ITT reasons we hate DnD

Skills in 3.5 were horrendous. Overly complicated with very little depth gained by its complexity; ripe for abuse and blatantly unbalanced; scaled horribly, especially in the late game.

But rather than go on about that, I'll just say this: you realize you're supposed to neuter your pets, right? That's not a bad thing.

It makes something as awesome as superhuman strength the most fucking boring thing in the world.Throwing boulders? Thunderclaps that blow away your enemies or turn their eardrums to mush? Slamming the ground so hard with your weapon that it tears a chasm into the earth? Nah, swing axe, eat up damage, and maybe get some sort of minor thing that still won't be as good as anything a caster can do if not irrelevant in general.

A few people complain about "the animu physics" but when you have things like casters around and the otherworldly monsters, why even try to be realistic anymore? Make up your fucking mind, DnD. Either be realistic or be, ya know that one thing games are supposed to be? Ah, that's right, FUN.

It's because DnD can't into terms.

They use 'longsword' to mean arming sword, while trying to make us believe bastard sword is another term entirely.

They use 'half-plate' for plate-and-chain, while implying all full plate is early renaissance articulated plate.

...

Half is much much cheaper

Rename it Munitions Plate?

What the hell "Half Plate" is supposed to mean anyway? Plate armor without greaves?

It means you're naked from the waist down

Then you should have more DEX bonus, not less.

My personal pet peeve is that the never-ending arguments about "balance" are all non-transitive. 3.PF infected the whole fandom with some weird obsession with this nonsense based on whiteboxing and tier lists and we just cannot get over it.

Yesterday I seriously had someone bitching that vanilla PHB Beast Master Ranger was "too good" for 5e because of how easily it handles certain types of buffing/debuffing too early and with no magic and that Wizard didn't do enough damage.

And you know what, they aren't wrong. BM is really good at handing out prone and restrained conditions, making reaction attacks, and flanking. WIzard isn't great at pure damage #'s over time the way Martials/Warlocks can. But they were wrong to bitch because it's okay for different classes to do different things and I honestly fucking think that if we didn't have that inertial bullshit dragging us back people would grasp that earlier.

5e is a good system but it needs a fucking exorcism.

I think skills have been made glorious. The old system was a giant, glitchy mess that got in its own way when it wasn't being used to make Assassins who could hide in other people's assholes and I hated it.

Compared to that the new skill system is amazing. Now it's a dial that goes from "I'm basically coasting on my natural abilities and other life experiences" can be grown into "I have actually bothered to get better at this" and some people have had the opportunity to devote world-class levels of effort to get amazingly good at certain things.

The old one was "precise," but not usable. The new one sacrifices precision but gains usability. "You're reasonably good at adventury things just like your attributes suggest, what 3 things would you like to be very good at it?" adds to the game in a way that "ride" and "use rope" just flat out didn't.

>we

Same game tests are not whiteroom, you fucking idiot.

I think the problem is that they don't mean anything. 5e in particular is big on "Full-Plate" means a package of stats on a chart that could actually be any type of armor needed for the setting. It's the community that sort of developed these lazy, inaccurate ideas for what that "means."

>bastard sword is somehow an "exotic" weapon
Always triggers me.

Fuck off, mouthbreather. "Why sparky hands man no do lots of dice like shooty man?" is still a whiteroom (controlling for all variables) and whitebox (testing for desired outcomes when the entire mechanism is exposed) question even if it was provoked by an over-the-board situation.

These are weak-ass things to complain about.

Wizards hurl fireballs at dragons as paladins heal wounds by laying their hands on half-elves with the magical powers of lute playing.

>b-b-but the weapons and armor aren't historically accurate!

Lame.

Being an Exemplar who can kill half your village, kick everyone's dogs, and generally make himself hated and then turn all the survivors into fervent supporters willing to sacrifice their lives for him by climbing into mayor's butt with an outlandishly high Escape Artist roll working as Diplomacy check is the height of roleplaying.

