Vent your frustrations with D&D, /tg/.

I will never have enough time to run all of the games and player all of the characters I'm interested in.

>>55314413
the hitpoint system fucking sucks at early levels. I was the tankiest guy in the group as the fighter and I literally got one shot by some orc at level 2. Just cross your fingers and hope the dice don't fuck you.

File: call fo cthulhu boxart.jpg (98KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 768x768px

vent your frustrations with CoC, /tg/

File: 1499224417755.jpg (46KB, 564x1060px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x1060px

>>55314413
I thought that 4e was a step in the right direction, as it took the high gamist nature of the system, which was basically the only reason to play it, and stripped out most of the glaring issues with mechanics and balance. This is why I'm seriously annoyed because the hordes of people who wanted 3.5-II generated enough pushback that 5 dropped everything that 4 fixed and went crawling back to the same martial-caster divide, simulationist window-dressing pitfalls that 4e fixed.

I don't dislike simulationists or narrativists, but there are other, better systems for what you want to play, and I'm mad that what was shaping up to be exactly what I wanted in a fantasy TTRPG got ripped apart in the next edition for the sake of a group that is better served by something else.

>>55314811
Tangentially related, but I wish things that aren't Lovecraft and don't really get what Lovecraft was supposed to be about would stop trying to force it in.

File: 1426391769405.jpg (44KB, 550x449px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x449px

>>55314413
I love D&D, I only have frustrations for OGL games, and 5e, which existed for the sole purpose of being an OGL game in all but name.

Every other iterration of D&D has its place, but OGLd20, and by extentision 3e, 3.5, PF, 5e, and every {insert genre}d20 game, are utter garbage,

>>55314413
I dislike how the game has moved away from open ended exploration of dangerous locales to more linear stories.

It became easy fuel for shitposts. That is about it.

>>55314413
I'm kinda with >>55314837. DnD still has a lot of wargame baggage that it refuses to shed or design around due to grognards. Maybe with 6e they'll try again with what 4e wanted, but with less of Hasbro forcing their hands.

After all this time I still can't tell how I'm suppose to hide basic traps if their DC is low enough that everyone can detect it with passive perception.

If I don't use passive perception the players will be conditioned to "look for traps" every time they enter a room. Even if I just roll their perception check myself it feels lame because I'm not using passive perception when THAT is the stat I'm suppose to be used to detect things when you're just normally aware of your surroundings and haven't declared you're looking for traps.

It's fucking confusing. Yeah I could always hide it in darkness or something and from there justify that passive perception wouldn't find it since it drops from visibility penalties - but why does every simple pit trap need to be in the dark?

>>55314413
it is THE face of an extremely variable hobby that should have multiple faces in the public eye

>>55314811
it's probably the best RPG out there but it's not without flaws. the rules for full-automatic fire are bad, for example. also the sanity rules could be improved (ToC does it better).

>>55314837
munchkins can exploit simulationist elements. a truly gamist game is fairly well balanced and much harder to exploit

>Tangentially related, but I wish things that aren't Lovecraft and don't really get what Lovecraft was supposed to be about would stop trying to force it in.
true

>>55314413
Like >>55314837 said, it's a game that, at least in later editions, doesn't know what it's trying to do. It's heavily gamist and thus understandably abstract and simplistic in certain departments at the same time as it, due to its age, is filled archaic mechanics, inconsistent subsystems, and stats that are only ever used to calculate other stats. And to top it all of it also tries to be a narrativist and simulationist game because "gotta get all of them demographics, boys" with mechanics that don't fit with what the rest of the game tries to do.

4th was probably an improvement in this department, but it was also the edition that made me realize that I really really don't like the gamist aspect of the hobby.

>>55314413
D&D is the reason why video game RPGs almost always use some sort of level system, which usually means that the gameplay suffers

File: This.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>55314837
>I'm seriously annoyed because the hordes of people who wanted 3.5-II generated enough pushback that 5 dropped everything that 4 fixed and went crawling back to the same martial-caster divide, simulationist window-dressing pitfalls that 4e fixed.
Came here to post basically this.

I don't like the feat system in 5e, in that some classes only need to take one feat, but others won't be viable until level 16 save for cheese

>>55314413
Its unwarranted popularity, unnecessary bulk and inelegant design keep too many people from even so much as considering trying a different, more suitable system for whatever game they want to play.

A couple of my friends started a Pathfinder campaign and I've heard complaints that its moving way too slow because they're pretty much actively avoiding any activity in game that would require engaging with the mechanics beyond some simple skill rolls and just end up fucking around in cities instead of doing any adventuring. When I suggested a system that would actually support their playstyle and be far easier to learn play and run, they outright rejected it because it would be too much work to learn.

>>55314413
No problems, personally.

Maybe you should try playing D&D.

>>55314807
Bad luck, old bean. I don't see how a lucky shot killing a tough guy is a failure of the system.

>>55314837
this

My frustration with D&D is that the best versions of it are no longer called D&D. First and most obvious, there's Pathfinder, which attempts to keep going when they dropped 3e.

Then there's the myriad retro clones that sprung up, my personal favourite is Basic Fantasy RPG, which I think is the ultimate incarnation of traditional D&D. Or Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which focuses on weird fantasy. Or there's Whitehack, which successfully blends Fate style aspects with Swords & Wizardry White Box. &c &c.

I don't hate D&D 5e, I just feel that it's no longer the case that you should expect the best games of D&D to carry the name.

>>55315116
the find DC doesn't have to be the passive DC.
If you are using passive perception to look for the "rocks fall" trap then the DC is 20. If you're using active perception then the DC is 10 because its easy to spot if your looking for it.

Passive Perception is more useful for detecting an enemy sneaking up on you. Because the DC is usually set by their stealth roll and not all monsters can have a permanently high DC.

Every edition intensifies Its obsession with balance so it starts slashing mechanics it couldn't balance in previous editions making it increasingly more boring.

Vancian casting however is still the best system I've seen, everybody talks about the superiority of mana systems but I've yet to play a system with it that doesn't let Wizards spam spells at freedom with no thought.

File: 1474146281199.jpg (96KB, 597x796px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 597x796px

I like 5e other then the amount of choices available when making a character. Once you reach level 3 it your character on a set course unless you multiclass.

That and I prefer older styled art.

>>55317219
>best version of D&D
>Pathfinder
wew

>>55317527
>and I prefer older styled art.
Who the fuck doesn't?

>>55316444
Because it's basically a toss up between either dying in one hit or never dying because you have more health and can deal more DPR than your opponents.

No point in using strategy when all combat boils down to bumping aggressively until one person falls down.

>>55314413
I wish Hasbro was reasonable and gave WoTC a larger budget. 5e is literally made by three guys or so, which is why we have one splat released per YEAR. We could do with at least two.

>>55317641
They've already got a decent budget, It's just poorly managed.

>>55314811
>hits a flailing tentacle with a revolver held one handed
>while being threatened by it
>with a shitty saturday night special
that man is a fucking legend.

>>55314837
>but there are other, better systems for what you want to play
like what?

>>55317505
So much this
Balancing broken things is easy as shit, implementing a whole new system because mechanics weren't included for balancing reasons is annoying. Retards whining about >muh monk killed fun in RPGs.

>>55317219
5e is better than all of those. It's still not great

File: Mind_flayer_-_5E.jpg (359KB, 1000x1375px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x1375px

>>55317607
>>55317527
I actually think most of the 5e art is more consistently good. Just look at the monster manual and generally there very few bad images compared to previous editions.

Also the art generally has a sleek look which I imagine some people liking quite a bit more.

File: 5948a3349ab65_ToddsWrath1.jpg.6a082a3080fbbec1e6561f25168d0852.jpg (20KB, 600x607px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x607px

>>55314413
One of my fucking players memorized the entire goddamned book front to back, binding n' all. Every time I make a minor mistake he blasts me with pages of info and just carries this smug-ass "King Shit Of Fuck Mountain" attitude. And I've asked
>"Hey man, wanna GM this game?"
>"No thanks, I'm not creative enough."
THEN SHUT YOUR BACK-SEAT DRIVING ASS UP. I'M THE FUCKING DM, GAVIN!

>>55314413
In 2e, to use skills, you rolled a d20 and tried to get a number beneath your skill level. Difficulty was given as adding or subtracting modifiers. This tied your ability to do something directly to your character's abilities. With d20+skill modifier, present in 3e and above, the random element (d20) is typically 4x or 5x larger than your character's ability.

If even just this had been implemented in 5e, I would be perfectly happy with it.

>>55317843
Just fucking tell him the purpose of Rule 0.

>>55317913
anon you're a fucking retard.

It's pretty interesting that there's a really sharp divide between the people who understand the game and have frustrations with it, and people who just blindly hate the game and are talking out their ass.

File: MFhb.jpg (19KB, 392x368px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 392x368px

>>55317785
The 5e art certainly has a processed look. I don't think it is produced without skill or a lack of artistic craft but it is undermined quite a bit by the artificiality that is evident on most of the images I have seen.

