Are there any games that do D&D but better than D&D?

You do realize D&D existed for a quarter century prior to the OGL and the d20 system, right? And that there have been two editions since?

Good post, user.

>D&D existed for a quarter century prior to the OGL and the d20 system
Only played by hipsters
>And that there have been two editions since
One was abandoned by the company that made it, and the other is brand new and they're both d20 games.

You can pretend that 3.5/PF isn't "D&D" to 99% of D&D players if you want but that doesn't make it not true.

Please die.

Be sure to take this colossal faggot with you.

Seconding GURPS, dungeon fantasy.

What language do you speak?

I'm curious what language "better" translates to "a hundred times worse."

It sounds like you speak a fag language.

If you aren't having fun with D&D, don't play D&D.
If you are having fun with D&D, play D&D.

Every single argument - without fail - for one way or the other only really amounts to "I like X better because I am allowed to have opinions." Which is nothing that's inherently wrong, but I know that Veeky Forums has a nasty habit of treating it's subjective opinions as objective facts. In other words, I hope you play whatever you have fun with, and enjoy the dick-waving and shit-flinging that is this thread.

After you, I insist.

If you're the OP, go choke on a dick, you troll. A fitting end for you.

If you're the faggot who decided to shit out his faggot opinion like this wasn't a troll thraad, shit nigger, you are already dead inside and I hope OP comes for you to drag you to Hell already, you gay walking corpse.

I think you missed the third option, someone who successfully got you buttmad

No, he covered Troll right off.

Except OP asked a perfectly legitimate question, even if it's naïve. You can discuss similar systems and keep the pissing contest secondary.

Man, whoever you need to be to go off yourself, be that person.

Man, fuck off with your "legitimate question" you shiteating troll.

If he cared about a good answer, he wouldn't have used the same image someone's used to troll the last few weeks. He's just here to start up the same old bullshit, and you're a faggot to try and pretend otherwise.

Choke on a dick.

Harn. It's a dead system (devs went bankrupt) but I like the mechanics and character gen. It's d100 based, but crit fails/succeeds are on 5's and 0's.

You know why they scrapped the name DnD Next?

Because after playing it, some alpha testers took to shouting "next" to the supervisors, as if expecting a better game to be produced.

Actually, 5e is okay, but it doesn't really fix the problems that are typical for DnD: combat that is difficult to make interesting, yet also slow with phonebooks of rules, and casters being inherently superior to martials.

So I'd say any of the *world type games does it better. They feature innovative dice systems that help make everything interesting.

Don't try to speak for anyone except yourself.

That's your major malfunction.

>casters being inherently superior to martials.
Casters are only better at solving various circumstances in 5E. They're versatile, but they can't exceed past a martial in terms of combat ability.
Barbarians, paladins, monks, and especially fighters rule the battlefield in terms of "dealing damage", since 5E hamstringed the ability of magic spells to end an encounter.
5E casters are toolboxes, 5E martials are sledgehammers. They can't really do each others jobs.

Sorclock notwithstanding but that obviously is not even close to intended design.

>Are there any games that do D&D but better than D&D?
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, which is why you haven't seen any significant challenge to it that isn't some near-clone/retweaking of it's core rules.

I ran the math before, but a martial fully loaded for damage barely outdamages a fully loaded damage caster.

Damage wise, they're basically equal, with a slight edge to martials.

But damage isn't the problem. Casters completely dominate out of combat encounters with spell utility in a way that martials can't really keep up.

Whenever someone brings up damage to the 5e caster v. martial argument, they're completely missing the point.

So good job, missing the point.

>I am bad at math and my mother doesn't love me

Maybe she'd love you if you weren't so bad at math.

I don't find it to be garbage just that obviously it's caster supremacy the game. I prefer savage worlds honestly as a system, and hoping to get my players off the wizard cock long enough to give it a go.

Lot of good stuff in the OSR community. Lamentations of The Flame Princess for weird horror in 1600s europe, DCC for gonzo fantasy meat grinders and tables (proprietary dice though), The Black Hack for the newhotness that's actually pretty good, Beyond The Wall+ Further Afield for a very thoughtful meshing of character and world building as a collaborative effort from more narrative/story games with classic D&D. DW and World Of Dungeons if that's your thing.

