Does anyone really *need* the granularity of the d20? In 3e/4e/Shitfinder, you're rolling 1d20 + 20 by mid-levels...

...

>D&D is the easiest fucking system in the world
while i disagree with the OP.... this is quite embarrassing, desu

>daily d&d and other d20 systems are shit thread
What happened OP? Cant find a group for your d8 catgirl maids world war 2 rpg?

it allows for subtle differences between statblocks; this is good.

The system I use replaces dice with decks of 52 playing cards and persistent hands.

>Cant find a group for your d8 catgirl maids world war 2 rpg?
Well, shit. Now I have a system to create.

What's hard about it? Literally everything you do is "Roll d20 add modifiers, DM tells you what happened"

>Roll d20, add modifiers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I if the situation calls for it, J if it's the second Wednesday of the month, K if your weapon is moldy, L, M, N, O, and P if you're racial power lets you, Q, if you're playing a duck, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z if your DM is feeling generous.
>DM tells you end result, but you disagree with him, so spend the next 1d20x5 mins arguing with him and digging through one of many rules books for support to your demands.

We're talking about D&D, not GURPS, dumbshit.

Do you happen to be mentally retarded?

>Not seeing the obvious sarcasm
Christ you guys need to drink your coffee.

Joke

Your head

>I was just pretending to be retarded

When did i realize DnD is garbage?

On the first session after learning about several things:
>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
>finesse weapon bullshit.
>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.
>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.
>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.

>me: "I do X"
>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"

>I was only pretending to be retarded

And like always, the retards come out of the woodwork to defend the d20 from nothing.

>oh, he wasn't making fun of how people treat GURPS, he was defending D&D!

You are legitimately stupid.

What did you expect, quality combat mechanics?

From a bunch of basement dwelling, mouth-breathing, lounge chair historians who failed Phy Ed as a child?

Might as well ask a cat for a new car.

>talking about d20's and D&D
>le GURPS

How's it feel to have such poor reading comprehension?

Considering you're the one who missed the link to the GURPS joke yet added it to your complaints, I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine.

Apparently hating D&D causes severe brain damage.

>Being this retarded.

You find that in practice D&D is a bit more involved than that, user.

>muh hate fur D&D
>SO SRS GUISE
>NO JOKES
>STAAAAHHPP!!!
You people can't be taken seriously to begin with. Calling other people retarded doesn't make it any better.

Take some zanex and valium and go get some sleep.

So is every other game out there, kiddo.

Stay butthurt d20fag.

It's impossible to be hurt by you people. You hate a game SO MUCH you can't stop talking about it! How is that not the most hilarious thing ever? And your responses to people laughing at you is cute. Oh no, you called me names! You said I was mad! How TERRIBLE!

Need a tissue user?

Scaling.
The more narrow the range, the less room there is for variation of overall capacity. D&D's balancing is all out of wack, but saying that a 20-base scale is too wide is perhaps the biggest reach I've seen in a counter-D&D argument.

Just got home from our holiday dnd session.

How was your evening, complaining on the internet?

I consider a simple game one that fits the entirety of its rules on an A4 page, like Risus. In fact I consider D&D character creation being more rules heavy than GURPS, because of the builds you need to know of beforehand (like picking the correct prerequisites for the feats you're going to need pick up later etc).

Girls, girls!

You're both retarded.

>Evening
It's 6 in the morning here in the real world. How's it feel living in a muslim run shit hole?

Only because I'm laughing so hard, really. Thanks!

>I'm not hurt sempai-sama!

I noe, rite?

The best systems are objectively systems based on normal distributions, like 2d6

These threads were doomed to be shit the second any of the sides took on an air of perceived superiority.

Well yeah, when you beckon d20flies to meat, it's going to spoil the meat.

You mean like this guy?

>cant see the forest for the trees

Man I need a tub for the amount of fish in this thread.

It's gotten s bad no one is discussing the OP anymore.

Which is good, because OP was dumb.

The only system that doesn't have that issue is OSR-forms of D&D....which is D&D.....and Apocalypse World, which isn't a good game.

Here is a good question for those here, not even being a troll just an observer.

How many people are just foaming at the mouth pushing dnd 3.5?