Nice job commenting on something you don't actually know anything about, I guess.

>"I have no argument and I must post"

You're yelling about damage when the topic of discussion is a SGT. It's pretty obvious that you don't know anything about them.

at least 5e fixed most of this by simplifying out the armory list and telling you to refluff shit if you really wanted a katana

because PROPER full plate armor rests on itself in a way that helps hold it's own weight to the point that removing pieces hinders more than it helps.

>at least 5e fixed most of this by simplifying out the armory list and telling you to refluff shit if you really wanted a katana

That is a good solution. When your system has a list of 30+ weapons but only half a dozen are actually any good (and a few more from splatbooks that nobody except for That Guy will bother with), you have failed at designing a game.

No, it's fine since you need to be more careful with your genitals swinging around. Limits your movements.

>Half-plate 600 gp 50 lb

>Full Plate 1500 gp 50 lb

Just buy 2 half plates and enjoy full protection at 300 gp discount

I like 5e for the most part but I would like some more concrete stuff on item crafting because otherwise a lot of people lose motivation without that kind of direction.
I'm hoping to fix it to some degree in my game where there'll be blueprints for magic items so the players will know what they have to do to make something, and will have to follow through on the initiative to want and make it. Otherwise they'll have to get it off someone else who already has it.

No, moron. You're yelling about SGT as if it's the only valid (or valid to begin with) way to approach testing instead of a transparent effort to keep dragging whiteroom/whitebox into primacy.

D&D is a team game where teams face challenges as a team. Running individual characters through individual challenges tells you absolutely nothing but mouth-breathing spergs like you cannot get over it because no one will play with you in real life so some imaginary danger room is all you get.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are actually up here in the modern era playing real games with real friends and we'd like it people would stop shitting up community resources with "but BM is undervalued because of its difficulty in handling a phase spider solo at level 5."

Cunt. Thanks for living up to everything I was bitching about. I can always count on Veeky Forums for that.

>Running individual characters through individual challenges tells you absolutely nothing
You mean it tells you most of what you need to know and it's all on you if you're too stupid to understand how that knowledge adapts into a team setting. It's not like skill and combat competence in a single player scenario vanish into the aether the second they're put into a 4 man party.

>Large weapon lists when you really just need Knife, Sword, Axe, Hammer, Spear, Bow, and Crossbow. Perhaps pistols and rifles if your setting allows it.
>Large armour lists when you really just need Light, Medium, and Heavy armour.
>Spellcasters having nearly as many, or being nearly as good at, skills and skill checks as martial characters.
>Two or three dozen martial tactical options, three hundred spells for casters.
>Casters being effective damage dealers without having to spend resources (i.e. useful cantrips or weapon attacks that keep up with warriors).
>No rules for teamwork and combination attacks, or combining spells or abilities together in interesting ways - not even on-the-fly improv guidelines for any of that.
>Any edition where magic items can be crafted and are calculated into monster math and Wealth by Level is required to function, instead of magic items being rare, powerful, and priceless artifacts of a bygone era.
>Binary success/failure results for many checks instead of sometimes getting partial successes (you got most of what you wanted) and partial failures (you failed but it didn't screw you over in a bad way).
>Taking more than 20 pages to explain how to make a character and play, listing all the cool options, and explaining stuff like equipment and combat.
>Not including adventure modules or any kind of setting in the book, thus making it incredibly hard for newbies to start their own games right out of the box.
>Using six kinds of dice (or more) when you could probably get by on just a d20 and a few d6.
>Very little support for things like character relationships, favours, reputation, extended social contests, investigations, and other rules you'd need for Roleplay-heavy campaigns
>Very little support for things like exposure damage & protective clothing, founding & improving settlements, managing organizations and armies, building roads, exploiting natural resources, and other rules you'd need for Exploration-heavy campaigns.

