Hones Question: Why do so many people dislike/outright hate D&D and Pathfinder?
I'm definitely not the most experienced roleplayer. In my former group, we had a Shadowrun campaign going for a good year, then a couple of FATE one shots, and a good 3 months of Pathfinder before our gm had to move to another town. Entering Pathfinder with this background, i had a lot of fun with it, and our gm said that it's relatively comparable to D&D.
Posts that start out with "Honest Question" never are honest questions.
There are legitimate reasons to prefer other games over the D&D milieu, but the most outspoken hate comes from people who just hate things that are popular.
>most outspoken hate comes from people who just hate things that are popular.
So true.
Like Critical Role.
/thread
I've never really bought this. I've seen 'You just hate it because its popular' used as a blanket defence of the system far more often than I've seen people legitimately angry over the idea.
D&D occupies a strange position in the roleplaying space. It's individually larger than all other games combined, and yet it's also oddly detached from other RPGs, with its own very unique design affectations and problems.
A lot of the anger comes from interactions with fans of the system unwilling to depart from the D&D way of doing, or even simply unaware it's possible to do it any other way. You only need to see the popularity of the 'Have you tried not playing D&D?' meme. While sometimes misused, it's honestly pretty accurate a lot of the time, that there are certain problems which only really come up in D&D and its associated system bubble.
...
>You only need to see the popularity of the 'Have you tried not playing D&D?' meme
Oh. It's you.
Fuck off, you. And quit hoping your little spam campaign can fool anyone into thinking anyone but bitter idiots who hate what's popular are involved.
D&D isn't that bad. But, it gets a disproportionate amount of hate because of faggots like you who think they're fighting some sort of crusade against the status quo.
Fuck you.
People do have a contrarian streak, but that's a natural rooting for the underdog.
Also to expand upon your second point, the TTRPG hobby in large part is influenced by D&D; either as a reaction to or an attempt to improve on it. Games that go far afield from D&D don't get played or talked about much except with derision or gee whiz gawking at novelty.
D&D is the 800 pound gorilla in the corner. To the layperson, it is THE TTRPG, like Band-Aids or Coke.
The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.
Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.
"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.
Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.
Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.
As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.
If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.
>most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system
But this isn't only untrue, it's kind of the point.
Most new systems, the vast majority, take *way* less time to learn than D&D. D&D is an outlier, high on the complexity scale and with a lot of stuff to grapple with. There are a huge number of RPGs where everything you need to play them can be learned in five minutes flat.
>There are a huge number of RPGs where everything you need to play them can be learned in five minutes flat.
It's so sad that less than a percentage of them are any good.
Learning a new system largely involves a lot of reading through people reinventing the wheel several times just to get their base system across. And worse still, most systems advertised on this board really aren't much better than the standards D&D has set. When people are faced with a specific problem, telling them "Oh, throw out that game you like because of that little issue, play this one with a brand new set of problems" is about as stupid as bad advice can get.
It's just awkward, bad system politics, through and through. And, though I'm sure you're hoping it isn't, it's brutally transparent.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to assert or argue anymore. It's just this weird conspiracy theory meant to protect D&D from any and all criticism.
No, it's just open commentary on the disproportionate criticism it gets from faggots like yourself.
You can see yourself out now.
>I've never really bought this. I've seen 'You just hate it because its popular' used as a blanket defence of the system far more often than I've seen people legitimately angry over the idea.
Sure, instead you get the
>It brings normies!
treatment, which amounts to the same thing.
The disproportionate criticism which exists where, exactly?
I certainly don't see it in this thread. You're just reacting based on assumption without any real basis, which seems rather defensive to me.
And as an aside, I find it hard to call the criticism of D&D disproportionate. As I said, it's individually larger than all other RPGs put together. Of course it'd also suffer the lions share of the critique. Anything else would be actively disproportionate.
Encourages rollplaying, furfaggotry, powergaming, autism, creative bankruptcy, tumblrism, and autism. It's also slow and contradicts itself constantly.
