Why don't you like D&D?

> justifiably hating D&D

OP what you want is Dungeon World

It's pretty much objectively one of the best currently out there. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

You want fast, intuitive combat? Dungeon World does that.

You want real, deep roleplaying mechanics? Dungeon World does that.

You want great mechanics that reward diversity of play? Dungeon World does that as well.

My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window. This is real roleplaying we are talking about here, not babby 3.5 shit. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Dungeon World today

All this and I'm tired of fantasy RPGs in general as it seems to be the only thing I play. I'd like to play a modern game, a sci-fi one, or a supers for a change.

Why make this thread? All it does is give the people who bitch in every thread whenever D&D is mentioned another place to bitch about how they can't stand a popular game, with increasingly inane reasons.

What's your curiosity? Or did you really just want to give those people who come to a D&D board to bitch about D&D another place to bitch?

Because I'm curious as to what the other tabletop RPGs out there offer. I see a lot of criticism of D&D on this board, but not a lot of explanations as to what it is about other systems that makes them preferred. So far There have been several helpful replies in this thread, and, while some of the suggested alternatives to D&D may not appeal to me, like Dungeon World in , I am still glad to hear what people have to say about them.

Get out virt

I've only played AD&D and 3.5.

AD&D is fun if you have a good DM because there are lots of opportunities for you to die for good and that takes a specific mindset to be ok with.

I didn't like 3.5 for its insistence on grid-based combat, its large amounts of non-optional rules that are all required to be used to maintain cohesion, and the emphasis it placed on optimized builds over interesting characters.

>If you don't like D&D as a tabletop rpg, what are some of the reasons?
Two words: Vancian magic.

Related to that: The fact that direct damage spells are subpar.

the damage thing i'm actually okay with, because it still fills a niche. The martials can still deal more raw damage, where-as the casters get more varied effects.

That much i think is smart. The thing about vancian magic, though, i agree with. There are so many spells, a great deal of rule bloat, and a endless array of effects on just a basic caster that its nearly absurd.

This is something 5e Valiantly tried to fix by giving unlimited cantrips and limiting higher level spells down to 1-2 a day, but at the same time the caster supremacy is on a much deeper level then just how often they get to do reality warping things.

Its a damn shame, really.

I love D&D 4e, but according to most people that means I hate real D&D. And being fair, the things I like about 4e are mostly the departures it takes from main line D&D.

The rest of the modern D&D franchise really suffers from resting on its laurels. Its position as the grandfather of RPGs and unchallenged market leader has meant they had no real reason to innovate or change anything, and the one time they actually tried to take brave new steps forward they faced a dramatic fanbase revolt, while one of the blandest and safest systems I've ever seen, D&D 5e, has sold like hotcakes.

I guess it's just a lack of connection with that central idea, of that mythical D&D people seem to venerate but never really seems to exist outside of their heads, the system just being something they project it onto rather than something they use for its own sake.

I think my biggest overall problem with DnD is how magic works, especially in 3.5 and 5e.

I hate the vancian spellcasting, how everything recharges on a daily cycle. I hate how the spell lists are alphabetical to maximize difficulty. I hate how it doesn't matter if you get your magic from divine inspiration, inherent magical force, or study of the nature of the universe, you still all make exactly the same fireball. And I hate how there are books upon books of nothing but spells, slowly pushing non-magic users more and more out to the wayside

I don't dislike it, but let's be honest, it dominating the tabletop rpg scene isn't good for anyone.

Personally I've been having a lot of fun with the second based combat of Hackmaster.

D&D is the CoD of roleplaying games.

An overall poorly designed game that gets by purely on nostalgia and brand recognition, played by troglodytes who can only communicate by screaming obscenities at one another if anyone dares to criticize them or their game of choice.

At this point, D&D serves as a containment to save the rest of the tabletop community from their autism.

It seems accurate to call it 'containment' given that D&D and its ephemera is significantly larger in and of itself than every other RPG in existence.

*inaccurate

So's CoD... I think. What are the numbers on that? It must remain popular, if we keep getting a new one every year.

Why does dnd even have a class system anymore? It just leads to imbalance and inconsistancies like limiting magic to arbitrary groups. Tbh classes act more as stereotypes then archetypes and stifle roll play.

Class systems have a place.

While I enjoy point buy and more flexible systems, you do see a certain loss of strong mechanical identity for each character, since all the bits and pieces need to be generic enough to fit together.

Classes can have a really unique, distinct set of mechanics that wouldn't really function in a classless system due to the potentially broken and mechanically degenerate combinations that could occur.

Good classes are also broad enough that while they might say something about your character they don't restrict you to a single flavour of concept.