>>Large weapon lists when you really just need Knife, Sword, Axe, Hammer, Spear, Bow, and Crossbow. Perhaps pistols and rifles if your setting allows it.
>>Large armour lists when you really just need Light, Medium, and Heavy armour.
what's wrong with having different weapons?

Only if you wield it 1-handed

There's no real logic behind damage dice assigned to weapons in same category. Why does morning star do 1d8 damage while mace does 1d6? They're essentially same implement.

Damage type potentially matters, weapon size/ application certainly does (1 hand small / 1 hand large / 1 hand versatile / 2 hand / 2 hand reach / ranged) but anything beyond that is fluff that should be determined by the player.

If you want a katana, that's a 1 hand versatile Slashing weapon. Deals same damage as 1 hand large weapon, more if you wield it in 2 hands. Same as longsword or any other similarly sized slashing implement.

>Why does morning star do 1d8 damage while mace does 1d6?
Because a morning star is spiky.

Except that the core Beast Master ranger is the shittiest option you can take (barring a few feats)? If your DM doesn't let you use one of the variant ranger builds from UA, he hates you.

I somewhat agree but there are weapons with special rules, or fitness, or throwing or light. So katana would be longsword with fitness, but then it can't be same weapon, more like scimitar, but scimitar are not versatile

>They use 'longsword' to mean arming sword, while trying to make us believe bastard sword is another term entirely.

>They use 'half-plate' for plate-and-chain

They're all neologisms, historically speaking, and that nomenclature wouldn't have been used at the time. So it's not like they're historically inaccurate. I agree that it would be better if they conformed to the terminology used by the people who study historical weapons, but it's worth pointing out that that terminology has been evolving even in contemporary times, making it a bit difficult to be both "correct" and consistent over long periods of time. Also, "arming sword" is a clumsy term and a lot less intuitive than "longsword" (especially in a system where the main point of contrast is a short-sword), a fact which I have to believe is at least partially responsible for the retention of the latter term. Same thing for "transitional armor" vs. "plate mail", or "plate-and-chain" vs. "half-plate".

If you stick with D&D's approach (Simple/Martial/Exotic weapons) and intend to have a variety of weapon maneuvers (for whatever reason), you could always go for a modular approach.

Simple weapon: die based on weapon type, 1 special quality.
Martial weapon: die based on weapon type, 2 special qualities.
Exotic weapon: 3 special qualities. Maybe 4?

If weapon has a long wooden shaft, it can have reach. If weapon has large hooks or similar implements, it can have a bonus to Disarm/ Trip. If weapon is particularly small, it's a bonus to hide.

Throwing would be any 'small 1 handed' weapon by default, or a special quality for anything bigger for melee weapons, or free for ranged-only throwing weapons.

So dagger is small 1 handed, meaning it can benefit from dexterity, can be thrown. It's simple, so it has 1 special rule - easy to hide.

This....Sounds better than what D&D, since you can make weapon you like

I rather like what the fan-made Savage Armoury did for Savage Worlds, allowing you to construct weapons essentially via point-buy, based on their capabilities.

That's pretty much what Legend did.

Having seen it in action: your meme-based bitching is full of shit. If you have good frontline DPR a well run BM will turn them into great DPR. It's a shame that everyone's highly-tuned and oh so relevant simulations never seem to take that into account.

*started to do and then shitted it up

No, that's literally what it did, it just didn't have the simple/martial/exotic divide because it's retarded.

>ITT: deendeefags cherrypick rules from various editions
bonus points for referencing E6 or any homebrew rules

>HP bloat reduces tension
>no rolling for parry reduces tension
>classes and skills are purely hurr durr adventurer types
>meteor strike-type spells are lulz, narratively speaking
in short: too much gamism, not enough simulationism

Can you clarify your last two points for me? I've read them a few times and have no idea what you're getting at.

I liked 5e, fights go smoothly and it finally felt balanced. Also the freedom of more leniency in the alignment system bullshit

this too

In short: Everything abstract triggers the autismo.