DnD has flaws. It's combat-oriented, its a bit complex, there's the whole Wizard.Fighter thing, but it's still a pretty fun game with success that has afforded it some professional-ass R&D and whatnot.
On the flip side, there are definitely people on this board who pretend its a rancid pile of filth because they like hating on popular things because hating on popular things makes you feel better than The Ignorant Masses. I'd also bet there's a bit of jealousy there too- D&D completely eclipses every other system, no matter how good they are, and that can feel pretty shitty.
You can dislike D&D without being that second paragraph. If it's not your style than yeah, it's just not your style. You're not beholden to anyone else's opinions. But odds are if someone jumps into threads to decry the evils of WotC then there's probably a bit more to it than the system just not being to their taste.
It's really only 3.5/3.PF that gets most of the hate. It's mostly because of the cancerous playerbase.
This was the point where I should have stopped, but honestly, they are by far the worst editions, with the only saving grace being that 3.5 lead to 4e and 5e.
Child, give up.
Last chance.
Because, if your argument desperately depends on hoping and praying that the idiots who think D&D is Satan's curse upon mankind won't appear in short order, then you're better off just redacting your bullshit and sitting down quietly afterwards.
Also, here's an extra heaping delivery of condescension, you idiot who thinks that it being more popular means it deserves more criticism. That's exactly the fallacy we're calling disproportionate, you twit.
>Like Critical Role.
The only reason to watch Critical Role is to lose your last miniscule speck of faith in humanity before killing yourself. It is a gathering of hipster nu-males and screeching whores they plop at a table, add a ton of boring shit on the screen, and then proceed to laugh autistically over inane shit for 2.5 hours. It is basically a RoosterTeeth video, except with a D&D session attached. These people are the biggest faggots on the planet. Matt Mercer's homebrew is shit, he's passable at best as a DM, and the women can't do anything except make fart / period jokes because they are disgusting whores. The other fat-asses aren't much better and are likely just there for the free attention and a chance at scoring with used up voice actress cunts.
If you spend your free time watching D&D, it is because you are a fucking social reject. Because you clearly cannot find a game. Because if you could find a game you would not be watching 2 to 3 hour episodes of these fags' "banter". I cannot think of anything more boring than watching some other people I don't give a fuck about, playing D&D. I'd rather paint my toenails with my dick cheese. What a fucking waste of time. I seriously hope Critical Role charters a bus and the bus crashes and they all fucking die. I am not even memeing, I fucking hate these cocksuckers, they are more obxnoious than the Yogscast/Roosterteeth, and they are flooding our hobby with these autistic youtube gaming addicts who will fuck up your D&D campaign and whine that it should be more like Skyrim.
Personal preference and nothing more.
Your lack of reading comprehension and swiftness in making logical leaps says more than I ever could, I think.
>with the only saving grace being that 3.5 lead to 4e and 5e.
Except 4e was dumb-ass padded-sumo combat with league-of-legends tier fighter powahs that sucked ass, and 5e is some low fantasy drivel where PVP is broken, the NPC rules are freeform crap, ASIs make no goddamn sense (more ASIs than any previous edition yet a cap, so instead of reducing ASIs they have more of them even though ability scores cap at 20), removing Fortitude Reflex and Will saves to replace them with a save for each stat to pander to grognards, having to trade ASIs for feats that are kinda gay, feats that literally give ASIs because they suck, and death saving throws that make it near impossible for a character to be killed.
Nice strawman, champ.
>hipster nu-males
There aren't very many good things to be said about you, but at least you tell people "I am not worth listening to" in the second sentence.
And yet, with all their faults (most of which only exist in your head, but w/e), they are still superior to 3.5.
Stay mad, paizodrone.
4e fixed the combat math, although it was an issue on launch, and fighter powers are only a problem if you're painfully mentally inflexible.