Lots of options.

this might be what you're looking for

The first time i played. Didn't like the fact that AC was never specified to what it is. Is it armor? then why DEX increase it? are you avoiding the attack or taking the hit and it is doing 0 damage?

>that shadowrun
No wonder I can never find a fucking group

Wow, you're really going for that "Most Retarded Post of All Time" award. That's a strong competitor right there.

>are you avoiding the attack or taking the hit and it is doing 0 damage?
Yes.

I like to know what exactly happened to my character. I believe most systems will just separate both things and armor will actually works as armor (decrease damage). It's weird to put them together in a pool, it's lazy.

You've outdone yourself.
Please, do use a tripcode, so that we know who's name to put on the award.

so basically, you don't have an argument.

Dungeon Crawl Classics!

>better

No, basically, you're just trying to bump a troll thread with some of the stupidest posts ever uttered.

Like, fuck, do you not understand what abstraction is? Shit, you are dumb enough to think you deserve an argument instead of insults, when it's clear you're not even smart enough to understand the basics of game design.

Educate yourself so I don't have to do it for you, and then come back when you can understand why a game might choose to simplify a complex question into a simpler one.

You utter moron.

damn girl, u thirsty

you're just an idiot

>D&D But Better

Depends what you mean by Better

>Best variety of options & support, but having to sort through a ton of trap character options when building PCs
Pathfinder, GURPS

>Best Balanced fantasy dungeoncrawler game
FantasyCraft, or True20.

>Like WHFRP but better
GURPS Fantasy/ GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, or RuneQuest 6.

4e is not a d20 game. The d20 engine has been stripped out in almost all places and replaced by... something else.

5e is no longer new. It's been coming up on 3 years, and it has next to no product, and they've made it clear they intend to keep it that way, outside of adventures. It's an inflexible game engine with an insufficient number of character options, that is *Only* really getting support in the form of adventures.

The game is not based on abstraction. If it was, you would defeat enemies based on how your character is feeling.

It's all precise, so it definitely makes sense to ask why dex and armor are treated as the same thing.

In real life, if you wear an armor, like for example a leather vest to tank a punch. You don't "decrease" the damage, you completely tank it, or you don't. Dex increases it because whether you dodge it or tank it is irrelevant, in both cases the damage is nullified.

odd that you say "a hundred times worse" when you mean "I haven't played it and can't believe the justified claim that it's better despite being unwilling to try it and see."

There are lots of ways to break the game as a caster in 5e. Comparatively fewer than in 3e and you will break the game less, but it's still trivially possible for a couple of the caster classes to make martials cry. Plus, most of the game-breaking caster stuff requires you to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10th level to get started and doesn't get /really/ crazy until close to the level cap, plus, with the exception of necromancers, the builds that dominate the game tend to be obscure, niche things that people probably won't stumble into unless they're actually /trying/ to be minmaxing assholes. So, 5e's class balance should work fine for an average group, but that's not the same as being genuinely balanced. Casters still stomp all over martials if both classes are playing hardball.

The original idea was that the more armor you have, the fewer parts of your body present valid targets for an enemy attack. By the time we got to AD&D, it was already a clunky legacy system from a time when most characters only had one hit point.

Holy shit.

You are legitimately an idiot.
Thanks, I was worried it would take longer to reveal that you trolls are fucking morons, but we've settled this whole business early.

Good night, you fucking idiot.

It's a very useful chart.
It lets you know that 35.53% of players are to be avoided at all fucking costs.

It's based on abstraction done by people who aren't complete retards.

Oh. And other D&D alternatives, which I had forgotten while making that post, are Unisystem and Savage Worlds.

>I like to know what exactly happened to my character.
Ask the DM then.

>you completely tank it
depends of the amount of damage. If you fall from your bike, a helmet surely won't absorb 100% of the impact. Hell, arrows were able to pass through armor. It's not irrelevant to know which one is happening and how much damage is being reduced. It is directly linked to the type of character you're making, or at least should be.

>The game is not based on abstraction. If it was, you would defeat enemies based on how your character is feeling.
You don't know what an abstraction is. I'm with the others here: you're just a retard.

Champion Fighter, 2 action surges per short rest for 8 attacks in a round, +5 attribute, +3 magic weapon, and GWM for +10 damage per hit.

Assuming all hit, that's 16d6+80+40+24, for on average 180 damage in a round, twice per short rest.