>d&d 3 and all editions forward (to a lesser extent 5)
>skills

How 3.5, pf, and 4 handled skills kills me. It makes players shit off their brain and look at their skill list, just going down it, "can I roll this skill? What about this skill? What about this skill?" They don't even say why they wanna roll the skill, or even what they are doing. It's just become a game of going down the list and waiting for approval.

Palladium may be a God damn mess but I appreciate that skills weren't rolled unless the situation was under a time limit or stress was a factor

Oh my fucking god this.
Ever since mystic came out two weeks ago all my table has been talking about is how impossibly good they are, specifically because Nomadic Mind.
That shit is fucking useless beyond languages in a party with a rogue, or a bard, a role that almost no party goes without.

Yes, THANK you
The idea that the game needs to be perfectly 'balanced' is cancer. Different people should be able to accomplish different things, but noooo, everyone neds to be able to do exactly the same amount of damage, otherwise the system is busted.

And all this obssession with balance ultimately led to the Challenge Rating system, a busted pile of shit that should never have existed.

Of course, the greatest irony of all is that you got two 5ggots completely missing your point and telling you off about how imbalanced things are.

Dude, you understad that not even 4e characters did the same damage? Hell, one of the roles is exactly about doing MORE damage than everyone else.

You are arguing against either retards or a strawman.

>all classes are focused exclusively on combat. Some can do other things, but combat is the only thing ALL classes can do
>high level wizards a shit
Not sure what's so difficult to decrypt about that

Without looking, I predict that 5eg will be arguing about one or all of the following:
1) Mystic is too strong
2) wizard>sorcerer
3) "durrrr how do we unfuck bladelock?"
It's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the fanbase

Those are definitely problems with the game. They are just nothing to get too upset about.

You need to realize that faults simply lead to much more discussion than when everything is working as intended. So any discussion (even about a healthy game) will be dominated by that.

Is Mystic even that strong? Looking over it, it seems to be outrageously versatile, but lacking the raw power of any of the casting classes. Nothing it has will hit with the weight of a 9th level spell.

Though I guess since 99.9% of campaigns start and end between levels 1 and 6, that doesn't really matter..
My circle loves higher level play, though.

I like the background system in 5e, but I hate that you roll for certain aspects of your backstory and personality. Those things should be chosen by the player, not luck.

>HPs increasing with lvl
>vancian magic
>overpowered magic
>kitchen sink fantasy shit. Moreover, D&D is ultimate SOURCE of this shit that almost destroyed the fantasy genre as a whole
>levels
>classes
>way too crunchy
>tacticool miniature wargame
>combat oriented
>alignments
>spawned forgotten realms, dragonlance and golarion
>feed for theorycrafting and powerbuilding scum
>various fluff-wise character concepts can have wildly different power and usefulness despite fitting the genre and setting equally well
>dungeon crawl
>focus on magical gear and christmas-tree effect

summarizing shortly
>gamism
and
>bastardization of fantasy genre

>fuck mechanics and shit

>fuck games
>games should not be games
>fuck

Ar least when playing my "hurr durr these are not games" i have fun with cooperatively telling a story with my friends while rolling dice once a while for fun and thrill instead of falling asleep between my turns while bunch of autists around play with minis and discus some silly concepts/crunch numbers

also
>hurr fuck mechanics
lite, pleasant mechanics with narrow focus that enhance the storrytelling but never get even close to overshadowing it are still mechanics

Apples to oranges, man. If you want narrative based systems, don't look to D&D, a system fundamentally designed around killing orcs and taking their stuff.

They are chosen by the player.
The tables are just there to be suggestions.

>5e is a good system but it needs a fucking exorcism.
The whole fucking PnP players needs it.

>play 5e
>so, maul does 2d6
>and so does greatsword
>Except greataxe. That does 1d12.
Every fucking time.
At this point I think it's just the D&D designers memeing the greataxe.