Now calm the fuck down and give Wayne list of flaws with D&D, list of flaws with its playerbase and a picture of a pug
So, you don't want to go down gracefully when given the chance? Pathetic.
Just because D&D is larger and more popular doesn't mean it deserves more criticism. It just gets more. There's a pretty important difference.
But, before you run your mouth, come back in ten years when you understand that difference and also when you are allowed to post on this site.
There is a fundamental difference between two things you are treating as the same-
It is unfair to criticise something Because it is popular.
But something popular will be criticised more than something that is not.
The latter isn't a matter of good or bad, fair or unfair. It's a simple statement of fact.
Since you brought up Pathfinder, I'm going to ignore editions previous to 3.5e D&D, and focus on 3.5e D&D/PF as that's what I have the most experience with.
My dislike of D&D begins at the very base and works its way all the way up to the top. I do not like the d20 as a resolution mechanic. It doesn't reflect reality, it doesn't reflect heroic fantasy. The d20 doesn't have average rolls. The average is the mode of a die, or what number occurs most frequently. On 2d6, this is 7, as 7 can be made from 6 combinations out of 36. The d20 does not have a mode, as every number occurs once. When trained people perform an action they tend towards averages, which a d20 doesn't have, meaning that your ability is heavily determined by luck. This isn't so bad if you're playing a lolsorandumb game, but if I'm playing a fantasy hero, I expect to be heroic on my own merits, not because of Lady Luck.
It's downhill from there, because the whole system is built on this faulty resolution mechanic that doesn't do what the genre wants to do. It would be simple to fix this by using 2d10, but then there's the rest of the system.
I have two major problems with D&D. The first of which is how the rules are permission-based instead of penalty-based. You either can or cannot do something. You cannot, without the Power Attack feat, try to hit harder than normal by sacrificing accuracy. You cannot, without the Combat Expertise feat, focus on defense with your attacks by sacrificing accuracy. You can't search for traps unless you're a Rogue. You can't try to make multiple attacks at a penalty unless you're a Monk. It's physically impossible for you to perform these actions without having been granted permission by the system.
1/3
The second lies in the disparity between caster and martial. Someone who plays the game might tell you that a fighter isn't bad, because they can do so much damage per round or attack. What they fail to realize is that mostly all a fighter is capable of doing is dealing damage. It's very difficult for them to inflict conditions, which wizards can do with ease. Wizards have a multitude of utility spells that obviate other classes entirely, in addition to making them the stars of out-of-combat encounters. What can a fighter do against an enemy mage? Can he reflect their spells, or a deafening shout to inflict spell failure chance on casters, or be able to jump up into the air to engage a flying caster? No, not unless he has been given a magic item that grants permission to do so. Meanwhile, a wizard may dispel the enemy mage, cast a spell to deafen or blind or all other manner of horrible Save vs. Suck/Die spells, or just fly themselves.
Let's not forget trap options and bloat, of course. The system actively punishes you for taking flavorful options, which encourages munchkinism/powergaming, meaning that new roleplayers will be damaged because their first experience with roleplaying was that it was wrong. Bad. They were punished for it with character deaths or a lack of contribution to the party. Toughness looks like a good feat to a player completely new to RPGs because, hey, more HP means it's harder to be killed, right? But they aren't getting essential feats like Power Attack or Point Blank Shot. Even worse, what if they chose a skill feat? In a few levels, they'll have a +5 magic item that makes that feat worthless, not that it was worth anything to begin with due to the d20, and now they're behind the game math. There are so many useless and trap options, like crossbows or monks, that it's just disheartening to think that this pile of trash is someone's introduction to RPGs.
2/3
And that's the final nail in the coffin for D&D for me. That it's the poster child for RPGs, when it's almost the fucking antithesis of them. There's no roleplay to be had when the system shits on you for trying, when the fluffy prestige classes and feats are almost never worth taking outside of gimmicky builds, when the only thing a martial tangibly has is their DPS and maybe one or two cool tricks that they spam every encounter. D&D does a very narrow genre of game, poorly, which is role-less dungeon-crawling, and yet it's build as your one-stop shop for all things fantasy. It's deceptive advertising at its very worst.