Just as an example, have a look at the hand of your mind flayer there. This might be just an old geezer's gripe but I can't look at those strokes near the wrist or across the palm and not see the mouse pointer gliding across them, dictating their shape. Much more care is taken in the creature's face, though.
Perhaps it is to finish the work quicker by concentrating mainly on the focal points of the image (although I would argue that the hand in question IS a focal point of that particular picture.

Quite often there is not a lot wrong with the composition of 5e art, its the transparent computer strokes, highly artificial gradients and lighting (seen in the mind flayer's cape) than make them a little mechanical and difficult to accept organically.

In any case, I agree with 5e art being more consistent overall, but far weaker than the best of the art of yesteryear.

I am very interested to see if any of the modern artists build up the kind of reputations and portfolios enjoyed by the old-era artists that are so frequently posted hereabouts.

>>55315615
I wish they stuck to their guns with DnD Next and had just eliminated feats for everyone except Fighter.

File: Basic-Cover-LuLu.png (5MB, 1330x3375px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1330x3375px

>>55317960
>far weaker than the best of the art of yesteryear.

Like some of the cover art, right?

I'd love to see what someone nitpicking highlights and generally being upset about digital art that the artist only had about 1/20th of the time to make would say about this masterpiece.

>>55316444
>>55317629
I think it's not so much a failure of the system as it is a failure of the expectations of the system.
3e and onward the players are expected to be stronger than the environment and players have come to expect that so the incongruency at early levels between their experiences with variance of small numbers and their advertised expectations can be frustrating.
This isn't so much an issue in older editions where the environment is always stronger than the players and combat is presented as a risk vs reward and not a rote expectation.

>>55317960
The gnome, halfling and down syndrome elf in the phb beg to differ on the lack of artistic talent.

>>55317943
Can you elaborate? This doesn't really tell me anything about your disagreement.

File: 1454889597321.jpg (159KB, 704x1000px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 704x1000px

>>55318101

>Like some of the cover art, right?

Aye, some of it. I'm only upset about digital art when it hurts the images, not making some kind of blanket judgement against the whole medium.

There are a lot of real criticisms to be made of the revised 2e phb art, much more than that wonky hand but it has real strengths as a cover art. Its one of the few phb covers to directly depict the subject matter of the game (a band of adventurers in a dungeon).

>>55318405
It's literally the same system mathematically.

>>55314413
Why? /tg/'s just going to tell me my frustrations are not the systems fault, but the fault of my own personal bias, the people I play with, or my irrational hatred of a system I apparently don't understand.

>>55318671
It sounds like that's all true and you're just a little bitch.

>>55318694
I think the d20 is too swingy, compared to other mechanics.

Is this wrong?

>>55318722
No, but /tg/ will tell you it is for some sweet (you)'s

>>55318653
Can you demonstrate this with an example? Also, if they are the same, why was the system changed in the first place? Even considering DnD transferred companies, I don't see the incentive for the new company to change the fundamental mechanic.

>>55318722
Has anyone tried playing with 2d10 instead? How did that go?

>>55318722
It's technically fixable but you won't find the in DnD

>>55318722
Yes, because you don't understand that how "swingy" a game with a binary pass/fail mechanic is depends far more on the target numbers than the dice, and the game has a number of adjusting mechanics beyond the core mechanic. It's like you just discovered the difference between flat and curved probability, but never realized that's only a small part of a far larger equation.

What you mean to say is "I think the DCs are too high in D&D for my entitled punk ass, I hate challenges and excitement."

And the answer for that is "Use Advantage/Disadvantage more often. Git Gud."

File: 1223545658777854544111.jpg (8KB, 235x214px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 235x214px

>>55318799

File: yawn.jpg (5KB, 306x203px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 306x203px

>>55318799
Too obvious.

>>55318814
>i got schooled!

Appropriate that you used a fish image.

>>55318814
He's right about the d20 being technically fixable it's just that it isn't done RAW in DnD

>>55318827
It is, it's just that his personal taste doesn't match that of the standard. The solution? Adjust the DCs to match your taste.

>>55318789
We just play systems that use 3d6, dice pools, or hands of playing cards instead.

Why make an effort to adapt D&D to your needs, when a different system already exists that not only fits your criteria, but your players also find it more engaging?

File: Pn0nDZlNG83zsSjSXC5LHqcnFK1ijXXRPtAo0_Z37B8.jpg (72KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 576x768px

>>55318822
>when he doubles down with a second line of bait.

>>55318769
Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

Come on anon, did you never have math in school?

>Also, if they are the same, why was the system changed in the first place?
because having different resolution mechanics must be justified in the different behaviour they generate. when a second mechanic gives a very similar or in this case literally the same behaviour of another one, consolidation, why NOT consolidate?

>>55318837
True, but then you would be playing DnD

>>55318841
Because those other systems include a lot of shitty mechanics, and having to fix them in turn is a lot harder?

>>55318851
You just compared the old system to itself mate.

File: shrug(1).jpg (62KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x334px

>>55318822
If you say so.

>>55318855
Adjusting DCs doesn't stop it from being D&D,, you true scotsman purity fallacy faggot.

>>55318722
>too swingy
completely subjective
d20 causes people to 'press their luck' more, which is something in line with DnD's playstyle. Complaining about that is like complaining about the color of the PHS's sidebar, completely arbitrary

>>55314807
I use a homebrew where proficiency is used for AC instead of armor when you hold something to deflect the blow (shields still add to AC) and armor adds to HP (the heavier the better) that can be recovered quickly by various means. I need to iron out the non-armor AC conversion before it is viable at all.

>>55318857
>other systems include a lot of shitty mechanics, and having to fix them in turn is a lot harder?
Well then it doesn't fit your criteria, does it?

>>55318857
Such as?

>>55318870
Why would I adjust bother adjusting the DCs when I could just not play DnD?

>>55318850
>>55318869
>only reaction images

I love it when idiots out of there element want to express their irrational indignation but don't have the base knowledge to even enter the discussion.

>>55318851
>>55318865
Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

new system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

fixed

>>55318876
>completely subjective
>whether or not 1d20 is swingy compared to 3d6 is subjective

No. Whether or not the difference is an issue to you, is subjective. But 1d20 is objectively swingier than 3d6.

>>55318890
*their element

>>55318855
....

This might be the dumbest thing said in a thread with a lot of dumb things. Not even 3.pf said the DCs were set in stone, except for Pathfinder Society.

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 11.03.55 AM.png (294KB, 324x439px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 324x439px

My main issue is that there was never much support for Immortal level play in later editions. It's immortal level play that My group and I crave.

>>55318886
Because adjusting DCs is hardly even an afterthought?

Why are you insisting on discussing a game you obviously don't understand?

>>55318898
>whether or not 1d20 is swingy compared to 3d6 is subjective
no
whether or not that is TOO swingy is subjective

>>55318898
No, it's not "swingier" it's the linear progression of modifiers (and in many d20 games a linear progression of target numbers) that is swingy which is a rules aspect and not the dice itself.

>>55318925
Thanks for agreeing with me?

>>55318924
Because they're are reasons other than the d20 to not play DnD, (specifically 3.pf and 5E), your reading comprehension isn't that great

>>55318942
There are*

>>55318938
Do you know what a bell curve is?

>>55318942
He's just going to keep falling back on that "lol u jst don't understand the D&D systum, because you're dumb" as a way to defend it. He's not here for discussion, he's to be inflammatory.

>>55318939
well, yes. just wanted to clarify that I'm in fact not a retard who thinks d20 isn't more swingy than 3d6.

>>55318965
Eh, I feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt

>>55318938
The more dice you use, the more likely you end up with an average roll. A single die has a flat probability distribution. If there's a definition of swinginess, it would be this, and a single die lies at the extreme end of it.

>>55318942
But we were specifically talking about the d20 though, you moron.

>>55318965
If he literally admits to not even understanding that the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument launched by people who don't understand game systems beyond their first step onto mount stupid, then there's really no recourse other than to say he doesn't understand the system if that's the complaint he felt was safe and unchallenged.

>>55314413
5e is watered down 3.5. It contains lesser versions of everything I hate about 3.5 (terrible class balance, different classes using exactly the same spells, monks sucking even in comparison to other martials) and removes what I like about 3.5 (massive amounts of character build options and an extremely complicated and interesting character building experience)

I have my gripes, mostly with hit points and the statistics of rolling a d20, but they don't stop me from playing the game. What I hate about DnD, is how easily triggered everyone on /tg/ gets about it. You can't say anything bad about it at all without everyone getting butthurt. I posted yesterday in a thread and said that I currently wasn't playing DnD but something else, and this one poster was so fucking offended. The situation always reminds me of the"war on Christmas," where Christians constantly feel the need to defend the most popular holiday on Earth, as if there is any chance it could ever actually end. DnD is the most popular system, it doesn't need you to defend it when some guy says it's just not his thing and he'd rather play something else.

>>55318990
Sure but the d20 being workable isn't really an argument in favor of DnD when it's only a nitpick about the system while much bigger problems exists

>>55318990
>the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument
Sounds your own biases are preventing you from having a decent discussion.