I dont see anyone loyal to the system in /pfg/ or 5e general. Any time I see someone say something about it is when people complain about it, when they get half a thread of bitching before someone tells them to fuck off. The people who liked 3.5 left like two years ago and hardly ever come back.

>OSR
I'm gonna go puke smugly.

OSR just attracts the other end of the autism spectrum.

It's not the mechanics that make or break a game for me, it's the community. D&D and it's near relatives all have a terrible community.

3.5 is at a fraction of it's former playerbase, mostly because of Pathfinder and 5e together covering almost all aspects of 3.5 that people enjoyed.

I know there are still people who enjoy 3.5 on Veeky Forums, I am one of them, but the obsessive fans incapable of seeing fault with their broken-ass system and refusing to ever play anything else are mostly gone

OSR community here is pretty chill though, unlike say Pathfinder threads.

>actually posting green text on dark pink background

Readability is tricky.

The haters have a club of their own though, which is hilarious.

Because you're not allowed to have BADWRONGFUN so they make these threads to tell people that they are having badwrongfun in.

>>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
Good to know that even literal retards like you can have okay taste too.

Please, stop trying to pad up your troll thread.

No one is "pushing" 3.5. It doesn't need to be pushed. It's the 2nd most popular game, even after sixteen years, and is essentially the system you NEED to have at least played in order to even enter the discussion about games and game systems, as it is the most influential game of the last two decades. It would be like saying that people needed to push Evangelion on /a/ or Batman on /co/, when its just their momentous popularity that carry themselves.

What people are tired of are these low-hanging fruit trolls spamming and bumping these terrible threads to argue the most stupid complaints ad nauseum like they think they're game experts, when they're just idiots upset about a popular games continued legacy. 3.5 has well-known issues (since just about everyone has played this game), but the game is, and will remain, popular because it is a mechanically deep and diverse system that rewards system mastery and has been analyzed and improved by tens of thousands of people. It gets undue hate because of its popularity, and people pretend that listing issues, issues often less grievous than those in lesser known games, might be enough to condemn the system as a whole.

These are threads for baby whiners, and the people stupid enough to engage with them. The funny thing, or the sad thing, is that these threads do more FOR 3.5's popularity than against it, because no minds are being changed by these threads (thanks to the raw stupidity of the arguers), and the old adage "any publicity is good publicity."

Yeah but the games are so old and archaic, how can anyone have fun with rules that are more than 30 years old? Not to mention how little customization you get, it's so restrictive! Only four classes? There's no roleplaying to be had in that.
I tried to get my playgroup into BFRPG once and that's basically what they told me.

They're mostly busy actually playing their games or being productive adults. Which is good. But when it comes to anything outside of their comfort zone, I've found most OSRfags are as bad as a Nazi in a Synagogue.

You seem to be talking about, and so I too will be talking about, 5e.

>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.

There's a historical reason for this dating back to D&D being originally a war game, but I forget the specifics, and it doesn't much matter anyway. Having AC be "how hard you are to damage" allows a speedy character and a full-plated character to be equally viable builds.

>finesse weapon bullshit.

¿Por qué?

>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.

1) D&D is not a real-life simulator
2) Hit points are an abstraction and do not necessarily represent "meat points" except when convenient for them to do so (i.e., they do when you take falling damage, lava damage, or are poisoned by a weapon that hits you; but conversely the game does not assume that every single arrow hits you and you end up looking like a porcupine). It's up to you whether your 1-hit point character is a broken mess or just winded and sweating like a pig. Shift your paradigm.

>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.

...should things not have resistance to magic?

>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.

...wrong on every level? Even without the Battle Master options, every character can shove, grapple, climb, jump, and interact with the world around them, all of which open up immense combat options.

>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"

You need a special feat for protecting others with your shield *when it's not your turn*. Simply standing in front of them with your shield should properly grant some kind of cover.

>Literally everything you do is "Roll d20 add modifiers, DM tells you what happened"
no, that is NOT all you need to know and understand

You're next line is "I was only pretending to be retarded!"

>It gets undue hate because of its popularity, and people pretend that listing issues, issues often less grievous than those in lesser known games
user, this is the point where you pushed too far.

Yes, it really is.

you can put a character sheet in front of someone, explain that, and give them a little help in adding modifies, and the GM can, if he wants, pick up 90% of the slack.

In ANY game.

