Player: "I want to kick over the table and dive for cover!"

>36
every 2 hours, there are three up right now.

I wish the mods were people who cared about the community.

They do, that's why they let him chemo the cancer.

>play 5e
>stat caps at 20
>you get a +2 to an ability score every few levels instead of a +1, because muh instant gratification for the Skyrim-playing autistics that have flooded the D&D fanbase
>can't even pointbuy because you end up breaking the game by hitting the hard cap at level 20
>"bounded accuracy" means that stats are way too important, and an untrained character with a 20 Dex has better chance of lockpicking than a rogue with only 13 Dex who trained at lockpicking for years
>only have a 12% chance of dying if you go to 0 hp
>only get 1% better at skills per level (on average, since you only get 5% better every 5 levels)
>great weapon fighter and sharpshooter are mandatory feats if you want to deal any damage
>most of the feats are trap options like 3.5, some are so shitty they give +1 to an ability score to make up for how shitty they are
>no size-based penalties to AC so hitting a mosquito is just as easy as hitting a human
>dex to damage with light melee weapons without any training, so Strength is basically a meaningless stat

First level D&D sure was fun, right guys? What if we made it last twenty whole levels? What if we made our rules even worse, leading to even more immersion-breaking outcomes, and forcing GMs to come up with twice as many houserules to keep shit working? What if we removed all of the fun things from D&D combat (4e), because good game design doesn't sell?

>I want to write a +50 on my charsheet!

>4e
>good game design

Oh I am laffing

Cite specific examples of how 4e combat was bad. I'll wait.

...

>figher does a cool thing
>has to wait to do it until tomorrow
>because rules
4e fighters ARE casters. There is no two ways about it. They cast a limited number of spells per day that augment their attacks. There is NO other explanation for why a fighter can use his daily power once per day.

>b-b-b-but he's tired
Then the number of uses should be based off of Constitution. Period.

>b-b-b-but it's situational
Then why does he get to determine the exact situation he can use his "situational" power in? That brings us to the third explanation, which involves you being outside of your character (which is metagaming):

>b-b-b-but it's a narrative game
D&D is not a narrative game. It never has been and never will be. Narrative mechanics do not belong in D&D, nor do mechanics that encourage metagaming. End. Of. Story.

>I want to do this cool attack as a rogue where I stab people
>okay great
>Wow that was effective! I want to do it again!
>you can't, it was a daily
>That doesn't make sense. What is physically preventing me from doing the same attack?
>Just the fact that this is a glorified board game and you haven't 'passed GO' to collect your class features back

Its core was broken as hell where everything was a sack of HP that did no damage. Later books fixed this, but it still had an utterly terrible launch.

Also the several actually broken things in core that had to be errata'd like that one inifinte damage ranger setup.

Nice false dichotomy, dumbfuck. Not liking the microscopic bonuses that remind me of OP's dick, does not mean I want to bring back the 3.5 bonus bloat. There's a happy medium, stop making false dichotomies to make excuses for bad game design. It's childish and pathetic. You are better than that.

Yeah 4e had a lot of shitty mechanics but it was fairly well designed overall.

>1 in 20 chance of a critical hit gives the same benefit as a 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 chance of rolling max on a weapon die anyway
>only good if you have a magic weapon for extra d6
>no compounding criticals so damage is bounded to make sure you stay in the same slog of padded sumo bullshit

Not to mention that the best strategy was usually just to blow your dailies load all over the first combat then rest and get your powers back, unless your DM was aggressive enough to actually hit you with random encounters and even then you could usually handle them without your dailies.

4e was a miniatures squad based wargame, ironically closer to D&D and Chainmail's roots, but it wasn't an effective or well designed roleplaying game.

>but it wasn't an effective or well designed roleplaying game.

It didn't need to be. You don't need rules to roleplay. You really wanna pretend the in-depth diplomacy rules and "social combat" rules that other gayshit hipster RPGs have, actually add any value? The system has good rules for the subgame of D&D (which is combat) then stays the fuck out of the way for the rest of it.

>has to wait to do it until tomorrow
>you can't, it was a daily
Just like 3.5e and 5e, you have to rest to get back your most powerful shit. And, unlike 3.5e and 5e, At-wills and encounter powers were cool, giving you actual options every combat that you could rely on. Battlemaster is a worse version of the 4e Fighter, and it's the only Fighter archetype people actually play because it's fun to have options, like the 4e Fighter.

Yeah, MM1 and 2 were broken. Took them way too long to fix it, which is part of what killed 4e. Broken builds are bad, too, but it's not like 3.5e/5e don't have core-only broken builds, so it's a moot point.