File: 1454925704255.jpg (135KB, 445x600px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 445x600px

I like D&D. It's a fun RPG about adventurers and monsters and treasure and stuff. I like the thrill of pretending to be an adventurer and go into scary places to do battle with monsters. Do you think you would be brave enough to be an adventurer? I'm not sure if I would. Sometimes I think so, but I hesitate to do dangerous things in real life so I think not.

>>55318990
>the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument
>wanting more consistent and contained results is a simpletons argument.
>wanting a curve of probabilities makes you a simpleton
Exceptional bait.

It's these skill checks. It's either succeed or fail. So if there's no danger or consequences for failure, or if there's no narrative reason to even fail, you shouldn't have to roll. But players get into the habit every time, and of course it's like 50/50 if you can even succeed, so a good amount of actions are pointless. Or on the opposite end, the player is super excited for rolling a 26 on some mundane History check just to keep the game going.
It's just a nonsense attitude, half of your effort results in nothing.

>>55318971
In a binary pass/fail system, the 3d6 with a certain average DC will end up being more swingy than a d20 with a different average DC. In a vaccuum, the 3d6 provides more consistent results than a d20, but games are not designed with only the 3d6 put into question.

Simplest illustration is where the 3d6 is set with a DC of 11 (50%) and the d20 is set with a DC of 10 (55%). The d20 ends up providing more consistency, with more successes than failures thanks to the slight skew provided by the DC.

This can be exaggerated, to the point where the DC for the d20 can be set at 2 (95% success) and the 3d6 is left at 11, and suddenly the d20 is dramatically more "consistent" in terms of result despite the values generated by the 3d6 falling within a narrower range.

>>55319016
But it is a simpleton's argument based around not understanding the actual underlying mechanics of what makes a game more or less "swingy," and instead focuses on one of the least important considerations of the equation.

>>55314413
I hate how much people on here fucking whine about it. Like, constantly.
I have complained about shitty underpaid jobs with abusive bosses that I still can't easily quit due to dire financial circumstances less then some people on here complain about D&D, and keep in mind that one of those things affected literally every single aspect of my LIFE to some degree and not just what hobby I wasted my free time on.

>>55319122
True but DnD has other bigger flaws

>>55319083
>It's either succeed or fail
Sounds like you have a shit DM.

>or if there's no narrative reason to even fail, you shouldn't have to roll.
Yep, a shit GM propped up by shitty players.

>But players get into the habit every time, and of course it's like 50/50 if you can even succeed, so a good amount of actions are pointless.
Yep, really shitty players

>the player is super excited for rolling a 26
This isn't a fucking problem, neck yourself.

>just to keep the game going.
Don't blame the system for your DMs shitty campaign and encounter design.

>It's just a nonsense attitude, half of your effort results in nothing.
Stop being a retard and learn to play the game, maybe then your efforts will bear fruit. Also, stop expecting the system to hold your hand and reward your efforts. Stop expecting your DM to.

It's more of a gripe with players of DnD and not the game itself, but DnD players seem to want to more rigidly hold to RAW than players of other systems I've played. I know it's purely anecdotal, but I've generally found it to be true.

Just a single example, but I remember a session where I had a player that was dancing for a crowd, and she described causing magic flowing lights to trace her footsteps and glamor the crowd. She was a sorceress and wasn't trying for any bonuses, it was just flavor. My other players were pissed I allowed it, since she didn't have a spell that did that specific thing. I talked to guys at my flgs about it and they agreed with my players, and RAW didn't allow that.

I ran into a similar situation where a rogue described his trap finding as a magical sense where he opened his eyes and traps would lightly glow. Just flavor for his perception roll. Again, brought it up to people online and they didn't like that I allowed it.

>>55319101
>"3d6 is set with a DC of 11 (50%) and the d20 is set with a DC of 10 (55%)"
>"The d20 ends up providing more consistency, with more successes than failures"
>55% results in more successes than 50%

No shit.

>>55319122
>The core rng mechanic is the least important part of the equation
>The iconic foundation of the game is the least important part of it.

>>55318851
I don't see how changing the system like this consolidates it. In fact, it seems to bring in an unnecessary extra step, since the base attributes must be converted to modifiers in the new system. It actually seems simpler to consolidate by making everything roll under rather d20 + modifier.

>>55319169
He's right though, DnD is shit for other reasons

The basic rules for healing make the game way too safe. The game expects your PC's to run into 6-8 medium encounters per day of their adventures, there's no way to do this and still have a world that people could believably live in. Peasants want to haul some grain to a city? Here's an army of goblins to stop them

While not a fault of 5e specifically, I hate clerics, I hate druids, I hate any class that has magic that's got a bunch of healing or support tyoe magic. I hate that they just remove any ability for me to run curses, diseases, plagues, etc. I hate that resurrection is so easy.

I hate that the super fast healing is the "core" way of healing in 5e, and players think you're a bad dm for running slower healing because you want encounters space out over a week instead of a week of travel with 8 encounters per day

>>55316345
I just want to add that this is my issue with people that play D&D now. I have been playing RPGs for 20ish years but when I see new people try out 5e they get confused and frustrated about it but refuse to try another system because:
1. D&D is famous and they want to play the famous one.
2. D&D was hard enough to learn so they are sure that another system would be just as hard and won't be famous.

It really sucks, I have witnessed a few groups crumble over it from the early 2000's (when 3e was introduced) until now.

>>55319182
Personality I would rather do roll under d100 because that's more gronkable

>>55319163
>I know it's purely anecdotal, but I've generally found it to be true.
It generally is. Part of it is it being babby's first trpg, but a larger part of it is what Wizards of the Coast ended up doing to the system (where every action required prerequisite rules and feats and was codified somehow) rather then earlier editions where you had a REALLY loose set of core rules and then everything else, even things like skills, was all basically just "optional" material.
At the time WotC had no real experience with designing anything that wasn't a CCG, and it shows in how they built 3e.

It drew a HUGE following just due to how that appeals to some people, but that following quickly eclipsed the original number of players and sort of fundamentally altered how people play D&D in a lot of ways thanks to the "standard" changing.

>>55319209
How do people have a hard time learning 5E, I don't really consider myself smart but I grasped 5E as a system almost immediately

>>55319150
In earlier D&D editions degrees of success and failure are explicitly written into the rules, this is not the case in 5e

Therefore, while it is true that it takes a bad DM to treat skill checks as strict pass/fail binary checks, it is also exactly RaW by 5e's rules. Which means it's a systematic problem.

Just because good DMs will ignore shit rules doesn't make having shit rules ok

>>55317505
Wizards spam spells now with "level 0" spells. I miss the days where magic was only used as an "oh shit" button and a wizard had to use a sling or staff for most of his attacks.

I had had someone tell me that they didn't want to play Mouse Guard, because they assumed it was more complicated than D&D.

Since D&D was their first system, since it was the most popular system, they assumed it was the most elegant and refined RPG, and all other RPGs were a clunky and abstract mess by comparison.

Luckily I was able to show him that Mouse Guard and the rest of the Burning Wheel family, are far much easier to understand for a player than D&D.

>>55319169
>the rng is the sole determining factor of the game

You moron.

>>55319292
I had someone try to explain to me how radically different Pathfinder was to 3.5

I'm pretty sure it was that exact experience that caused me to look at Pathfinder with such disdain, despite still enjoying 3.5

>>55319169
>iconic
I think that's why GURPS kids have a problem with the d20 more than anything. It's literally "I hate it because D&D uses it."

>>55319300
>rng isn't important in D&D

>>55319322
Why would you ever use a d20 over a d100 though

>>55319300
Being the sole determining factor is drastically different than being the most important one.

>>55319237
I have seen the 5e frustration with one group. They thought stat increasing was for the modifier, not the stat itself, the players had a lolrandom atmosphere as well, and other stuff.
The first thing never happened with TSR era D&D because you had a table for what every stat did, the second thing mentioned is thanks to the current era of D&D being streamed by a bunch of morons that think they are funny.

>>55315226
>it is THE face of an extremely variable hobby that should have multiple faces in the public eye

I like DnD and agree completely.

>>55319300
Why even roll dice? We should just freeform what our characters do. After all, D&D is the world greatest collaborative story telling game!

>>55319311
Well, according to some people in this thread, changing the DC of a single spell effect by a single point could radically revolutionize the entire gaming industry as we know it.

>>55318851
Actually, old system was "this is my STR, INT, DEX, or whatever and I need to roll under it to get the skill done if it's a common skill
if I have invested a point into a skill I am more likely to be able to perform it (or just be able to do it, like taking fortune telling as opposed to conning a person into believing you can tell fortunes)"

Things like Diplomacy, Bluffing, and any other social skills did not exist because they were roleplayed out, as opposed to rollplayed out.

>Diplomacy
>Insight
>Intimidation
Delete these skills

>>55319469
Stop playing with shitty DM's that just let you roll your way out of a situation.

>>55314413
I have nothing about d&d, i'm just getting bored of it by overplay... but every fucking time i try to present a new ttrpg to my players they discard it without saying.