No, he's right. M&M, Rifts, WoD, and Rolemaster/LotR Middleearth Roleplaying are all much, much, MUCH worse than D&D about the things D&D haters talk about.

They also conveniently ignore these facts because it doesn't fit their D&D Hate Agenda.

It's true though.

It's not the greatest game, but there's no game that is "due" an endless cycle of "HEY GUYS LOOK HOW MUCH I HATE THIS GAME" troll threads made by idiots.

Your next line is that you're a jojofag and jojofags need to kill themselves already.

I don't like Evangelion, but I can see that it isn't bad and understand why it is broadly liked

I don't like most Batman material, but I like some of it, and I can see the overarching strengths that keep bringing people back for more even after Snyder has shat all over them

I LOVE 3.5, but it is a BAD game, it's flaws are the most glaring, game-breaking flaws of any decently popular RPG, it has depth, but only via the value of a broken clock being right twice a day due to it's ludicrously massive amount of material, and it has bred a horrible mindset into the tabletop RPG community that, although it's now faded, we're still dealing with today

I was only pretending to be retarded!

Ho!!!

that is not satisfying for 99% of the players beyond the first few sessions and you know it.

>>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
Wrong.
Your touch AC shows how hard you are to hit, and isn't affected by armor.
Your armor bonus to AC makes it more difficult to damage you.
Damage reduction from armor is retarded.
Wearing a breastplate doesn't mean that when someone stabs you with a dagger, it hurts half as much.

>>finesse weapon bullshit.
What's bullshit about using speed instead of strength to hit a target?

>>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.
Don't know what edition you were playing, but in 3.5 it certainly doesn't work like that.
>>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.
South like 5th edition isn't your speed.
>>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.
Same as above. 3.5 and PF have more tactical options. There are many classes based around it actually.

>me: "I do X"
>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"
5th edition changed "aid another" to "help" and removed the option to bolster an ally's defense.

late to the party fag

what is it with muslims and having shit sense of punctuality?

Hey! You leave RIFTS out of this! It's not Kevin's fault he has four different rule sets for drowning/choking/breath holding/asphyxiation, at least three swim skills, can't add your Physical Prowess (Dex equivalent) to ranged attacks and refuses to even attempt to collect the rules into a sensible format!

But dammit I still enjoy the game, just wish it wasn't owned by a retard

Two points.

1) Even if this were true, how would that be a bad thing? There is something to be said for having the fewest number of moving parts necessary. Being easy to learn is not a bad mark. Quite the opposite, it's a design goal for any competent RPG.

2) How is the player going to know how to level up his character? That doesn't involve the d20. How is a druid character going to understand Wild Shape? How is a spellcaster going to understand most of his spells? How is a player going to understand what weapons are optimal for his build? I think you'll find that "90% of the slack" ends up being a huge portion of the game.

>as it is the most influential game of the last two decades.
this is beyond ridiculous. it has brought NO innovation that has influenced other RPG systems. in fact, it has been the other way around: it had brought D&D more uptodate with innovations of the era, which was enough for deendeefags to brag about it even 16 FUCKING YEARS later.

>M&M
hitpoint bloat partially works for the genre
>Rifts
generally touted as one of the worst major systems ever, Savage Rifts greeted as a saviour
>Rolemaster
has criticals to offset HP bloat but, yes, shares other issues with D&D (like eventual caster supremacy) but is no issue any longer because it has fallen into obscurity (largely due to MERP losing the tolkien license).

That's 3.5. We don't talk about 3.5 in civilised places.
Poe's law

>Your touch AC shows how hard you are to hit, and isn't affected by armor.
>Your armor bonus to AC makes it more difficult to damage you.
So why don't bigger weapons make it easier to hit you. A giant's non-magical, non-masterwork club should give its wielder an enormous bonus to hit.

the thing is... there are historical reasons why D&D works why it does. it hasn't disposed of AC because it's part of its brand, even though it's a subpar mechanic.

>That's 3.5. We don't talk about 3.5 in civilised places.

How very progressive of you

>even though it's a subpar mechanic.

Why, though?

That is to say, it functions well enough. The only truly incongruous part about it is its name; "Defense" would probably be a better term. But from a purely mechanical perspective I don't see an issue with it.

You exaggerate.