All of that is about D&D 3.5e, of course. Take all of my complaints and magnify them by 10. That's Pathfinder. Paizo somehow managed to exacerbate every single problem with 3.5e. It's horrifying.
3/3
Dungeons and Dragons, specifically 5E is built for specific types of campaigns and is often a bad idea if you want to run a game that doesn't mesh with the system which is fine but people new to role playing often avoid other systems in favor of DND due to it's popularity. DND doesn't deserve the hate it gets but it's not great either, at least if you're looking to run a game that doesn't mesh with it
>fighter powers are only a problem if you're painfully mentally inflexible.
You mean if I don't like having to cast spells like a wizard to function as a class? Yeah I gues I am mentally inflexible, sorry faggot. At least 5e came out and fixed most of that and made fighters function again without dumb-ass resource management. But of course we can still feel Mearls' dick up our ass with Action Surge and Second Wind. Bot hfo which are shit abilities.
>d20 has no average
Retard
>It is unfair to criticise something Because it is popular.
No one said that, you moron.
>But something popular will be criticised more than something that is not.
That's disproportionate compared to its actual quality, understand? It gets bonus hate because of idiot contrarians and crusaders, which are especially loud on anonymous sites like Veeky Forums.
Fuck, you dumb.
>And yet, with all their faults (most of which only exist in your head, but w/e), they are still superior to 3.5.
They aren't. 3.5 had better options, better fluff, better content. 5e shits out a tiny speck turd of content once a year. They haven't even released a second monster manual yet, just Volos which was full of magical realm faggotry (pic related)
>Stay mad, paizodrone.
I hate Pathfinder.
Thinking this is an effective way to communicate is why you're alone.
has no mode is what he means, each result on the d20 has an equal chance of happening where as 2d10 for example tends to result in middle of the road numbers more
If you're talking about the hate on this board, this is Veeky Forums, where pseudo-anons come to spew hate about everything. I doubt most people actually hate D&D as a whole, is more likely most people putting on an act to garner attention, or dislike of one edition or another.
>But something popular will be criticised more than something that is not.
>The latter isn't a matter of good or bad, fair or unfair. It's a simple statement of fact.
So, it's fair to say D&D gets more hate due to its popularity?
Guess what we call that?
>I am mentally inflexible
Well, at least you're honest about it.
>Encourages rollplaying, furfaggotry, powergaming, autism, creative bankruptcy, tumblrism, and autism.
Cite examples from the game text to back up each and every one of these points, or else you are wrong.
5e is also full of SJW garbage.
Here's the key. When someone is that right, they don't need to be nice.
4th edition is still shit. 5e did fighters just as well without resorting to making them literal spell casters.
5e battlemaster is literally a worse version of 4e Slayer Fighter (which itself is a neutered version of the 4e fighter, but apparently that is what you are looking for).
I know I'm not going to convince you, I just thought it'd be an interesting thing to mention.
>5e battlemaster is literally a worse version of 4e Slayer Fighter
How?
They are the same.
Power strike is the 4e equivalent of Martial dice, Everything else it gets is passive improvements (fighting styles), stances, or ribbon abilities. Action surge (called action point) and second wind are generic mechanics in 4e.
So how is the 5e version worse? Less hp? You do understand the hit point expectations are different across different editions, right?
Ah yes, I remember the time my Fighter cast fireball.
And this is why people say D&D causes brain damage.
You literally cannot imagine a class actually having interesting and powerful abilities without directly connecting it with magic. Isn't that fucking weird?
Is it an ability he used once per day then had to rest to regain his magical double-damage dealing powahhh? Then it's a spell. Otherwise 4e fighters are literal shit because they have to rest to be able to even hit something properly. 3.5 fighters might be shit but they could go all day. The only reason 4e is balanced is because they made fighters shit, but they made spellcasters even more shit, so they were both on the same level of shit and no one cared.