I'm about to try a m&m warriors & warlock game to start gradually detoxify them from d&d (3.5 in particular)

>>55318982
And the swinginess depends on the target number. Which is what I said. D20s has a flat distribution of possibilities, that doesn't make a d20 system more swingy.

To say the dice is the reason a system is swingy or not is false.

Trying to find a group commited to playing a campaign with. Haven't played in over a year. Also, no Dark Sun or Planescape.

File: 1448318472779.jpg (21KB, 316x340px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 316x340px

>>55319469
so then what would you roll if you have be insightful or if you want to intimidate someone

>>55319569
I agree. The problem is DMs who just arbitrarily set their DC for any roll to "roll high".

>>55319347
I find a d20 superior because while there is less instances, rolling and reading a d20 is fast and dramatic. Anything over d20 rolls around too much, so it's the highest amount of instances on a single die which is something I personally like.

>>55319597
You fucking roleplay

>>55319569
>D20s has a flat distribution of possibilities, that doesn't make a d20 system more swingy.
It does though. It means exactly that.

>>55319101
>The d20 ends up providing more consistency, with more successes than failures thanks to the slight skew provided by the DC.
I don't think that's why anons mean by "swingy"
"Swingy" isn't the likelihood of passing and failing.
"Swingy" is that a skinny DYEL mage can defeat a beefslab hulking barbarian in an arm wrestling competition a not-insignificant proportion of the time.
This is absurd, because a guy that can lift your body weight with one hand isn't EVER going to lose in an arm wrestling competition, unlike the ~25% of the time in the d20 system.
This leads to illogical results like the party retard finding a trap no one else in the party noticed that isn't fun at all and just takes away from the fun of the character who was made to do that task.
I've had my immersion completely ruined in a game failing several times in a row at things my character should have been able to do and then the character being made fun of for their incompetence.
Meanwhile a spellcaster doesn't have to roll to cast a spell that influences the game in a much larger fashion instead of just being roleplaying flavor.

>>55319469

So everyone can dump Charisma and just roleplay their way through social interactions? Maybe we should have the Wizard players actually memorize arcane sigils and shit to see how many spells they can learn. Determine character Strength by how much the player can bench press.

>>55319647
So can I just roleplay to hit them with my sword, or solve the issue with my spells that I roleplayed into existence?

>>55319676
>So everyone can dump Charisma and just roleplay their way through social interactions?
You should have players that are able to play low cha characters

>>55319647
How do you make sure that social encounters are fair?

>>55319208
>The game expects your PC's to run into 6-8 medium encounters per day of their adventures
THIS is the reason I can't do modern D&D. Back in the day, unless my players went to explore a dungeon, you would get one or, at the most, two encounters a day. Not only were they more dangerous (because of lower HP, less magic, etc.) but it felt more real where you can travel for a long time and not just see hordes of enemies. (There was also a stronger emphasis on trying to avoid fights at all but that's a different problem.)

>>55319668
I'm so confused.
Why can the mage defeat McBeefslab at arm wrestling? I don't understand why a roll is happening. Wouldn't it be declared no contest by comparing their strength scores?

>>55319607
As someone who did that back when I GM'd using a DC system, the issue comes from the fact that there isn't really a detailed measurement for what constitutes a "Hard" DC vs. an "Impossible" DC and the distinction ends up becoming arbitrary after a fashion since most DC's can be reached by rolling a 16+ on your roll and most DC's will be out of reach if you roll a 5 or less on the die.

I could poke through several passages to find a more detailed answer but then I'm wasting time poking through the rulebook and it's generally just easier and more intuitive to just let people pass if they roll above average on their roll.

>>55319733
Not in D&D 5e RAW. It would be a contested Strength roll.

>>55319695

The problem is the opposite (and you know it, you're just being a smug faggot): how do you get a low charisma player to play a high charisma character? Or do you just not let him?

>>55314413
How every thinks that one edition should be like the other.

If D&D 14 is the same as D&D 15, then WHY would you bother buying the newer edition?

The difference in each edition are different enough to be considered entirely different games, despite the few similarities. Feels like people trying to argue CoC and Rogue Trader.

>>55317946
This. Holy shit, this.

>>55319733
Is there actually rules for determining contested actions by only comparing raw scores without a roll?
I think rules as written It would be a contested strength roll, let me check.

>>55319733
If that's the case, why have rng at all? Why not just add modifiers together and compare that to a target number and declare the result without rolling? Let's just replace all spell and weapon damage with their rounded averages, and call it a day.

>>55319607
5e has a linear difficulty curve making it swingy (thank got it is at least set):
>easy 5
>normal 10
>hard 15
>very hard 20
>extremely hard 25
>nearly impossible 30

Now if they just made the results nonlinear it pushes the bill curve onto the back end of the system (especially with advantage and disadvantage):
>easy 5
>normal 13
>hard 17
>very hard 19
>extremely hard 20
>nearly impossible >20

This is obviously a shitty example with no actual math, but it illustrates the point that scaling TNs means More consistently achieved high difficulty rolls.

>>55319639
People tend to understand d100s better, especially when they are new to the hobby. It's easier for people to understand a 65% on a d100 as opposed to rolling a 7 on a d20 means a 65% success rate.

Martial vs Caster shitposters. Casters are always going to be more powerful, there isn't even a question about it. They have a much broader set of tools to work with. The problem lies behind assholes playing the wizard just to outshine the party at everything. Nobody bitches about a support wizard, which in my opinion is what they're there for.

>>55319733

It's just an example, and it applies to any check with 1d20 plus some small number.

Same thing happens in Savage Worlds with exploding dice. I can't count the number of times the characters that invest in a skill eat shit while the characters untrained in that skill just explode their d4 to success.

Why the fuck do people start at Level 1? Its the least fun ever. My stats reflect that I am leaps and bounds ahead of the average man, yet some dipshit bandit can one-hit even the tankiest classes. I recently had a wolf tear the throat out of my Goliath Fighter while he was holding up his shield, because the dice fucked me. I'd worked hard on him and it amounted to nothing, this was the second session and now I need to make a new character.

>>55319534
It's part of the god damn system now as opposed to TSR D&D where you didn't have social proficiencies and it was all done through roleplaying

>>55319744
>>55319762
>>55319763

I'm just saying that that would be a no contest because the wizard doesn't have the strength to compete. If McBeefslab was up against a character who had a closer strength then I would have a roll there because I could believe the lower strength character could still win with technique like Stallone beating a much stronger opponent in Over the Top.

Is there a rule that compels players not to do it that way?

>>55319762
Yeah it's a contested roll, both roll d20+STR mod, whoever rolls higher wins.

So the STR 20 fighter could roll a 1 and the STR 6 Wizard could roll a 20 and the mage would beat him.

>>55317960
Your points are valid and well made... for another board.

While I can certainly appreciate good art in my RPG book, it doesn't matter. I happen to like a lot of the 2e alternate world's art. But even that opinion is meh, and shouldn't even factor in to your opinions on a RPG. If you don't like if the art in a book, just google up some art you DO like. Yes, yes good art can set a mood but again, just google up some art that does fit your mood. I know we couldn't do that back in the 2e days but we can do it now.

The RPG itself should focus more on what you want out of your playing experience.

And yes, I do agree 5e looks rather manufactured art, but that should not matter in the long or short run.

>>55319777
True and I am one of them, I'm just saying putting that behind obfuscation doesn't change the math and I like rolling a single die best.

>>55319747
Not him but I generally don't mind, so long as you're not being a distraction to the game.

If you're a low CHA person playing a high CHA character, all I ask is that you're capable of cobbling together two sentences together without flubbing your words, stuttering, or attempting a shitty accent and that you're capable of at least understanding the concept of social interactions without spilling spaghetti all over the place.

And I say this as someone who had a situation happen where our "Face" flubbed their negotiations so hard, we ended up losing more than 50% of our pay because he low-balled our asking price when negotiating with Mr. Johnson.

>>55319811
>Is there a rule that compels players not to do it that way?
Page 174 "Contests"

>>55319778

>there isn't even a question about it

I've been telling people that on the Paizo forums for years, but people always respond with:

>but there are options for the Fighters to get Ranger-tier casting and more skill ranks now!
>AM BARBARIAN ALWAYS BEAT CASTY MAN
>your Wizard wouldn't live long enough to become that powerful without the Fighter to protect him
>the only limit to character utility is the players imagination

And other such nonsense.

>>55319690
You are a fucking moron.
>>55319725
You don't, the world isn't fair and social encounters shouldn't be binary. If you ever go outside of your basement and try to socialize you will see that people react differently to others based on a lot of arbitrary things that they can't explain themselves.

>>55319798
I feel no sense of challenge or danger anymore at about level five or six. I always have the most fun at level one because I know the things I face are dangerous.

>>55319834
you sound pretty upset anon. did nanny forget to microwave your tendies?

>>55319798
>I worked hard on him
>I spent 15 minutes making a character sheet

>But my novel of a backstory!!!
1st level PC's shouldn't have more than a paragraph of a story, name an important thing he's done, a couple people he knows, something he aspires to do.