Evangelion has incredible flaws that you seem to have overlooked, ranging from a main character that gets less likable as the series progresses and motifs that the director admitted were inserted to pretend to be deep without any meaning behind them. Telling me it isn't bad and broadly liked, by your view, is ignoring those flaws.

Batman has some of the worst problems of any superhero, largely because the rules surrounding him are often contradictory. He's supposed to have "no super powers", but he exists in a world where magic exists and can be learned (by people who are intelligent and have strong will, and Batman has one of the strongest wills in the DC universe), and yet somehow Batman refuses to learn magic.

See? They're bad by your definition, because I can make stupid complaints about them. And that's just a taste, because I haven't even started the whole business about pedophilia in both series.

3.5 is a great game by common measure, and it's popularity is hardly undeserved. It took an already great system and updated it, and though now it is effectively superseded by 5e, it still remains a fun experience and ultimately a necessary one for anyone interested in roleplaying games.

>and it has bred a horrible mindset into the tabletop RPG community that, although it's now faded, we're still dealing with today

Stop. This is a baseless meme that people have tried to conjure up, and it's as empty as trying to blame the worst of /a/ and /co/ on Evangelion, Batman, and other popular series. 3.5 helped teach many valuable lessons to thousands of players, and trying to say that a few idiots who learned the wrong things from the system outweigh all the others is unfair and ridiculous.

>So why don't bigger weapons make it easier to hit you.
Why... would they?

>A giant's non-magical, non-masterwork club should give its wielder an enormous bonus to hit.
Actually the opposite is true in D&D, and for a well justified reason.
Things that are small are harder to hit.
Your foot is several times larger than a rat, but good luck stomping on one.
Vice-versa, something large is easier to hit.

>the thing is... there are historical reasons why D&D works why it does.
I see no evidence for this.

>it hasn't disposed of AC because it's part of its brand, even though it's a subpar mechanic.
They haven't replaced AC because it's a part of the basic d20 system.
If they replaced it, you'd have one major, perhaps the biggest, aspect of the game that doesn't follow the core game mechanic.

Do you also anna use meters? Fuck off commie!

This guy gets it

What good lessons has 3.5 taught?

>Your foot is several times larger than a rat

Clearly you have never been to New York.

>Why, though?

It's an all-or-nothing mechanic that doesn't represent an all-or-nothing concept.

Thankfully not.

>Why... would they?

Try swatting a fly with a coat hanger. Then try again with a rolled-up newspaper.

Never said it was a bad thing.

This, I think, once again stems from a confusion at the fact that hit points are not, and have never, necessarily been "meat points". They are when it's convenient for them to be, but they equally are not when it is convenient for them to not be, too.

D&D has optional rules for true "meat points" (the "wounds" system), as well as optional rules for hitting something like an arm or a leg They slot into the extant d20 system quite comfortably, but they also add complexity to a game that, while it can handle the added complexity quite well, also benefits more from having a simple system.

This is potentially misleading since over our lives we've probably developed Proficiency with rolled-up newspapers and like weapons precisely because of constant attempts to hit flies, whereas few people ever even attempt to do so with a coat hanger.

Just play OD&D or BD&D. It's seriously the fucking best.

Well, the best is Swords & Wizardry: Complete.

Being popular is enough to make you immune to criticism, you only need one system to play everything, OGL dominating the market was the proof that this is true.

A coat hanger would be an undersized weapon in D&D, as well as an improvised weapon.
You're looking at at least a -8 to hit.
A fly would be a fine sized creature, and get +8 to ac.
We're already looking at a disadvantage of 16 on an attack roll.
Meaning you'd need 26 to hit.
Not gonna happen.

A newspaper on the other hand, is effectively as lethal to a fly as a medium sized club.
So you'd only have a disadvantage of 8.
Meaning you need 18 to hit.
Hard, but doable if the fly is sitting still and isn't ready for you.

You're not funny...

Ok you're a little funny

I'd say a rolled up newspaper is more like a sap than a club. Depending on the size, of course.

Fair point.
I thought club because those are crude and cheap, but a sap is probably closer in size.

substitute a rapier for the coat hangar and try this exercise again

I actually cut a fly in half with a kitchen knife once.

But nobody will ever believe me.

>he finds it hard to count up to twenty
laughinggirls.jpeg