>You literally cannot imagine a class actually having interesting and powerful abilities without directly connecting it with magic
I can, I just don't want my interesting abilities (nice buzzword btw) to be limited to once-per-day use. That's not how martials work.
...Wait, 'Interesting abilities' is a buzzword now? What the fuck?
It's worse because it gains less feats and less flexibility overall, and also doesn't gain a Paragon Path and Epic Destiny as it levels.
The 5e fighter gains the absolutely fucking useless ribbon ability of... being able to determine how many fighter levels a guy has. Wow. That'll come useful in a game where literally only PCs have levels.
The 4e Slayer can pick between shit like being able to run up walls, shadow someone on the streets, intimidate entire groups of people, use his streetwise for shit he doesn't know how to do while in a city to find someone who DOES know, etc...
>And this is why I say D&D causes brain damage
And you being an idiot and an awkward liar is why no one listens to you.
>full
3 peas in a barrel isn't "full"
>less
You mean fewer.
>and also doesn't gain a Paragon Path and Epic Destiny as it levels.
Yeah because 5e eliminated that gay shit because it smacked of "muh ultimate powahhh omg" league of legends crap.
>The 5e fighter gains the absolutely fucking useless ribbon ability of... being able to determine how many fighter levels a guy has.
That would be a good point if that was the only fighter ability they got. Nice strawman retard.
>The 4e Slayer can pick between shit like being able to run up walls, shadow someone on the streets, intimidate entire groups of people,
Wow running up walls seems like a .... rogue thing. Hmm. So do those other abilities. Maybe 4e just had no fucking idea what a fighter was supposed to be good at (hint: it's in the name) and tried to give them peripheral crap to make up for that?
...You actually like the idea of Fighters that can literally only fight?
I thought people who thought that was an actually good class idea were a fucking myth.
Really? Because 5e seems to be pushing the jewish agenda.
Not-OP here. I was wondering if anyone could recommend some fun systems to try? I mostly have experience just with PF and D&D3.5-5e, but I have an open mind and want to experience what else is out there.
>literally only fight
That has never been true in any edition in any interpretation of those words. Stop equating "can" with "has class abilities tied directly to that", that's part of the autism brought on by 3.5 that most of Veeky Forums tends to ignore. Fighters can also craft weapons and use skills related to their class. That doesn't mean they get fucking rogue class features. Are you serious right now? You've got to be one of those martialfags who want "fighter" to mean skill monkey with spell immunity and can also outfight all other classes and also has numerous abilities that other classes have.
Any particular leanings in terms of genre? Depth of crunch and mechanics, combat focused or not?
>That would be a good point if that was the only fighter ability they got
The only RIBBON they got. Admittedly, they can also ascertain the targets skills and stats... not very useful in general.
Oh, but they also get a tool prof!
>Wow running up walls seems like a .... rogue thing. Hmm. So do those other abilities.
Oh, I just picked shit I remembered at random. Skill powers are shared between anyone who has the skill, and you can get training in basically any skill for a feat.
And there's also the list of fighter utilities you can pick from.
Here:
funin.space
Savage Worlds is a pretty shit system but you won't notice the flaws until you've played it for a year or so most likely so go ahead and give it a try.
>Is it an ability he used once per day then had to rest to regain his magical double-damage dealing powahhh?
No, he used a maneuver he knows they takes done set up or had an obvious tell that he doesn't always find an opening for, but it's incredibly useful when he does.
Once a day just happens to be the average amount of times he finds such an opening.
War hammer fantasy 2e is fun
You do realize that kobolds are supposed to be one of the most pathetic (if not most) pathetic race there is, right?
They are weak cowards that are only good at making traps, breeding, and running. They are reptiles now, but used to literally be rat-humanoids in older editions.