>>55319763
>Let's just replace all spell and weapon damage with their rounded averages, and call it a day.
You say that, but from playing games that had fixed damage numbers, it does end up evening out in the long run since you don't have to worry about "I rolled a crit...and roll a 1...fuck!!!"

File: 1453758657242.jpg (181KB, 797x1177px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 797x1177px

>>55319817
I appreciate your points. I have to disagree a little, though.

I think art matters in game books because while, you can fish any art you like, the art in the book is what will always be in front of you. For new players, its first and most frequent contact with the game. It plays a role in shaping your imagination to the experience of the game. If the art is something you don't like - many people cite the 5e halfling as an example - then its another mental step you must take, every time you open to the page its on, to remind yourself of your preferred image. Poor art will be like a stone in your shoe. You can ignore it for miles but it will eventually find away to roll under your sole.

>>55319834
What if I roleplay really well but the DM says the NPC won't help me for no reason?
I'd prefer a mechanical way I can ensure that the DM isn't being unreasonable.

>>55319856
"I don't have an argument so I will meme"

>>55319915
>What if I roleplay really well but the DM says the NPC won't help me for no reason?
>I'd prefer a mechanical way I can ensure that the DM isn't being unreasonable.
That situation would mean your DM wouldn't even let you roll, rolls only happen when something is possible

>>55314413
Gygax's hard-on for Tolkien's elves fucking ruined the base races.

Every other fucking race was at least kinda balanced. Humans? Advance further in any class, but lack any other special ability. Dwarves? Good for dungeon navigating and tanking, but move slower. Hobb- er- halflings? Dexterous, but lose out on strength.

Elves? Well, they get racial bonuses to the two most meta, most commonly used weapons in the game (longswords and longbows), full on dark vision, spotting secret doors at orders of magnitude easier difficulties than anyone else, bonus against surprise, racial stealth as long as the rest of the party is content to sit back and watch their player do it alone, and of course the fluff that they're all so beautiful and gorgeous, and even the low charisma ones are just aloof. And all at the cost of... a -1 to Con. Oh man, that lost 5% res survival is such a good fucking balance!

What's that? You want to be even MORE of a special snowflake? Well we've got The Book of Elves here, with more than 30 subtypes of elf, each more broken than the last!

Fucking pointy-eared pricks...

>>55319925
Let's not pretend you have any argument either. All you're doing is sperging shit everywhere and call everyone you disagree with a loser.

>>55319915
>I'd prefer a mechanical way I can ensure that the DM isn't being unreasonable.
Rule 0 declares the DM cannot be unreasonable, for he is the source of reason within the game.

>>55319931
Anything is possible in an imaginary world.

>>55319915
Then your DM is shit anyway?
When I DMed a 2e game recently, I took my players actions into consideration when they talked to people, as well as the personality of the person they talked to.

>>55319955
>I want to jump to the moon
>You can't
>SHIT DM SHIT DM I ROLLED A 20 I'M ON THE MOON NOW

>>55319935
>Gygax's hard-on for Tolkien's elves fucking ruined the base races.

Gygax didn't like elves. Didn't even really like any of Tolkien. It was pressure from the game's fans and general nerd climate that made him include them in the game.

He was always more of a Howard/Moorcock kind of guy.

>>55319826
Which book?
I'm not trying to be clever; I just haven;t played all the editions. It seems strange to me that a table would entertain a roll in a context like that unless it enjoyed occasional absurdity (which is fine).
If they didn't I don't see why they would still roll, let alone complain about the result as a flaw.

Context is important, mind you. A novice archer shooting an amulet from an evil wizard's neck is really unlikely too, but I don't think anyone would be opposed to rolling for that. It would be dramatic and heroic.

>>55319935
-1 CON at older edition could mean the difference between having an HP bonus or not having one at all. HP was also a very scarce resource with many people having less than 10 (without a bonus) until level 4 or 5 so any bonus helped a lot.

>>55319989
1. Post in the right thread
2. Always double check with thread you're in.

>>55319951
The DM as a human being can be unresonable, and that would impact the way he governs the game.
Real psychology overarchs the subset of running an RPG.

>>55319977
Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook for 5th Edition

>>55319975
This. Gygax did not even like the use of Magic. A more flexible system that players to use magic was something he grudging allowed in the game and has someone else design because he certainly did not want to touch it.

>>55317843
How about you read the DMG fucktard? If you're incapable of that, at least tell the players at the start what the tone and degree of following the rules will be. You know, like it advises you to do in THE FUCKING DMG. Illiterate asshole.

>fall from orbit
>have so many hit points I live
>game has a weird cumbersome massive damage rule because game designers realized the amount of hit points they give away is insanely stupid
>live anyways
>get told some people consider the game gritty and realistic

I'm actually kind of annoyed that 5e essentially did away with skills, but it kept characteristics. As in, you still have skills, but you have fairly limited control of their growth, yet you still have characteristics so that you'll just be weak in some areas.

So suppose I want to be a charismatic wizard? Well, other than using all my proficiency in the various chatty Cathy skills, there's not a way to do that without mechanically gimping myself because outside of improving skill rolls my non-core characteristics do fucking nothing.

What's the point, honestly? Just have DC be set by character level instead of making me point buy or roll to put the big stats in the brick-obvious places they have to be

>>55318722
>complaining about rng

>>55314837
If you look past the 3.5/PF white wash - 5e is 4th in all but name.

Probably more to do with people than the actual game but fuck "those" settings, people bitch constantly about how they can't find a GM that's willing to run Planescape, ever wondered why? because they fucking suck for anything other railroaded than organized play.

>>55319858
>> I spent 15 minutes making a character sheet
>Conceptualization doesn't count as work on a character
He had an interesting concept behind him and the GM had put in the work to build part of the world around his (two paragraphs only) backstory. It would've ended up making for interesting characterization and a novel experience for the other players but now it won't happen.

>>55315038
all 4e was war game/video game combat. All other rules were simple down to next to nothing to make getting into combat easier

>>55315116
You want it to be both way? I do not want players to check for traps and I do not want them to just find them without looking? Dude, anyone going into a hole filled with monsters and traps well be looking for them.

>>55320134
>all modern D&D is war game/video game combat.
FTFY

The only difference between 4e and 3.PF/5e is that 4e was more honest about what it was and embraced the more combat focused aspects of the game to give us an overall solid product.

File: Wizards_65713c_354294.jpg (35KB, 203x293px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 203x293px

OK I looked up the exact rules for NPC socia interaction as per page 185 of the PHB and page 244 of the DMG.

The book encourages player role-playing as either Descriptivist or Active approach. As a result of these approaches, the DM eventually calls for a CHA check. NPC's have an "attitude" that is broadly categorized as friendly, indifferent, and hostile. These set the DCs for CHA skill checks to make a request.

So bottom line, players are encouraged to at least attempt some RP and also the DM shouldn't do away with CHA skill checks entirely.

>>55315615
The max stat at 20 was a good idea. Then making mul-class bad choice by you not getting feats and making it the same as raising your stats suck.

>>55320131
>"Only" two paragraphs
Man, that is more than enough to describe the essential parts of a character.

I have a player who will send her GMs THREE PAGES of backstory. I've talked to the other guys that run games she's in and we all agree it's kind of a headache to read through all her complicated reasoning for why she's about to join a party. One of the guys says he likes the enthusiasm, but personally I find it a tad frustrating because she injects a lot of detail about evil cults and organizations she's met, and much of the time they're camp stupid.

She's cut down on it in my games, but that's because the last time she turned in a massive report, I actually read it and then really did introduce characters from her multi-page past. Like, for example, the evil cult leader who realized in hindsight that fabricating an entire cult to do nothing but evil was kind of an impractical life goal. Like, he ran the cult for a while, but they ran out of money and couldn't find new member to die for the cause, and then his evil wife got pregnant, so now he sells magic charms from a little stall on the street.

The rest of the players kind of liked the guy, but the girl who originally wrote the character was mildly peeved because this was the arch villain of her backstory. Three pages of writing and through none of it did I find any real goals or motive for him. On top of that, the girl wasn't much of an actor, so even armed with all that backstory she generally did fuck all with the flavor in practice, playing out the role of the party healer or rogue exactly as mechanically necessary.

Two paragraphs is fine. Two paragraphs is almost too much. If your character is really that colorful it'll come out when you're actually playing anyway.

>>55320023
>Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook for 5th Edition

Thank you.
I looked up the section.

>>55320181
I make traps obvious but not immediately apparent what it does. Then they have to figure out a way to avoid the trap. More fun that way, they are actively participating and using their imagination to overcome a known but mysterious obstacle, rather than just a cheap surprise out of nowhere.

>>55315116
Looking for traps takes exploration turns with compels random monster encounters

>>55320283
Yikes, what a slog.

>>55320273
That is a good way to do it. Takes a lot more work for the GM, though.