If you blow all of your dailies on the first encounter, the GM should be throwing more encounters at you, especially ones that would normally need dailies to beat. That's a failure of the GM not providing appropriate encounters, not the game.

>"Cite reasons why 4e sucks!"
>numerous examples given
>"Okay, b-b-but 3.5 wasn't any better!"

Pathetic. You do realize the point is to STOP playing D&D altogether, right?

No shit, sherlock. That doesn't stop 4e from being the best edition because it was actually good at what D&D is - a dungeoncrawling slogfest. 4e has the best combat out of any edition because it was more complex than full attack for fighters, and kept casters from dominating every combat they were in.

Pathfinders the best game anyway

You want your little autistic bonuses everywhere to fill your gaping simulationist vagoo, dickwad, don't try to jew me.
And yet people call Chainmail and early D&D roleplaying games instead of skirmish wargames or, say, Offline Multiplayer Rogue-like in case of megadungeons.

Bait but i'll bite

>stat caps at 20
Yes, and?
>you get a +2 instead of a +1, [ad hominem]
So you're complaining that there's a cap, and then you're complaining that the cap can actually be reached?
Anyways, consider that taking a feat replaces an ability score improvement, thus your stats won't be going up every time.
>can't even pointbuy
That's just patently untrue, point buy is presented a page or two after rolling for stats. And it's not exactly a broken point buy either.
>20 dex better at lockpicking
That's also bullshit. An untrained, 20 dex character (who, by 5e standards, is a paragon of human agility) has a +5.
The 13 dex rogue has that at first level. It only goes up from there. (If you have expertise in thieves' tools, which "trained at lockpicking for years" would fit both fluff- and mechanic-wise, your bonus would be +1 from dex, +4 from expertise.) A paragon of human agility equaling a first-level rogue at something isn't exactly absurd.
>12% chance of dying
Explain your math on this one. I don't see how "fail three coin flips before you win three" comes out to 12%. This also doesn't factor in the fact that enemies can just straight up kill you from 0HP.
>only get 1% better per level
Your numbers don't go up fast, because you have these things called class features. You get at least one every level, as it turns out.
>great weapon master/sharpshooter
Yes, the "do more damage" feat makes you do more damage, your point? It's not mandatory, there's quite a few styles that don't benefit from that which deal big damage.
>most of the feats are shit
Granted, though the +1 to stat at least makes them less of a trap.
>size penalties to AC
Why should there be? If a creature should be harder or easier to hit, it should have the appropriate AC, instead of some hard rule against agile large creatures/easy to hit smalls.
>light weapons make strength bad
That contradicts your above point about GWM, and doesn't account for strength's other uses.

There's literally three of these threads right now. Low effort shitposting is one thing but at least use the catalog.

but user, the biggest problem with these bait threads is that the hypothetical is always describing pathfinder, not any edition d&d supported in the last decade

>An untrained, 20 dex character (who, by 5e standards, is a paragon of human agility)
>paragon of human agility
>15 AC unarmored
>any random schmuck can become harder to hit than he is by getting chainmail

>I want to attack the tentacles of this giant squid monster
>Sorry the system doesn't allow for targeting individual body parts

>So you're complaining that there's a cap, and then you're complaining that the cap can actually be reached?

The cap can be reached by level 8 at the latest. That's not even halfway through the game.

>This also doesn't factor in the fact that enemies can just straight up kill you from 0HP.

LOL no, each extra hit is just a failed death save. If you are left alone you can survive easily.

> If a creature should be harder or easier to hit, it should have the appropriate AC

......

A size bonus CONTRIBUTES to that.

You're telling me it's not any easier to hit a 40-foot long dragon than a 5 foot tall human?

>That contradicts your above point about GWM

No it doesn't. Without GWM, strength based melee combat is nonviable. A dex-based character deals more damage.

But there are rules for cover that have nothing to do with the Dodge action.

>Your numbers don't go up fast, because you have these things called class features. You get at least one every level, as it turns out.

I got class features almost every level in previous editions, and my numbers went up more than once a year. Also 4e had class features every level and you still had number increase that wasn't slow as fuck. Actually the 4e 1/2 level thing was great. But no, no, no, we NEED to have it so a 20th level character can easily be hit by gnolls, and rely on his HP bloat to stop him. That's right, prop up one of the shittiest parts of the game. That's the way to do it.