>Classes can have a really unique, distinct set of mechanics that wouldn't really function in a classless system due to the potentially broken and mechanically degenerate combinations that could occur.

This is part of why the level-by-level multiclassing of 3.5 (and to some degree, 5e) was a terrible idea.

Yeah, it's really dumb. You lose the main benefits of class systems.

I actually prefer 4e multiclassing a lot in that regard.

Yeah, it had a lot of kinks, and probably was a bit overcosted if you actually wanted to properly multiclass and not just grab a good feat/PP or an imbalanced Essentials hybrid, but it respected the purpose of classes, which makes it automatically a better design than level-by-level.

My favorite version of multiclassing probably has to be the one in Legend though.

Oh god Legends class track system was so fucking cool. Although fuck you for reminding me of that beautiful game which will never be complete.

/a/, /v/, /tv/, and /co are some of the more popular boards on the site yet they also have the worst shitposters to deal with. It's the same concept.

This is a good post.

Legend?

You can find it over at ruleofcool.com (yes, really). A d20 fantasy fantasy system which embraces over the top fantasy, with things like DC 35 Athletics/Acrobatics/Climb DCs to fly, and some of the best feats in any RPG ever.

The class tracks is a particularly notable feature- Each character has three 'Tracks', sets of class features which progress independently of each other.

Each class consists of three (or more) tracks, some giving you more options and letting you swap one track out for another. Multiclassing expands this, letting you select an ability track from an entirely separate class to replace one of your defaults. There's also a feat to let you freely select a third track, effectively letting you combine any three tracks into a unique class combination.

It also had a few classless tracks, single sets of thematic abilities like the 'Vigilante', which made you into a Kamen Rider, which could be plugged into any class as your free choice track to add some extra theme and flavour.

D&D 3.5, and worse, Pathfinder, are overdesigned game who simply don't know what they want, a mix of old-school thinking with overbloated classes and a lot of patchwork rules.

oD&D and AD&D were decent at what they tried to do. Sure, some rules were so-so, and it could become stupid at times, but it was still refreshingly simple. oD&D rules come from wargames, and the flow of the combat was very wargamy. AC and Taco and shit. Saving throws. Wargame thinking.

3.5 keeps all the wargame rules of D&D, and adds several thousand layers of classes, sub-classes, prestige classes, new rules for stealth, attack of opportunity, spells, metamagic, etc.

oD&D had a sort of elegance, in the way its rules worked. 3.5 blows it, and then Pathfinder comes, and blows it again for good measure.

D&D 5.0 is fine. Return to the root. Good job at understanding what is D&D.

>Good job at understanding what is D&D.

You mean retarded "everyone gets +2 to everything and no penalties cause that would be rayciss"?

You mean the stupid-ass rest structure that 4e created because apparently healing magic of all things was too unbalanced?

You mean giving basic orcs fifteen fucking hit points because of how 5e fucked up the class power levels?

You mean dumbing down character power so that a level 20 rogue is only 20% more likely to pick a lock than a level 1 rogue?

You mean encouraging you to play a trap, fag, or Apache-attack-helicopter character, based on the shaky basis that Corellon was a tranny?

You mean putting literal drow in the Players Book as a core option, when drow would be burned at the stake on the surface?

You mean giving you a shitton of ability upgrades (something introduced by shit.5 and 4shit) then capping your abilities at 20, so that every fighter has 20 Strength after a few levels, and there is pretty much no diversity in high level stats?

D&D is a miniatures combat game that gives miniatures a story, and that's how most of the people that play D&D treat it. I don't like it that way personally, so I avoid it.

Wow, this is really impressive.

You managed to completely miss every legitimate criticism of 5e and make yourself come off as a flaming asshole at the same time.

>virt
>shlling for DW, ever.

>You mean retarded "everyone gets +2 to everything and no penalties cause that would be rayciss"?
Orcs as a playable race get -2 intelligence, though

He's right about the rest system though. It's insanely stupid and my players keep bitching that I changed it.

How did you change it?

I've not played 3.5 but the sheer bulk and weight of the crunch put me off it.
I played a few games of 5e but didn't get any further. I'm not sure if the issues I had were me being unfamiliar with the game but:
Stats not giving a relevant bonus. A proficiency modifier I believe, I have 16 in one stat which gave me +2 or something, plus my level gave me this bonus. It was peculiar, a very superficial issue I had but it really bugged me. I typically play 40kRPGs and nWoD, in both systems you can look at a stat and say "I get this bonus because the number is right there", it's not tucked away in a table at the start of the book, +2 has nothing to do with 16.