File: 1491506738450.jpg (104KB, 500x472px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x472px

>>55314837
As someone who likes combat tactic board games, 4e was my absolute favourite edition; with the sheer wealth of character creation options it had by the end of its lifespan, I could always build pretty well exactly what kind of character concept I had in mind. 5e feels so much more limited with its mechanical character options.

>>55320095
I suspect you at best are familiar with 1 of those games, but probably none.

>>55320095
Not really. Caster superiority came back, DCs got changed, mechanics got changed, etc.
The only similar things are the encounter powers (short rest abilities), At-will (level 0 spells), and dailies (long rest abilities).

>>55320384
>Caster superiority came back,

Know how I know you're just talking out your ass?

>>55320401
Because it never left to begin with? :^)

>>55320401
Caster supremacy still exists if you don't throw enough encounters at your players that and martials are just boring

>>55320413
Know how I know you're just talking out your ass?

>>55320401
Know how I know you've never actually played the game?

Mages still have just as many options as they did in earlier editions, they just obfuscated the most obvious abuse with rules like concentration but still left in exploits that allow you to break the game if you bothered to read the rules closely enough.

File: 1504457637922.gif (1MB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x337px

>>55320426

>>55320419
I'm not, but I'm interested in why you think that

>>55320437
God that was such a shitty and boring cartoon.

>>55320401
Please enlighten me oh great wise one. I want to know how something like a Wizard that is as diverse as the spells he takes is not better than someone that just "fights good" or "sneaks well"

>>55320437
Did you know that you can still stack spell effects as long as the duration doesn't say (concentration) next to it?

File: 1453760257682.jpg (67KB, 558x765px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 558x765px

Look at this lumbering brute.

>>55320470
They aren't limited by resources, that only works if you can railroad your players into enough encounters to drain them of their spell slots though

>>55320496
If you play in campaigns that do the 6-8 encounters a day, that campaign is a slog. I find that most of the time people tend to do 2-3 encounters and that leaves spell casters with a lot of resources (especially now that level 0 spells can be as effective as normal attacks).

>>55320520
you can just increase encounter difficulty, you know

>>55320530
Sure can, but casters also have spells that just make the encounter not happen. Sleep at early levels, hold person/creature, illusions that make your opponents believe what you want them to believe, etc.

>>55320530
Why would he do something as simple as modify how he runs a game when he can instead play a completely different game?

>>55320530
Not really, you need enough encounters to both decrease variance and ensure that certain classes can't expend all of their resources at once for balance reasons

>>55320496
That's only once you reach level 6 or so. In the early levels, where most campaigns presumably start, Wizards aren't exactly hot shit. On the contrary they're kind of unimpressive.

Then by later levels, their big claim to fame is AoE attacks or concentration spells for endurance. Flame sphere is a good example, since it's just out there most of the fight doing harm.

Threads like this are so dumb. With how different all the editions are there's no point in referring to the games as just D&D.

>>55320585
Wizards if you're optimizing are more about spell utility than damage, you are right though that the problems don't really start until you have your level 3 spells

>>55320614
I think it's fairly obvious people are talking about 5e seeing as the OP picture is the 5e phb

>>55320637
On tg DnD usually refers to 3.pf/5E but it's generally a good idea to specify in your post which edition you're referring to

>>55317946
>the people who understand the game and have frustrations with it
it's not rocket science, dude.

>>55314811
Fen needs to stop putting in so many fucking furries with horsecocks.

File: behold my flapjack.jpg (24KB, 642x428px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 642x428px

>>55320869
this

>>55314811
Chaosium needs to make a Spell Compendium. That's about it.

>>55314949
>doesn't mention 4e

you're just too autistic to actually get in character and have an adventure aren't you

>>55321128
4e is a perfectly good board game

>>55320131
They were quite colorful, and the GM liked them as a concept. But they got one-shot because being Level 1 sucks.

>>55314837
What would you play if you wanted something fantasy but not "highly gamist"?

>>55321205
wrong

>>55321223 was mean to reply to >>55320251

>>55319083
>But players get into the habit every time
Players should not dictate when a dice roll happens

So what should I play instead? Runequest? Burning wheel?

>>55321619
What do you want to accomplish through play?

>>55321628
roleplaying
fantasy characters
in a fantasy world

>>55314837
>>55315038
>playing an rpg system for wargaming

I don't understand this logic. If you want a wargame, play a wargame. Saying 4e was a step in the right direction - and 5e the wrong direction for the opposite reason - because it got rid of the narrative or roleplaying focus in favor of pure combat is just... No.

>>55321646
that's concerning in how generic it is

Is there any setting that appeals to you? What kind of fantasy do you prefer [High v Low, Grim v Noble, Surreal v Grounded]? How much do you prefer a game be decided by mechanics, and how much by how satisfying an experience or narrative outcome would be?

>>55315116
Mix traps with monsters so the traps are battle hazards. If, for example, there are archer skeletons on a flat section of a staircase where it divides in two, block the most direct staircase with a trap.

If there's a distance modifier for traps, you can even hide them and reveal them when a character with enough passive perception comes within' reach (a 14 passive would spot it X squares before a passive 11), even mid-move, thus rewarding the most observant characters, who can better plan their paths.

This might mean a check to jump over the trap trigger, an extra round to work your way around, switching to a ranged weapon or an attempt to push the skeletons into the trigger.

File: 1501716075403.jpg (555KB, 842x842px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 842x842px

I absolutely hate the fact that ranger has built in magic in 5e. If I wanted to play a nature mage, I'd play cleric or druid. It should be an archetype, goddammit.

>>55321746
yeah

>>55321667
I wouldn't call it wargame.

Wargame implies you control armies and shit, while 4e was still strictly character focus.

What I liked about 4e was that it had little to no flavor built into it, unlike every other edition, which allowed a lot more flexibility in creating shit.

>>55318789
Tried giving 3d6+1 and 2d20 as options to characters, representing safer stances compared to the recklessness of the d20.

Makes optimized characters never fail some checks, makes your players more observant of details you give as it hints on the DC and thus on the type of roll optimized, makes players play a lot more strategically, as requiring a low target number with more dice, with no benefit to high "to-hit" rolls, makes more bell-curvy rolls a much safer choice.

We liked the agency it gave players, but the game is really not balanced around it. It shows.

>>55321311
Not him but TSR era D&D and Shadow of the Demon Lord come to mind because I ran them recently.

>>55321746
>I want this class to work differently than it has in decades

sure

>>55321810
I'm waiting for everything you just said to be dismissed as anecdotal, biased against a system you irrationally hate, and objectively wrong somehow.

Any second now.

>>55319827
>AM BARBARIAN ALWAYS BEAT CASTY MAN
That was never the issue. AM BARBARIAN's cohort/ride (a summoner, which is a caster, which is given by the Leadership feat, which is specifically noted that your DM might ban) gives him the ability to hit targets which would be too high. Otherwise, climb that wall at half-speed, raging or naw.

>the only limit to character utility is the players imagination
Rules say you can't jump that far... well... you can't. You'd need "Expeditious Retreat" or "Fly" or something.

You cannot rebuild a broken nation with intimidation, horse riding and combat prowess alone, no matter how well you do these things.

You're not even able to fix your own equipments if you're spammed with Time-stop / Summon Nature Ally IX (Titan) x times / teleport out, and the enemy casters tell those titans to sunder your weapons.

You need, at least, a master craftsman, or a caster to repair them for you...

etc.

>>55321746
He does in every edition

>>55321931
Why? It's not a comment about a game, just the pros and cons of a dice roll mechanic.

>>55321667
That's retarded. 4E is not "less focused" on narrative or roleplaying. It simply doesn't mire its games rules down with hundreds of pages of tedious bullshit that a group can otherwise simply play out. In fact, the way that DCs work in 4E is arguably some of the best for roleplaying than the arcane formula required for similiar skills in 3.5.

When I'm playing 4E, I can just roleplay and not worry about the mechanics beneath my roleplaying as I would if I were playing something like 3.5. Or now that feats in 5E have retroactively added rules to skills that previously didn't exist, 5E as well.

>>55321912
SotDL is gamey as shit, mate.

>>55321311
Barbarians of Lemuria.

>>55314837
>Fourries
Wow

>>55319811
Go 3d6 and require 3 consecutive successes over your opponent to win. Compare the range of results, and their distribution, between +6 STR mod and -2 STR mod, and it'll be just as good.

>>55321746
Play a fighter/rogue with nature skills and call it a ranger then.

>>55321925
>>55321939
4e ranger didn't get any non-martial powers until essentials.

>>55321964
That isn't going to stop being from being assblasted by your personal experience.

>>55322019
What do you think is gamey about it? just curious

I like 5e's mechanical flexibility, in that you can generally import anything you can think of to its mechanics, but I dislike its tonal rigidity, in that anything you import has to conform to the heroic fantasy flavor of D&D no matter what.

This isn't really a complaint against that in and of itself, this is more of a complaint against stubborn system-brides who think they can run, for example, horror in D&D when there are other systems that will absolutely do it better. How do you do political mystery when there's, like, a single skill for persuasion and decorum and there's a hundred spells to speak with dead? How do you do gritty, resource-scarce wilderness campaigns when the Druid can feed 10 people for a day with one spell?