Now, Quickened Spell Sorclock with hex, eldritch blast, and the invocations, and +5 cha

2xEldritch blast for 4d10+40+8d6, or 90 damage on average.

So at first, it seems like the champion does twice as much damage as the sorclock, and this is as deep as the average martial player ever gets (if they even got this far, I have my doubts).

But then you have to consider how often the character is "online".

The champion fighter can deal 180 damage twice per short rest, so 6 times per day if you follow the DMG guidelines.

The sorcerer at level 18 sorc, 2 warlock, can do it 9 times. in a long rest.

But you have to factor in converting spell slots to points. the 2 levels of warlock let the sorcerer have 2 level one spell slots per short rest to be converted, which is an additional 2 points per short rest. So we're looking at three more 90 damage novas available to the sorc.

Then there are the other spell slots.

9
8
7
6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1

That's an additional 76 sorcery points if the sorc wants it, and with that, he has an additional 38 uses of the 90 damage nova per long rest.

So basically, the sorcerer is always online and doing 90 damage, and the champion fighter is always online and doing 90 damage, but with a few situations where the champion does an additional 90 damage in a turn, but at a lower accuracy.

The additional 90 damage novas aren't anything you couldn't get by just succeeding with a hold person or hold monster.

As a martial, you're basically giving up consistent, accurate damage and spells for the ability to usually twice a day (most groups don't do that many short rests in a day) kill a single target twice as hard as the caster was already killing it.

When you play monopoloy, you know you're not really a little top hat right?

But that is what I meant.

The armor protects you from the arrow, or it doesn't and you still die. The helmet protects you from opening your head wide open or it doesn't. Sure you get twisted after falling from a bike, and you can continue moving afterwards, just like you can continue fighting if your AC fails to protect you from the hit. I mean you also have to consider that even if you are in full plate armor, you could still 1/100 of a times dodge something.

It all depends on the context and the way you imagine it, true d&d style.

>shows exactly what is wrong with your argument
"wow, such an idiot"

tell that to your DM next time things aren't going your way.

he should be able to inform you instantly based on the results at hand, no one needs to ask anything. My point is that he can't, he needs to make up what happened. He can't say if you were actually hit based on the rules of the own game. Hell, some other games even specify where you were hit.

>Savage Worlds
I'm looking into it right now, and I'm not sure I like its game philosophy, at least in regards to "bennies". The DM apparently gets them to use for his villains, and the players for their heroes, so it kind of seems like it's setting up a system that encourages a Player-vs.-DM mentality. The idea that the DM is somehow giving their villains more chances seems weird to me.

Dude, roll over, you're dead.
You can't be this stupid and still have a functioning brain.

>he needs to make up what happened.
>He can't say if you were actually hit based on the rules of the own game.
And?

>The armor protects you from the arrow, or it doesn't and you still die
part of the impact is absorbed by the armor. That's why armor didn't become obsolete when the arrow was invented.

Are you really arguing there is NO substantial middle term when it comes to damage? anyway, my point is that there should be, like it exists in every other game.

>he needs to make up what happened
He is the DM, its his job to make shit up on the spot.

Part of the role of the DM in most systems is to play the antagonists (as well as the supporting characters). Giving the DM fun things to do like bennies is just acknowledging this role, and giving them rule support to make the villains play against the NPCs in interesting ways.

People wore chainmail inside the outer armor to survive arrows.

>And?
And that's when i realized d&d was garbage

Most other games do damage calculation wrong. D&D does it right.

>its his job to make shit up on the spot
not about the actual mechanics of the game.

and still got hurt badly, and still used it because it's better than not wearing anything.

>he actually likes d&d and picks on the one constructive post in the thread

Only because you've gotten it into your head that that's important, and that a game is garbage if it doesn't tell you. And that's fine, but I don't really feel you made a compelling case why anyone else should think it. It's basically "I don't like it so it's bad."

>not about the actual mechanics of the game.
Most of the time they do though. Like I think everyone changes D&D rules here and there. The game isn't meant to be played by the letter. At least my DM homebrews a lot of shit and we like it, more flexible that way.

>not about the actual mechanics of the game.
In this case, it's more of a fluff question than a mechanics question.

>not about the actual mechanics of the game.
That's exactly how old-school D&D (whence AC comes from) is meant to function. 'Here's rules for a bunch of stuff. If you encounter something not covered, bullshit something up.'