The fact that the rules were split across 3 books. I get that everything a player needs to make a character and play it is in the Players Handbook, but why does only DnD do this? I can't think of any other RPG that does this. If you need to hide your GM secrets away, put them in a chapter called "The Games Master" like every other RPG does, same with Monster statlines. Dump them in a chapter towards the back.

The Skill system seemed very superficial, the fact that my character was a shipwright cleric of a water god was never relevant. I asked a player who knew the system to help me build the character because I was utterly clueless, and the benefits of the skills to a relevant test seemed pretty negligible. I understand that limiting yourself to 20 digits can make it hard to have a skill roll feel impactful without it becoming ludicrously easy to pass said check however.

I'd love to play a High Fantasy game about heroes and villains, but I don't think DnD is it. I wonder if my issues with it are down to the d20 ruleset or not. 4e appeals to me quite a bit funnily enough, I can't put a finger on why though.

How's it going, Adam?

>all this salt about 3.5
A halfway competent DM would be able to mitigate the flood of splat and cheese in 3.5. Ours did, and we still had a ton of fun role playing and creating crazy unconventional solutions to problems that out classed us. And now we play 5e, and a few other systems. I don't get the autistic rage at 3.5 by some anons.
>ruined a whole generation
>destroyed the hobby
How?

The stat/modifier thing is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered.

The system would make so much more sense if stats were the modifier, a -1 to +4 scale instead of the meaningless 8-18 with derived modifiers.

fpbp

> Class-and-level
> Level-based advancement
> Centered around tactical combat

Enough?

>it's THAT guy

He's pulling double duty tonight.

Skill challenges aren't all that bad in 5e anymore, especially after that horrendous playtest where the numbers were so wonky that even literal gods couldn't break completely ordinary chains, and a level 1 Paladin had almost a 50% chance at outbluffing Asmodeus.

The system is pretty shitty.

Bland as fuck too, but that comes from being one of the first major PnP games out there.

As for systems I prefer, the Warhammer systems I really dig. They're just as silly and broken as DnD, but for everyone. Spell slingers and people who punch motherfuckers can be equally broken. nWoD I've got a lot of great experiences with. Shadowrun as well, while it is a little on the crunchy side I don't mind at all.

My go to kitchen sink Fantasy setting is actually Fantasy Craft. Very similar to DnD but it solves a lot of the problems people bring up with it, especially the 3.PF editions.

>I'd love to play a High Fantasy game about heroes and villains

DnD wasn't made for roleplaying.

I know, that is completely stupid as a statement. But bear with me. DnD was made for hack and slash, dungeon crawling, amassing wealth and power in an artificial way: 'you are a level 15 fighter, you get 40 level 1 followers with a sword'. It is a very rule-oriented game, and doesn't care about roleplaying, about anything that isn't hack and slash, anything that isn't dungeon crawling or dragon slaying or class levelling.

D&D is good at what it does, certainly. I like it for dungeon crawling. The sheer number of monsters and classes, powers and artifacts, keep it interesting for people interested in what it does. D&D 5.0 is good for that.

If you want to play a social character, or roleplay something of an actual, balanced human being (non murderhobo), play something else. I like Exalted for that.

>You managed to completely miss every legitimate criticism of 5e

No, I just left some out so I could fit them all in one post. If you are talking about criticisms of D&D in general then yes I left out a lot of those. I was focusing specifically on 5e. But if you want to talk about how they won't fix Vancian magic (which in concept isn't even bad), or the shitty combat structure, feel free.

Oh, and 5e fixes a lot. I like proficiency as an idea, in keeping all the class-based bonuses to one progression. I like the restructured action economy. I like Dex damage adding to ranged weapons.

The rest is shite, though.

>and a level 1 Paladin had almost a 50% chance at outbluffing Asmodeus.

Welcome to the retarded-ass d20 mechanic where a fucking house cat has a 1 in 3 chance of breaking down a solid oak door.

Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

Was the inquisitor really from 5e?
Tell us more of the problems you've found with 5e.

For their various what, you complete shitshow.

Your 16 would've given you a +3 modifier which would then be further modified by your proficiency bonus.
This applies to skills you're proficient in, weapon attacks, spell dcs, etc.

The + or - stat modifier from your main stat number should've been jotted down on your character sheet.

>Not only are the modifiers too small, the system has checks for absolutely retarded shit. Like Strength checks for lifting an elevator. What the actual fuck? I roll a d20 and add my 20% chance of success for being 18 fucking strength, then fail anyway while some housecat can lift it if he rolls an 18+? Go fuck yourself d20 system. Just fucking die of Cancer already.