D&D occupies a really great niche but I think its flaws become a lot more apparent when it tries to step out of that niche, which it does in an attempt to appeal broadly.

>>55322039
In 4e everyone was kind of a magic caster with the way powers worked.

>>55317527
>Once you reach level 3 it your character on a set course unless you multiclass.
Fucking this

>>55322049
It's still backed up by solid mathematics reasoning. When success or failure is binary and the target number is below 10, your percentage of success is undoubtedly better with more dice.

Exponentially more so with lower target numbers.

>>55319787
Exploding dice getting some scrub a higher result AND the trained guy failing has a much smaller chance of happening than the same thing happening in 5E, though.

File: scarecrow.jpg (63KB, 900x773px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x773px

>>55314413
Things I loathe about DnD:

Alignment
Vancian magic
The d20
Classes
Levels
The near absence of noncombat mechanics
XP from killing and looting
Kitchen sink fantasy
All of its official associated art styles

I hate everything about DnD, I don't think there's a single redeeming quality in the system, in fact.

>>55314413
I cannot stand how much fucking anus blood this game generates. I thought abandoning other boards would escape this contrarian "hate it because it's popular" bullshit.

I'm sorry nobody wants to play your obscure autism system but that's not 5th editions fault

>>55319212
>t. FFG

How due to skill increases, DC pretty much effectively stays the same as the game progresses

>>55322261
Thank you for being the reason this industry is such a shit show with only one game in town

>>55318876
nice comment about play style, I like that. It's definitely a good thing to consider the next time someone brings up the idea of switching to 2d10 in my group.

>>55319822
>I like rolling a single die best.
except when it's for damage, eh? then the additional "burden" of rolling more than die isn't too high enough. gamers are such hypocrites.

>>55314837
I never understood the american concept of narrativist games.
I have played a few, but having some rules artificially constrain the narrative its a litte to gamey for me.
I mean im in favor of, luck & destiny points, that let you fudge some rolls.
Im in favor of having some character compulsions, like gamble, addict, code of honor...

But the extremes some games gets in this way is pretty excesive.

What i love about D&D in general is that there are tons of worlds to explore that are developed in high detail. Also these worlds have the rules bolted in then (especially 2ad&d books) so there is a lot of cohesion between the narrative and the rules. (no so much in the world building but it doesnt matter for a fantasy game of adventure).

So when you start a campaign normally you have a lot of background, you can make a little resume of the region in which you are gonna play. And have it ready to the players, so they are gonna make characters that really are in tune with the world.

For my having a character that is an alcholic because he fought the loser side on a war that still have historical repercusions on the campaign world is gonna be much better for the narrativist side than a defect thats puts you in bad mood if your doesnt take your alcohol fix.

PD: sorry for my english.

I wish 5e had things akin to PrCs.

>>55322253
>xp for killing
Some DMs try and fix that by giving xp for roleplay, but then you have a situation where you talked to diplomats all day and now you're better at swinging a sword. Though a good DM could say it's because they taught you a few things during the party I guess.

>>55319915
>i would like legislation that ensures that there are no more bad judges anymore, ever!
it's impossible, anon

>>55319975
if you create a game that is aimed at recreating the fantasy genre in a generic manner it would have been the epitome of stupidity to disregard the central works of the genre

>>55322368
dnd is popular for a reason. If something "better" had come along it would have taken the crown. Between a fairly low barrier to entry and easily digestible fantasy fare it does everything it has to in order to achieve market dominance. Fact of the matter is you won't find a flat-out "better" game out there because dungeons and dragons did something the others can't.

Caters to the "normies" of tabletop gaming. It's easier to learn 5e then gurps or whatever your ultra-realistic "male human spear fighter only" homebrew

>>55322253
Is there a system you like?

>>55322554
>that is aimed at recreating the fantasy genre in a generic manner
It was never meant to do that.

>>55322623
Probably, the things he mentioned aren't exactly universal in TTRPGs

>>55321311
WFRP, Harnmaster, The One Ring

>>55322484
For me they are a pain in the ass:
-You dont get to play them until 6 lvl.
-Sometimes they change your character focus entirely so from lvl 6 to 16 you are another type of character and them you return to normal.
-Sometimes they are so dependant of the background that you cannot play the concept they represent because some faction in the middle of nowhere has the absolute monopoly of it.
-Others 3 prcs do the same concept but one is a trap and the other is much better.
-Also because of their focused nature, they usually are much better to take than the "generalist" base class

>>55322437
>I never understood the american concept of narrativist games.
if you look at games like PbtA, it has moves that are basically story-building-blocks.you construe out of them a whole adventure the way you construe a whole combat by combat moves in other games. and to make it work you have to interpret every move individually according to context.

it's not my cup of tea either but i think i basically get how it works and why.

>>55322601
Can confirm. Had a nightmarish time getting people to play any other system other than 5th. Normies fucking love 5e.

>>55322696
>-Sometimes they are so dependant of the background that you cannot play the concept they represent because some faction in the middle of nowhere has the absolute monopoly of it.
Just have a DM refluff it.
>-You dont get to play them until 6 lvl.
Usually.
>-Sometimes they change your character focus entirely so from lvl 6 to 16 you are another type of character and them you return to normal.
I've never felt this so much.
>-Also because of their focused nature, they usually are much better to take than the "generalist" base class
I feel like with 5e the base classes have so many options already.
Perhaps the 'PrC' could be something for levels 20-30 if they ever decide to bring Ebin stuff back with more focus.

>>55321809
But there are literal dungeon crawling board games that let you do exactly that.

>a friend invite me to his new campain with other friends and some(boring people)
>7 players
>stats by sets or dice
>kender thief, bard, low int mage, dwarf cleric of streight and sun, low cha/int paladin, low str/cos warrior, 20 str/17 cos barbarian(me)
>master and(some) payer whine cause i'm power player
>i need a nerf cause battle are imbalanced (midboss crits on me and took off less then half hp)

Fuck this shit, if you can build a character you shouldn't blame who can.
BTW i asked way before to the DM if i could take the Neantherdal race, even suggest some nerfs

>>55322509
That's a side effect of D&D's linear way of simulating character growth, which itself is a result of the level up system. If that wasn't there at all, you could easily implement a system where you get to increase skills by one at the end of the end of the session by 1 if you've rolled a natural 20 when using them, to simulate that you learned how to do it better by happening to do it so well that one time, and/or when you roll a natural 1, to simulate that you learned how not to do it in the future.

>>55314413
I find playing non-casters to be boring in combat (I attack, then attack again, and for my bonus I attack.) while playing casters requires so much more management and deeper understanding of what every little spell does and costs exactly that needs to be pulled up on the fly that it's overwhelming.

>>55320231
Exact reason why I hate PF fags for.

>>55322623
I play and enjoy many systems. My favorite is FFG Star Wars, but I also like Anima, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, DoubleCross, Eclipse Phase, FATE, GURPS, Kingdom, Microscope, Traveller, and WoD (old and new).

>>55322624
alright, you want it precisely? D&D was a derivative of Chainmail whose express goal it was to
> refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers; or you can devise your own ‘world’, and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it.

>>55322092
Yeah, my ranger hitting a dude TWICE or sometimes THREE TIMES with his bow/sword sure felt like throwing fireballs.

>>55319237
Dude, every single FUCKING session I have to explain what a Spell DC is, or I have to warn a player that's throwing a d12 insted of a d20 by mistake.
Players are dumb as fuck.

>>55320545
>hold person/creature
>illusions
>Both of these have a save every single turn
Even if the monster doesn't succeed the first save, because the spell DC system puts the caster at a disadvantage in this edition. You've used a spell slot to prevent the monster from attacking for one action, at most.

I found a Psionics handbook for a buck in a used book store. I do not play DND.
Was it a bad choice not buying it?

>>55314837
God I hope you are trolling. 4e sucked.

>>55323408
Which is actually often a good use of a slot, since player actions are worth less than "strong monster" actions.

Plus, it doesn't matter how bad the bad spells are, what matters is how good the good ones are; hypnotic pattern can win you a battle.

Also, DCs are actually favoring casters as you level, since weak saves don't scale at all. If you encountered some sort of level 20 ogre, it'd still have 0 will, but you'd have a lot higher save DC.

File: leveling up.jpg (774KB, 811x1000px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 811x1000px

Players have too many hitpoints and can heal too easily.
Like these posts say:
>>55319208
>>55320069

The world is unbelievably dangerous if the game is meant to consume party resources, meanwhile a commoner is made of wet tissue paper when compared to a player character.
As a GM I refuse to level players up based on EXP gained from killing enemies.

>>55323103
Those all suck. Opinion discarded. You play your dumb SJW games and I'll sit here playing a real man's game.

>>55323549
Golf?