Except he isn't taking the dodge action. He's kicking over a table and trying to take cover behind it. That's a cover-based bonus to AC. Oh wait there are no bonuses in 5e because everything is either advantage, disadvantage, or fuck off numbers don't matter.

"I've never actually played D&D"
>written and directed by OP

As opposed to the 3e approach of
>fighter doesn't do a cool thing period

You mean like these cover rules?
5thsrd.org/combat/cover/

Why are there two of these threads?

I mean, I dislike DnD, but this is excessive. Polite Sage.

Op probably just got booted from yet another group for being "that guy"

This is not only wrong, but also hilarious if you actually know the 5e cover rules, which are a common example of a specific number bonus, and indeed does stack with advantage/disadvantage (such as disadvantage from shooting at long distance, for example; which comes up a lot.)

???

I feel like Oprah giving out all this sage today.

DC15 means a hard action, that represents a good chance of failure even for an adventurer, so that must be an incredibly heavy table

the PHB actually says you dont need to roll for something trivial like that

also, a level 1 fighter with 16 strength would have succeed on a DC15 check about 50% of the time, so it might have been worth it for the player to gamble on using the (presumably, given the high DC) wrought iron table

>1d20+Str, which hopefully would be 18 aka +4
On average he'll fail

Wouldn't it be an athletics check? What kind of fighter isn't proficient in athletics?
>D20+STR+PRO

>Average roll on d20 is 10.5
>Str 16 means +3
>13.5=15
mmmmm

>Standard action
>"wouldn't be Athletics?"
Wrong system, user

>Average roll
This meme needs to die. There is no average on a d20. Every number is equally likely, there's no average. It doesn't matter if it's average "in the long run," a session isn't played by rolling the d20 ten thousand times. If you wanted there to be an average, you would roll 3d20 and take the middle.

Why is dc 15? Fuck it should just be a dc 8 or something

>There is no average on a d20

you forgot +2 proficiency

>I literally know nothing about statistics
The chance of rolling certain number is the same fir every number, true, the chance of rolling above certain number, in this case 10, is not.

no profiency bonus on systems with standard actions like OP mentioned

You have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand what basic math terms mean.
You're a fool for even answering him at this point.

if you add +2 proficiency then he has a 55% chance of making it because on a roll of 10 he succeeds

see

None of this shit ever happens. The "rules" are just a barebones outline and are meant to be bent and twisted to fit the players' desire. If your DM is adhereing to the rules 110%, then he's shit.

This, that's why my GM doesn't adhere to D&D rules, because he doesn't GM shit systems

If you hate it so much, take it to their generals.

Nice big targets of 5e and pathfinder. Im sure your opinions would be valued there. You might have to personally make a 3.5 or 4e thread to fish for replies. OSRg would love to have you im sure.

Kill yourself painfully.

The thing is: this shit is a problem no matter what system you play if your DM isn't willing to just let shit happen once in a while, especially in situations where the rules say something should be complicated when your gut tells you it should be simple.

I've been in anal-retentive games of FATE where I literally couldn't climb a ladder because of bad rolls.

You might say "Oh well he was running it wrong" but I would also say that of our D&D DM above.

If you're playing with idiots. you're gonna have a bad game. System choice is like 5th on the list of shit to worry about for your game night.

>level 8 at the latest
If you take no feats and you're dependent on a single stat, definitely.

>each extra hit is a failed death save
Two, because it's an automatic crit against unconscious. Plus one from any AOE you happen to get caught in. Sure, your chances of surviving if left alone are probably higher than they ought to be, but it's not exactly hard to die.

>size bonus
Yes, but why does it need to be a hardcoded rule?
Consider that touch AC is no longer a thing; A dragon could have high AC because you've got to hit a vulnerable point, because dragon scales are tough as all hell.
A size bonus isn't needed in 5e because there's only large and small PCs, and monsters don't follow PC creation rules. Thus, you can just give the monster an appropriate AC.

I don't see how 1d8+dex > 2d6+str.
The only reason a dex character does more damage is if they've got sharpshooter or long ranges are common. And if the dex character has sharpshooter, the strength character probably has GWM.
Also, polearms are great and they don't need GWM. Paladins are great and they don't need it.

Admittedly, a little more number scaling would be nice. 4e got really smooth by the end of its run.

If the fighter is close enough to the table to kick it over, then he should be able to just drop prone in order to take cover, which is a free action, not a movement.

Also how big of a table are we talking about here? Because DC 15 seems like a lot.

>Without GWM, strength based melee combat is nonviable.

What exactly do you mean by "nonviable"? Because I don't think it means what you think it means.