This is just a problem of DCs/bonuses being silly, not the d20. Fuck, a d100 should have the same problem, only 5 fold.

I don't have much of a complaint about D&D, it's a pretty alright system. I just wish other games got more love. I'd like to be able to suggest another game to try without people giving me uncomfortable looks from the thought of moving away from D&D.

> Most classes are oriented about their role in combat
> Not enough skills
> The spells are all boring, and the magic system is unimaginative
>Combat takes too long
>Leveling

While I do houserule the combat a bit, since FNFF has some aspects of it that need to be houseruled, I prefer Cyberpunk 2020. The general combat system is quick and lethal. I like the wound system it uses way better than having HP. The majority of the character archetypes are not based around combat. There is no leveling, you just increase your skills as you continue to play and use points to get new skills. There are tons of skills and room to make up new ones. Can't really say anything about an improvement on the magic since there is no magic. But I do find that netrunner stuff in C2020 is more interesting to me, though I house rule the shit out of it so that they are never wasting an hour of game time going through a data fortress as everyone else waits.

I still play and enjoy d&d though. The only other game I've been a player in irl was Gurps, and briefly at that. The name brand recognition at least gets players out, and ultimately good roleplaying isn't dependent on the system.

3.5 if the unfortunate target of five groups.

4e fans, because they are still upset about people not wanting to play 4e and instead preferring even Pathfinder over it. It's a remnant of past bitterness from the days of the edition wars.
2e fans, because they're some nasty grognards who have hated the game for 17 years now but no one listened to them until 5e came out and now they feel empowered.

These two form the "Grandchildren get along with their grandparents so well because they both share a common enemy" duo.

GURPS players, because they are mostly contrarians who have a legacy of hating how popular D&D is and wish more people would play their game.
All those other little game players, because they blame 3.5's popularity from keeping people away from their games, and while they also blame 5e, it's too popular at the moment for them to say much against it.
Trolls, who enjoy repeating meaningless complaints ad nauseum just because they know that they can switch from one complaint to the next forever, and regardless how pointlessly they argue, they're only here for the argument anyway.

It's unfortunate, but they're more than willing to shitpost at the mere mention of 3.5, because they are so consumed with blind hatred towards a game that's nowhere near as bad as they've convinced themselves it is.

The problem is with how low the numbers are in 5e, they should have been using something besides a d20.

When you need epic level training and/or equipment just to reach a +6 on some checks, you shouldn't be using d20s.

Don't spend it all in one place.

I'd go with a d10 for 5e.
>difference between a level 1 normal untrained (10 stat no prof) individuals and level 1 trained experts (16 stat prof) is 50%, so there's a fairly obvious skill divide while still being possible for the untrained to manage something impressive
>difference between the two at level 20 (still 10 stat no prof vs 20 stat prof) is 110%, meaning the expert will always succeed and can do things the untrained will find impossible
>add expertise and this becomes 170%, meaning they're on another level entirely
Alternatively, make the stat modifier the difference from 10 and double proficiency modifiers, and you get the same result while still keeping the sacred cow of the d20 alive.

>a game that's nowhere near as bad as they've convinced themselves it is.

So you acknowledge that 3.PF is still bad, then?

What system is better?

Flaws.

For what it's worth, DnD ability score mods are always floor(score - 10) / 2

I would also like to know how this user's improved rest system works so that I can get some ideas for my games, here's to hoping they're still around.

Sounds like you had a shit dm and conflated poor gming with poor system design.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from an argument based on math.

Which only would have happened with shit gming. Rolls are only for when there's a chance of both success and failure, and there's a consequence for failure.

Assuming the elevator or whatever is is 540 lb or less (max lift weight is 30 * STR score), you can just pick it right up, and the fucking cat obviously has no chance and as such does not get a roll.

>the fucking cat obviously has no chance and as such does not get a roll.

Except he does, because he can if he rolls high enough.

Are you deliberately being retarded as fuck?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a house cat has Str 3 and is tiny. How the actual fuck is it going to lift an elevator?
If by some miracle it can attempt to lift massive metal objects, the most it can lift is 45 lbs.

>a cat can destroy a wood door
>no it's can't, it's not possible
>He can roll high enough to beat the DC
>Well Im not letting him try, that proves he can't.

This is some weapons grade autism.

Were you dropped on the head too many fucking times?

Oh god, this is getting into the same bullshit that was being argued in the other thread. 'The system has flaws' 'The GM can fix it' 'That doesn't stop there being flaws', repeat ad infinitum.