>>55323525
But the Monster manual doesn't give you ogre's and tell you to level them up, instead they offer other monsters appropriate to the level a DM would use these as a basis for a 20th level monster instead.
at 20th level a Fighter can do 4 attacks per round, with their proficiency bonus and their maxed strength they have a VERY high chance of hitting, additionally they have action surges that make even more attacks, 12 total in one round if using both in one round. not including benifits from the archetypes that allow you to knock someone prone and get advantage on all other attacks.
A max level wizard still only gets 1 spell per round, and as such, can be just as fucked over by a miss at level 1 as level 20

>>55323103
Good taste anon.

>>55323549
I am a white nationalist, DnD is actual cuckold shit.

File: WHFRP-2.jpg (58KB, 206x231px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 206x231px

>>55323587
Hell yeah baby.

>>55321933

Preaching to the choir, man.

File: 245632157896541245.png (49KB, 157x160px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 157x160px

>>55323609
>White nationalist
>plays WoD

>>55323668
WoD's inherent politics may be shit but it's a lot more fun to play. I also don't let my politics dictate my interests.

I'm only frustrated because the game should be about fantastic adventures in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world yet the most emphasis is placed on your character build.

>>55323692
>I also don't let my politics dictate my interests.
This makes no sense. Racial nationalism of any kind should dictate and restrict your interests. Next you're going to say you listen to Boy to Men or something weird. Or vaporwave and lofi hip-hop

>>55320309
all of them - play more than a year with all of them

>>55323729
> Racial nationalism of any kind should dictate and restrict your interests.
That's just like, your opinion, man. I enjoy what I enjoy, doesn't mean I am forced to accept and approve of the culture behind it.

>>55323729
>vaporwave and lofi hip-hop
fashwave is a thing though

>>55323609
Everyone knows DnD is the game for white nationalists. It's players are all overly defensive against criticism and scared of being over taken by minority games despite clearly being safe as a huge majority.

File: 21322545668778547874.jpg (74KB, 1000x751px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1000x751px

>>55323747
>That's just like, your opinion, man.
Oh, you're a dudist. You don't actually give a shit about anything.

>>55323749
Unironic white supremacist rap is also a thing.

>>55323785
DnD is the domain of furfags and scalies. Other than /pfg/ DnDfags are some of the most autistically anti-weeb posters around. In other words, DnD is SJW central.

>>55323600
A high level wizard has access to simulacra, which means he got two spells, one from him, and one from the simulacra.

Or maybe instead he makes a simulacra, either of himself or the fighter, and True Polymorphs it into a a fucking Balor.

And this is without any sort of rules or loophole abuse. If you start doing simulacra chains, or farm wishes, or... whatever, you get the point.

>>55323802
>You don't actually give a shit about anything.
Sounds exhausting.

I think D&D is pretty good but it is too many things to too many people over too many years for everyone to be on the same page about it. There's always going to be friction if people except the same system to do superheroic planar / Planescape campaigns, noir Eberron campaigns, low-magic medieval fantasy, and setting so high magic that you can't slap a barmaid's ass without a magic item dropping out of her skirt.

These days people should realize the idea of a 'default' D&D campaign doesn't exist because of everyone holding different preconceptions and instead state their campaign or settings assumptions up front, and then use the variant rules or their own house rules so the mechanics help reinforce the setting and tone.

>>55323709
Honestly this is my biggest annoyance with D&D and Exalted. The people I want in my campaigns are people who make a cool idea and then pick their classes and skills based on that. I have to spend an inordinate amount of time filtering those kind of players out of my games.

I feel like having DM resources easily accessible to players on the Internet and CharOp forums is a serious part of the problem. I'm teaching some newbies how to play and it's been great because they don't even know about being a munchkin, let along how to do it.

Though I really liked 4e's balance, the idea of magic item wishlists needed to die in a fire. I much prefer 5e's approach of magic items being rare and literally unbuyable by default.

>>55323803
Eh, every TT-RPG is SJW central desu senpai.

>>55323819
Only if you're doing it right.

>>55323803
>DnD is SJW central
The world is SJW central, get with the times grandpa.

>>55323785
>It's players are all overly defensive against criticism
The unique IP counter in these types of threads heavily implies that there's exactly one sperg who can't stand the idea that some people don't like his favorite system.

DM here

Im incredibly frustrated with people who see stats and think "How do I minmax this?" People who treat their characters as PC's they need to "build" rather than an actual character.

If a PC approaches me with a wishlist of items, I make sure they don't show up.

>>55320384 - spell slots remove for weak every time cast spells. Fighters get "not" magic healing as a power early and every fight. I can go on.
As to 5e casters- the DC are set so low that making the check by anything in your CR is auto. If the DM is doing his job - concentration spells are next to useless in combat. I also always lose them after taking damage after the 2 time in a round.

>>55323802
>Oh, you're a dudist. You don't actually give a shit about anything.
Well, that's not true. I hate DnD, for instance.

>>55323949
5e builds characters super easy

>>55320426
clearly never played a caster or a bad GM

>>55323983
Sure, but there's a difference between someone who's made a character and someone who googled "best [class] build 5e d&d"

I spot the latter from miles away, and I work to prevent the obvious munchkin

>>55321205
agreed

>>55323949
No need to be petty about it... just make relevant to use their "min" stat once in a while.

>>55323949
God damn it. One of my players will spend five hours making a level one character, while we're at the table waiting for him. Each level after the first takes at least an hour, as he hems and haws about what he is gonna take to be most optimal. We recently switched from DnD into a more open system and now it's ten times worse. He created a combat monster right out the gate and is pissed that he has no room to get better at combat but is also terrible at literally everything else. Also, dual katanas.

Per RAW, paying to put NPC's under my control through schooling does nothing to increase their skill rankings or their productivity.

This rant is related to 5e.
I really hate Zone of truth and I really hate life cleric's channel divinity.

Zone of truth just takes any sort of fun out of the players interrogating captives.

Life cleric's channel divinity is the worst thing ever, I cannot wear my players down through multiple fights with the cleric able to heal for level x5 twice per short rest, putting everyone back at full hp after every fight.

The word "Target" is a key word that determines how multiple spells and class abilities function, but is not a "Keyword" in the system.

Mike Mearls is allowed to be anywhere near the rules instead of only the fluff where he belongs.

>>55314837
And that as well ^

File: 1436387919950.jpg (21KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x450px

>>55321128
I said that every game other than 3e and 5e have their places, and 4e is no exception. 4e is the most solid combat simulator for high-powered plot-shielded protagonists, and is the best torch-bearer for D&D's genetics as a wargame with added role-play elements. It runs a specific type of game better than any other edition. There is no type of game that you can milk out of 3e that you can't to better with either OD&D, AD&D, Basic, B/X, BECMI, or yes 4e. 4e is specialized for a particular feel of game, but at-least it does something that can't be done strictly and objectively better by previous editions: 3e and 5e can't make those claims.

>>55318921

Play, Anima, Exallted, or other systems friend.

>>55314413

My frustations id guess is more with the player base then the actual game its self.

Old players into it treat it like god and normally do not play outside of it.

New players act like kinds and have no idea what they are getting into.

There is a minority to note but I just find these are the average results of players. Never suggest a other system. You will trigger them worse then a SJW in a Cluclux Clan meeting.

Can somebody explain to me exactly why there is only one human language in D&D?

>>55326700
In which setting?

>>55326710
in the rules, "common" makes no sense to me

>>55326726
It's a way of handwaving language differences. By giving everyone a PC will likely be "common," there's no need to quibble over who can speak to who or what translators are necessary to do basic fucking leg work
Instead, with that fantastic handwave, it ostensibly turns language problems into a more mythic challenge, dealing with secret tongues and the languages that underpin reality.

In practice, all of the established settings create regional dialects or language groups, and "common" is just an established trade language.

>>55326823
in your opinion am i justified in saying to a player "I know the rules say you know 4 different languages but you are from a bumpkinfuck village so youd only know common"

File: raylan-givens.gif?w=500.gif (993KB, 500x255px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 500x255px

>>55326894
You're the DM, you are ALWAYS justified.
Whether that makes you right or not is up to you and your group, but you are justified.

>>55326894
1. is it your game?
you are justified

2. is it reasonably fair and enables the game you want to run?
you are in the right

I've found that 3.5 is heavily exploitable, but that the room for a dm to solve those problems is also expanded by the same exploitation with little to no hand waving required.

As a player, I minmax with the goal of possibly becoming a villain against the party. As a gm I build my npcs in a similar manner, starting with a base race, templates and a set of goals for him to pursue that potentially intercept with the party depending on what they decide to do with the quests they are given.

Typically the npc has 4-5 levels on the party and he provides some very interesting counter play to the combat monsters in the party. I find that artificer bbgs tend to provide the biggest platform with which to reliably challenge all facets of a party. Especially min maxed ones.

>>55323949
>I hate people who like D&D for what it is rather than what I want it to be

>>55327319
>I hate what D&D has become and want it to be more like what it was used to be

>>55327297
Eberron calls to me as a setting primarily because there are active militarized nations actively pursuing a means to become victors of the last war. In my mind it opens up tons of options to dick players over who push to far into any one direction of the game.