>keeping track of everything is just obnoxious
Yep. Encumbrance, Random situational +1/+2 modifiers you'll forget about, in-combat buff durations being short enough that you have to keep track of them but not long enough to matter, stacking/non-stacking of bonuses, how many charges your magic items have left...it just goes on and on.

>having issues "keeping track of everything" in D&D
You dropped these sirs.

D&D is largely holdovers from the 70's which it won't abandon in fear of jeopardizing it's identity. Of course it is mediocre. What it has going for it is is a large player base, content pool, and production values of official content. You can't deny those.

There are certain situations where a d12 is preferable, like with the half-orc and barbarian critical features.

No, he's right. It's a huge pile of shit, even in games were people intentionally don't optimize at all. It's pretty worthless.

No, everything in DnD is mislabelled and retarded.

Half-Plate is an older, clunkier and less effective version of plate. An earlier form of rigid defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_armour

Also, studded leather is actually Brigandine. The woefully-inept author of the sourcebooks probably looked at some old armor and thought "oh, this thing is leather armor with rivets", not realizing that the rivets were actually attaching steel plates to the armor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine

Don't get me started on the weapons.

How can people care about D&D's historical accuracy?
Is there even any reason to think that half-plate refers to any real-world thing?

Even since I was a kid, when I read some of the descriptions of some of the shit, they just made no sense.

"How does adding metal studs to leather add any defense?"
"Why is a medium-sized sword a martial weapon; a very large-sized sword a martial weapon; but a moderately-large sword an exotic weapon?"
"What the fuck is with these bizarre and retarded weapons?"

Dnd is just really dumb and badly researched and it ruins immersion.

A bastard sword is (not really but sorta) a martial weapon, you just learn to wield it in an exotic way. It's still really dumb.

Not defending the retarded weapons, glad they're mostly gone in 5e.

I've only played 5e so I'm not sure if its better explained in other editions but...
I hate that there's no clear rules on how stealth actually works.

To make a stealth check to hide from someone, you need to be heavily obscured from them, unless the DM decides they are sufficiently distracted. Some features allow you to attempt to hide while lightly obscured.
To remain hidden, you must remain in areas that are obscured from the person you're sneaking around.
Your stealth roll needs to beat an effective DC of the target's passive perception to not be noticed.
If your are in stealth at the start of a combat, you can surprise people unaware of you, making it so that they can't act in the first round.

>I hate that there's no clear rules on how stealth actually works.

... what?

You roll a stealth check (while not being onserved by anyone, or at least being in full cover). Those that don't roll better perception checks (or, if they aren't looking for you, have lower passive perception) than your stealth check don't know where you are.

that's all well and good, but what about all of the other people out there that will continue to have badwrongfun while liking something that I don't like?!

You think 3.x skills are bad? Take a look at 2e NWPs. They make 3.x look like a masterpiece in comparison.

Autistic Gaming Den faggot please go.

But muh dire flails!

>2e NWPs
What is that?

non-weapon proficiencies

Tell me more.

Does it beat "This game has 100+ skills! btw like, 70% of those are literally "Whatever the DM says""?

I disagree, you only had a few and the rest of your skill was left up to role-playing and critical thinking.

archive.4plebs.org/dl/tg/image/1472/29/1472299031415.pdf

What's that? Is the fact that this is 284 pages a turnoff for you?

>284 pages
>only

I'm not even hard yet user.

BM ranger is one of the worst options in the game.

You can only choose a beast that's CR 1/4 or lower, you have to expend an action to command it to attack people, you can't share spells until 15th level, and you can't have it take multiple attacks until either 11th level or if you decide to expend both your attack options.

For comparison, a Battlemaster can use one of his superiority dice to trip foes, add to his AC, push, frighten, etc. and they will generally receive four superiority dice starting out, which will improve as time goes on.

How exactly does one's ability to overcome an individual challenge disappear when put into a 4 man group?

Like, if my character can lift and throw 200 lb. boulders at the enemy, he can still do that regardless of whether he's alone or if he's being flanked by a wizard, cleric, and rogue.