Mechanically rigid. A million dumb options for a million dumb characters and yet

>I want to do a spin attack!
>I'm sorry that is literally impossible for your character just sit there and summon demons while tanking crossbowbolts with your sack of 80 HP

>I want to be a Wizard Monk!
Enjoy being worthless garbage lololol

D&D in my mind only works for seriously old school games, where Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Priest, and Elf go into Ye Dungeon to get Ye Treasure and do whatever stupid shit they wish. Then it's great. But fuck, step outside of that box and things get kludgey.

I prefer HERO System for flexibility and meaningfully balanced crunch. I prefer Fate for storytelling shit.

I like all the weird magic items and monsters in D&D.

Honestly
has it right. The problem isn't D&D. The problem is the people who use D&D for everything and the people who have mistaken the fact that they can create some doomsday munchkin in 3.x a sign of the system's (and their own) greatness.

What the actual fuck are you blathering about, you dithering retard.

Actually read where it's impossible for the housecat to lift that elevator, you don't roll for lifting as per the rules.

You're spouting pure weapons-grade autistism and you're retarded af.

Except it's retards acting retarded and then saying they were only pretending to be retarded.

>The rules are fine as long as you ignore the rules that aren't fine.

Where does it say you roll for lifting?

Are you actually capable of reading?

"Lifting and Carrying
Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights."

From the PHB

>Bear. You gain the might of a bear. Your carrying capacity (including maximum load and maximum lift) is doubled, and you have advantage on Strength checks made to push, pull. lift, or break objects.

If you don't make STR checks to lift things, what would having advantage on those checks even do?

"This is beyond my strength limits, can I make a roll to see if I can shift it?"
"Go ahead."

Now calm your fucking autism.

>"This is beyond my strength limits, can I make a roll to see if I can shift it?"
>"Go ahead."

This is basically exactly what's being discussed. A creature attempting to lift more than it's maximum weight.

Your strength is still determined by your lifting capacity, you dithering retard.
Sure, go ahead and roll.

I used to play 3.5 a lot, but I didnt really like the lore and the artworks in the books didnt appeal to me. So my group switched to pathfinder and we never looked back. The shitstorm of 4.0 happened and we heard 5.0 was nice.

Except the d20 is such a huge variable that what you roll has more to do than your actual stat in regards to how much you lift.

Which is, again, what was being discussed.

Then see .
Your Str determines the maximum amount you can carry, push, drag or lift. Going beyond that, you can only drag or push, but means your speed suffers, and you can't lift beyond that capacity.

Maybe you need to work on your literacy abilities.

4e was fine for the most part. It had some early math wonkiness, but that's long since been fixed. It's biggest issue was the hostile marketing and people making MMO comparisons(that they still have yet to actually provide any evidence for, but I digress).

You'll probably like 5e because it's basically 3.PF-lite.

Hahaha, you dithering retard, show how I'm wrong.

Show me where the house cat is a path of the totem barbarian.

Also, who is the retard who thinks a house cat would succeed over a PC in attempting to lift an elevator.
Protip, it's you.

>using a PC only ability and thinking it applies across the board.
Was your head actually smashed repeatedly against the floor?

The stats are fine but the modifiers need to be doubled. 11=+1, 12=+2, etc.

A fucking 18 Strength should be more than 20% advantage over average. I mean what the fuck, Nintendo?

Would a d10 work better?

The DC for doing something as absurdly difficult as lifting an elevator would easily be well beyond 20, meaning that there's no way an ordinary, unchanged by magic or whathaveyou, housecat would be able to do it, in any situation whatsoever. Page 174 of the 5e Player's Handbook has a table for suggested difficulty classes for tasks, with Very Hard being 25, and Nearly Impossible being 30. Considering that lifting an elevator would obviously fall under one of these categories, and a housecat's strength modifier is lower than +5, there's no way it would be able to do it, even if it crit. You have to remember that a critical roll is not an automatic success or failure on a skill check; the result still depends on whether or not the roll met the difficulty class.

A cat is -4 modifier to str and is tiny. Good fucking luck.
The cat is going to be yanked down with the lift when it plummets.
Does that guy actually do any thinking at all?

I tried to play 3.PF once. The rules were like a brick to the head, and the actual steps involved in character creation weren't well laid out, leaving me guessing what I was supposed to do. And even that far in, I could tell that the exerience would be painful, because I already had a stack of bonuses to keep track of, and I hadn't even started play.

So I dropped it then and there, because I didn't feel like wrestling with a system chainbound in rules. Haven't gone back since, and played with more rules-light things. Stupid, and judging a book by its cover, I know.

AD&D looks alright from a distance, as does 5e, but I haven't played with them: no group.