>implying you've ever played it

not the same guy but I love DCC. It's a nice mix of retro-clone and crunch. There's obvious flaws but it's great for dungeon delving.

NTGB some people dislike that abstraction. I also dislike it, and simply ignore that it's an abstraction, and run D&D as a surreal game set in a world where creatures become amazingly durable.

As for determining whether something is actually a hit or not, you can do that by breaking up AC into its parts.

Dodge AC is at the bottom.
Deflection is next.
Then Shield Bonus is next.
Next Armor.
Then Natural Armor.

If you dont beat 10+dodge, he dodged you. If you beat that but not deflection, it was deflected. If you beat that but not Shield, the Shield blocked it. If you beat that but not Armor, Their Armor stopped it, and if you beat that but not Natural Armor, their Natural Armor stopped it.

If not 'garbage', it's clearly doing less than the other options when it comes to consistency.

And it's not the only time that happened in d&d. Didn't bards used to hit with Charisma or someshit?

So, assuming you did not read it in the book and are just trolling, AC is how hard it is to land a meaingful attack on someone.

Dodging ability, physical armor, magic stuff, extraordinary luck, all of that is factored into AC.

Why does strength counter act dodging ability in melee?

Because DnD is still based on a wargame from the 70s in some ways, this continues to exist when many other games have introduced damage reducing armor.

>That's exactly how old-school D&D (whence AC comes from) is meant to function
see

I don't actually like it, I'd much rather play pathfinder, and the Bennies (and how integral they are to everything working - if you didn't realize it bennies are also your HP if you're players) are a large part of the reason.

But I know lots of other people like it, and I know it has a few D&Dlike setting books and the like, and there's a guy who converted Eberron to it.

>you have to throw 5 dice everytime time you attack
holy shit

>Dodging ability, physical armor, magic stuff, extraordinary luck, all of that is factored into AC
Yeah, that's kind of my point. They just throw it all in a pool, even when things clearly doesn't work one like the other.

How come? They all deflect damage.

>Didn't bards used to hit with Charisma or someshit?
I don't know, I've never played that edition. Are you referring to spell attacks?

As explained, if you take a hit, it's not 0 or 10. You absorb only part of it most of the time. This is not accounted for d&d. It's like wearing armor, or no armor at all. Like they strip you naked for the damage.

Now you're making things up.

No. Actual attacks. Never got to play it myself, but that's how a friend explained to me, so i can't be sure of the specifics.

>Giving the DM fun things to do like bennies is just acknowledging this role
No it isn't it's implying he or she should get narrative bonuses to use as he sees fit to get his villains out of scrapes or give them a leg up on the players. I don't see how that enhances my players' fun. I don't see how that enhances my fun, unless I see it as a competition between me and them.

Well the enemy either hits you where it hurts or it doesn't. What's the issue?

There's optional rules in one book for this. I think it was the DMG or UA. But there's rules for giving armor damage reduction along with using 3d6 instead of 1d20. I've found that giving damage reduction makes the martials way way stronger throughout the game if you make it stack with all other sources of damage reduction.

Fucking adamantine plate gets nasty.

the level of 'hurt' can vary if you're wearing armor because it absorbs part of the damage, as i explained.

>lighter armoured dexterous character just narrowly misses getting hit
>you duck under the bow, the sound of the orc's blade cutting wind in your ear

>heavily armoured character gets hit, roll does low damage
>the ray pistol sparks off your platemail but dents and sears, the residual heat burns you for 4 dmg.

Not really seeing the problem here, the dice rolls are still informative enough that the dm can put together a plausible explanation without much fuss.

Stop

Making

This

Thread

What?
No.
One d20.

All I did was break AC down in a way that you can *accurately* determine the narrative results of an attack roll using the existing mechanics.

If you want to do that on a regular basis, it means multiple defensive numbers you would reference.

So, lets assume each thing is a +1.

>along with using 3d6 instead of 1d20
Perfect.

Oh, and 16+ you hit and do damage.

Combine with the Armor as DR optional rule, and your problem is gone.

Also, d20 Conan has Armor as DR as the default rule. They made some significant changes to that game's engine, but on the surface it plays almost the same as D&D 3.5.

>the residual heat burns you for 4 dmg
this here doesn't happen in d&d according to the rules, you avoid the full attack even wearing plate mail, or take it all like not wearing anything.

I always thought it is best to let the guy chose one kind of defense.