Don't even bother. Mechanical abstraction drives these people insane.
GURPS. It'll take anything you throw at it, and I mean anything: warehouse23.com
Low fantasty middle ages? Check.
High fantasy renaissance? Check.
Wild West? Check.
Steampunk skypirates? Check.
Modern tacticool operators? Check.
X-men? Check.
Star Wars? Check.
Blade Runner? Check.
Chronicles of Riddick? Check.
Barbarians of Lemuria, Fate, maybe something PbtA.
And I got a thread open for Strike! This post has a pitch.
>craft weapons
>skills related to their classes
On a) no one fucking used that on high fantasy campaigns (which 4e is made for), and on b) THE 4E FIGHTER CAN DO THAT AS WELL
Right, they can keep going all day. The party is just gonna rest when the Wizard runs out of stuff to cast. That's what they do anyway.
It's not "OMG MAH DOUBLE DAMAGE ULTIMATE POWER" because that's not how a 4e Fighter works.
It's a "I hit you and you're dazed", "I hit you and that guy and you're both slowed"... 4e Fighters were about controlling the battlefield and getting to be a meatshield - the Cleric won't be an easy target with a breathing wall of pain near you, especially one that can really hurt you and make sure you don't get away. 3.5 Fighters just fucking fight, that's all they do, and in often uninteresting ways.
It's not like the heroes of the epics didn't do cool crazy shit too, like hitting someone with a spear from beyond the horizon line, racing the sun and winning or filling someone with so many arrows that when they fall their body does not touch the ground.
Which is ironic since Raging is limited per day ability.
>Admittedly, they can also ascertain the targets skills and stats... not very useful in general.
You're fucking retarded if you think that's "not very useful," but running up walls like a bad-ass edgy ninja is. Also:
>fighter utilities
>loads of combat / maneuver related shit
Yeah. It's odd how they never bring that up or really care to reply when other people do so. It's almost like their arguments are an inconsistent and poorly formed justification for them to cling to their biases.
As far as analog game design goes in general, I prefer easy-to-learn rules and elegant game mechanics. Fantasy genre (sword-and-sorcery or Tolkienesque) is what I like most, but I am curious about systems that can also work for sci-fi or are flexible for any type of setting.
That's a strange way to endorse a system. There's so many different products and offerings out there. What would be a reason for checking it out?
I've been curious about Warhammer Fantasy RPG for a long time. Maybe its about time I really check it out. the only thing is I find the actual setting interesting on the surface but at times monotonous at its core.
>No, he used a maneuver he knows they takes done set up or had an obvious tell that he doesn't always find an opening for, but it's incredibly useful when he does.
So why can that happen only once per day? What law of physics says that? Why can't my fighter make a check to see if he can find the opening? Why isn't that a random check every round or beginning of combat? If it's a maneuver that tires me out, then I should get more uses of it based on my Constitution score.
Your explanations are post facto bullshit. I'm sorry but they are. D&D 4e was designed to be incredibly structured and well balanced, and it was well-balanced, it just sucked at pretty much everything else.
WHFRP actually got an unofficial update recently, the kickstarted game Zweihander. It's worth a look.
Because it's an abstraction. That's how abstractions work.
Not anymore. Now they are allowed as a player race along with drow, tieflings, and dragonborn, and if you don't allow these races in your game you are a bigot and will be kicked out of adventurer's league.
>That's how abstractions work.
No it isn't, redditspacer. Abstractions relate to something in the real world. The 4e maneuvers exist in some arbitrary bullshit sphere of existence where a fighter doesn't know whether he's going to be able to use a power until he finds the opening to use it, yet he can use that power whenever he wants. He is also aware of how many powers he has left. That is when his character decides to rest.
> Abstractions relate to something in the real world.
Nope. This is an entirely arbitrary assertion that doesn't even hold true in earlier versions of D&D, i.e. Barbarian Rage.
>So why can that happen only once per day?
