way. I mean it as 'you spent 20 years loving this setting and instead of cultivating a love of sci-fi and over the top dark fantasy it made you angry on a Pinoy winemaking image board.'

>>55030565
Gosh, anon. Maybe he was, though? There's a 1/8billion chance, roll for it?

>>55030565
He did have a point.

A balanced game does tend to be the key to a fun RPG, but only if the balance is asymmetrical and each option in the game has a reason for why they exist and why they need other members of the party to watch their back.

It's no fun watching someone else have fun while you're stuck playing with a shitty character because you didn't know enough about the game to build a viable Fighter class.

It's even less fun playing a mage and ruining the fun for everyone else because you enjoy playing magic users and you stumbled into becoming the most viable member of the party after a few levels.

>>55030731
You're talking about dnd.

The problem is that the game designers didn't consider scaling at fucking all. They mostly balanced it at level 1 and then decided that becoming more accurate and fast with an axe is roughly equivalent to weilding literally earth-splitting spells and the ability to rewrite the game from within the rules.
(And also not making the magic user choose which apocalyptic superpowers that they get. Just scribe scroll lmao)

>>55029734
2d10 would be a good compromise

>>55030731
Of course he had a point. The whole balance thing is incredibly basic. It's his derived thesis that's incredibly retarded.

>>55030876
See http://anydice.com/program/ca5f

2d10 offers something very much similar to craps dice, but on a different scale. It _does_ make for slightly more consistent rolls, but not by much. It also raises the average roll by .5, which mildly upsets some of the balance.

3d6 has a more consistent bell curve. It is used in the UA rules as listed here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm

Honestly a lot of the Unearthed Arcana rules make d20 stuff in general a lot better, like the traits stuff, and the armor as damage reduction stuff.

File: Not bad, kid.jpg (26KB, 500x336px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x336px

>>55023647
>5e is bad
>non-human races are bad
>splatbook races/classes/options are bad
>badwrongfun means more then munchkin players deliberately breaking the game or lolsorandumb

basically everything /tg/ believes is wrong

>>55031622
Armor as DR is a pretty bad rule because the game isn't built around it. The rule itself points something like this out, but it's understating just how common big guys who hit hard once or twice a round are, especially since the reduced AC means Power Attack(a very very common feat on these types of enemies) overpowers the increased DR by itself. Then on the other side of the spectrum, you have Monks and TWFers crying themselves to sleep because the increase in DR means there's a net loss in their overall damage despite hitting slightly more often.

>>55032395
Okay, that's fair. I hadn't considered the ramifications if you plop it into the game as is. In a perfect world, it could be plopped in as a side-grade to the existing mechanic.

All the same, I do prefer Armor as DR from a perspective of verisimilitude and ludo-narrative structure.

One of the reasons I like GURPS, but that's a wrong opinion according to some members of this thread. I'll just keep having my badwrongfun.

>>55023647
>5e is the most popular game in the world!

Not roleplaying game, not pen and paper game, but the single most popular game in the world, more so than tag, hide-and-seek, or football. I have had people unironically try to "prove" this to me by posting polls done by WotC and year old Roll20 infographs.

You've fallen so far /tg/

>>55028355
>crit failures are a houserule and you should savagely beat your dm with a bag of d20s for trying to use them
>crits period are only supposed to happen on combat rolls and are supposed to be confirmed anyway

This is, indeed, a very wrong opinion!

>>55032622
>crits
>ever

almost as gross as exploding dice tbqhsfal

>>55023647
>Using a certain system is the most important part of enjoyable game play
>A system is useless if you have to tweak the rules to fit your group's play style
>System mastery is the most important thing a player brings to the table
>5e sucks because people with relatively normal social skills enjoy it
>ERP is acceptable under some circumstances
>/tg/ is full of smart, creative people with interesting opinions

>>55032708
God forbid players do something that they enjoy at the expense of your precious, precious realism

>>55032708

>tbqhsfal
To be quite honest (so fucking adequately loser?)

What's that mean tho

>>55032767
I was speaking as a player anon. I've always found crits and exploding dice to be annoying mechanics.

But to each their own.

>>55032485
Ultimately the problem with UA rules, and really, most houserules for 3.5, compared to something like variant rules for GURPS is that since 3.5 was developed around a very specific set of mechanics all working in tandem, it isn't prepared to accept houserules that replace some of those parts without extensive work on the other intertwined parts of the game first. Just for basic examples from UA: Armor-as-DR hurts the PCs vs over half of the MM and screws over combat styles that focus on volume of attacks over individual hits like archery and TWF, 3d6 overpowers save or lose spells and opposed skill checks when neither of them needed help, Vitality/Wound points means that critical hits are instant kills against anything smaller than Huge for the majority of the game. All of them are good ideas: if the rest of the game worked with them, rather than against them.

>>55034504
You are not wrong. Those rules definitely break some of the classes. If the tone of the game is already pretty gritty/realistic, then I wonder how much it would matter? If it were mostly resembling the classic four: knight, cleric, wizard, rogue, how much would these rules suck for them?

>>55023647
>Ani-Mayhem isn't bad.

>>55034630
All of them together? Fighter gets universally hurt by it due to poor saves/skills becoming a larger liability while enemy crits instantly drop them, Clerics benefit overall because their high Fort and Will put them out of range of save or loses and while they can still be instantly killed like Fighters can in melee, they're now no worse off than them unbuffed due to enemy AC dropping and making their slightly lower attack bonus irrelevant and crits being the major factor in how quickly you kill an enemy, Rogues get large stealth benefits but lose out in combat so it's a net loss because if they bothered, they were already dominating stealth under 1d20. You could make it work, but you'd need to design monsters yourself, refactor skill/save/DC scaling to fit 3d6, and fix the wound points system so that it can stop crits from being an instant kill for the entire game. And that's honestly more work than it's worth to play a game that's still going to have issues.

>>55034853
Feh. That much dicking about just to get the game to feel like I want it to and be balanced properly. For that I might as well just crack open GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, do some seat-of-my-pants transposing with the Monster Manual and be done with it. I will say this, I was digging all the Unearthed Arcana variant rules before I discovered that GURPS even existed. Maybe I'm just a fag for bell-curves and mechanics that make sense.

>>55028846
>gurps is good

Perfect for this thread, thanks for reminding us, anon.

>>55034917
I'd just play GURPS or even work off of the base in 5E instead. 3.5 is spectacularly bad at even vaguely realistic combat if you don't want to spend 6+ months ironing out everything.

>[that class] is overpowered
>[this class] is shit
Especially if these statements are said by someone who is shit at the game and doesn't know how it works. Much like the entirety of /tg/

>>55035147
>class gives their whole party 10 rounds of actions for every 1 you would normally get
>no it's not overpowered guys trust me