It takes set up and /a specific opening, among other possible reasons. 4e just gives players narrative control over when they find that opening.
No different than a wizard just happening to have 5 pounds of bat poop on hand for just such an occasion.
He flies into a rage and deals extra damage for a while and gets tougher. It lasts X rounds and constitution is factored in. What the fuck is wrong with it?
You seem to be really confusing IC and OOC there.
You need to spend minutes out of combat observing someone.
You also can't really do shit with the information, aside from maybe telling someone else how to use it.
>fighter utilities
>loads of combat / maneuver related shit
Well, yeah. He IS a fighter. Which is why I prefer the skill utilities when building for, you know, utility.
>It takes set up and /a specific opening, among other possible reasons.
Then why can he use it whenever he wants?
>4e just gives players narrative control over when they find that opening.
Then why can't I have narrative control in other areas? Just the area that justifies the game's shitty mechanics. Also please refer to where it says this in the 4e book, because otherwise your explanations are just your rationalizing a bullshit mechanic.
He's not aware of powers, he's aware of being tired.
You are always in character in a roleplaying game you dumb fuck. If you are controlling your character, you are in character. It's just as bad as reading the module beforehand so you know everything that's coming. You are pretty much cheating by using shit your character wouldn't know. Now, to some degree this is unavoidable, but 4e decides to make it a centerpiece of its system for no fucking benefit, 5e already has fighters that are balanced and can do plenty of things, NONE of the 4e fighter's supposed versatility out of combat has ANYTHING to do with the retarded once-per-rest powahs mechanic, so it is objectively shit. It adds nothing and 4e fags have NEVER been able to defend it with anything but post-hoc rationalization that forces them to admit that 4e turns D&D into a narrative game and that that is part of why it is so widely reviled.
...Wait. Roleplaying games and narrative games are different now? What, how and why?
>You need to spend minutes out of combat observing someone.
Ha. I can see why that wouldn't work in a 4e campaign which is 90% combat. I see your complaint now.
>He's not aware of powers, he's aware of being tired.
Yet clearly he is aware that he will, at some point, be in the situation to use his epic disarm ability, but that that will happen once and only once.
>Then why can't I have narrative control in other areas?
The only thing stopping you is the DM.
It's no different than why the barbarian can only get mad x times a day, or why a material component pouch happens to have exactly what you need to cast every spell you prepared that day.
>Ha. I can see why that wouldn't work in a 4e campaign which is 90% combat. I see your complaint now.
When you use a minutes long ability on 4e, it's a ritual and they are both all more useful than that, and are available for one feat. That you get twice as many of.
>Now they are allowed as a player race along with drow, tieflings, and dragonborn
With DM's discretion. They aren't a PHB core race and even the PHB suggests that a player need to ask DM permission before playing those other races, along with anything not in the PHB.
Kobolds are pathetic, whether there is a book that gives the option of playing one or not. Read the Monster Manual. Someone can play RP a character they know is despicable, and not actually WANT to be that character. I've played characters I knew were horrible people, but were compelling as characters in a story.
>and if you don't allow these races in your game you are a bigot and will be kicked out of adventurer's league.
I don't know much about Adventurer's League but that's retarded if its actually true.
>choosing between trip and grapple is roleplaying
This is why people say D&D teaches bad habits.
Being fair, how you express yourself in combat can be part of how you roleplay. Although the fragile immersion shown by that poster does imply some of the unfortunate side effects of D&D.
>Why can't I have control over other parts?
You can, it's called roleplaying, the whole thing 4e does is intertwine roleplay and combat to explain powers. Besides, I do fencing, it's basically this: do loads of simple basic maneuvers to size out the enemy, find opening, execute more complex maneuver, hope you get a hit in, repeat until you hit.
As for rage:
>ability that you're limited on a daily basis
>lasts for an arbritary number of turns
Is rage a spell? Sounds like one to me.
>This is why I say D&D teaches bad habits.
This is why people are tired of your shit.