When did you realize it was just as bad as 3.PF?

When did you realize it was just as bad as 3.PF?

when i looked at the class progression and saw how sparse it was, and when half the book is a bunch of spells in alphabetical order instead of by spell level

but i did like how the feats were more punchy and there is no more negative ability score mods for race, i would have preferred character creation be more about racial and class feat choices that you can use to assemble a character

Isn't great, but is not as bad as 3.PF

>bad
Why do you guys still try to push this meme? It's not bad at all by any reasonable measure.

At best, you can fault it for not being balanced, but it makes up for it by there being plenty of assistance and guides on how to make it balanced.

This is my only real problem with 5e. After you pick your archetype, your customization virtually ends. Unless you're a wizard. I think if there were a lot more feats, and/or feats were easier to get, you could play the same class or even the same archetype over and over and keep it feeling fresh.

I have problems with it, but it's still a million times better than 3.PF.

I like other systems better but it's still decent at doing what it does.

When I realized it wasn't gurps

Not to mention, certain race/class combos have overlapping features, so it's actually a bad idea to play as them.
For instance if you play as a martial dwarf you are wasting the armor proficiancy. Now if there was a list of possible dwarf feats, for instance, one of which was the armor proficiancy, you could choose a different dwarfy thing instead. Same thing for all the races, that way you could play as any combo without being gimped.

The content and the rate they push it out it is pretty sparce sadly. Hasbro just doesn't care enough to invest more.

It's not as bad. It's worse. At least 3.PF isn't this boring.

You jest, but I honestly that the people who play D&D as intended are a small minority, and that a majority of people playing it are doing so simply because it's the first system they learned while what most of them really wants is a generic system that can handle of several different genres. About half of those people, I think, would be far happier playing GURPS, and the other half far happier playing Fate,

Exactly. My dream is for feats for be as numerous and balanced as spells are in this game.

3.5 is ok, but has some flaws. 5E remedies basically all of those flaws.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, is for morons.

When I looked at the cover and it said "Dungeons and Dragons"

It'd be kinda cool if feats and spells would be class specific, so the sorcerer wasn't just a discount wizard.

>majority of people playing it are doing so simply because it's the first system they learned while what most of them really wants is a generic system that can handle of several different genres

It's so sad there's people who honestly believe this.
What most roleplayers want is fighty fantasy. There's very few games that do that better than D&D.

When I realized the "playtest" was actually just a marketing stunt, none of the feedback was being considered, and they were going to double down on making a bland shitty mid-90s RPG in 2013 and then just be like "Eh..." in supporting it.

It's bad, but it's not that bad.

5e works, it's just a bit dull. 3.PF is a mechanically incompetent trainwreck which only gets worse the more content you use.

>When did you realize it was just as bad as 3.PF?

So, not bad at all?

D&D does one particular brand of high fantasy and struggles at anything else, and given the recent popularity with franchises like GoT, I'd say D&D doesn't actually provide the right one.

3.PF was great for it's time, and 5e is one of the best games on the market available right now.

I really wish you'd stop being a contrarian for the sake of it.

>these lies

Okie doke, Mr. Contrarian. You've scared me away with your bitterness, so I'm going to run off to actually have fun while you can continue to lie in hopes to scare people away from games you don't like.

What? He's just repeating a fact the game itself acknowledges. D&D is a system built for a specific kind of fantasy storytelling.

This conversation has happened before, and I remember you getting completely BTFO.

>watch the post count go up
>the poster count stays the same
Someone is a butthurt faggot.

Has it? I'm a bit confused by that. What is there to discuss when it comes to stating a fact?

Can you system war trolls give it a rest?

Most pathetic cunts on Veeky Forums, always complaining about popular games just for a reaction.

>it's a fact

Despite proof like alternate settings for the system?

Get over yourself, you troll.

3.PF is only good for expressing my fetishes.

Yeah. alternate settings that provide the same type of fantasy with a different coat.

This, pretty much.

The most divergent I can think of are Dark Sun and Ravenloft, and even then despite a very different tone they still tell the same kind of stories in line with D&D's limitations as a system.

The alternate settings are in the same genre.
>kill vampires to level up
>kill orcs to level up
>kill genies to level up
>kill space aliens to level up

A fellow fan of nymphology, I see.

This troll did the same thing before, and basically got shut down because the game itself states that it has no such limitations, and even if it focuses on fantasy it is the archtypical Kitchen Sink fantasy game designed to be able to facilitate a enormous breadth of game styles and tackle diverse genres.

It's just a lie that people try to pass into a meme in order to try and restrict D&D into a narrow niche so as to stop it from competing with so many other systems.

It's all just fear out of D&D increasing in market domination.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. When ~75% of a generic manual is content only available to a single group of classes, I usually put the book down.

But D&D's market share has been consistently falling. Why would they worry about that?

What about Planescape and SpellJammer? Very, very different tones, and it's also able to handle low fantasy and even mixes in science-fiction every once in awhile.

It really can do just about any type of fantasy, and that's hardly narrow or specific.

D&D is a niche game at best in my country. The few people who do play it are the laughing stock of the RPG community. I don't think I have anything to fear from it.

Suppose I wanted to run a realistic spy game set in the real world, which lots of drama between the characters.
How does the character creation race/class/gear/spells in the Players Handbook help me do that?

No? That's all still within a very specific range. It's all about groups of adventurers going interesting places, killing monsters and such.

Given how large fantasy is, it's pretty accurate to describe that as a narrow niche of storytelling.

+/-50% of those feats would be for spells and casters though.

Also, balanced spells? What the fuck are you smoking?

5e is on the rise and finally reached the point where it has a majority of all roleplayers under its belt, with increasing numbers every day.

It's why these guys are now scared of 5e, and are moving on to complain about that edition.

What shithole do you live in, and what's the big game you play?

Oh, look. It's the turbo autist. Eveybody clap your hands.

D&D is a niche rpg outside of the US mate.

But roll20 stats are tuned to games designed for a battle mat, which doesn't go much further than D&D and D&D-like games.

Pathfinder, D&D and its ephemera made up about 2/3 of RPG sales last I checked, which is still a lot but is actually less than it used to be.

>oh no, someone called us out for being terrified of 5e!

Kind of sad that you obsess about what games are more popular than others.

Suppose that for each race, there was a list of about 10 Features, and for each class, there were maybe 6 Basic Features and 6 Advanced features.
So when you make your character, you can select some amount of the Racial Features and Basic Class Features of your choice, then whenever you level up you could eventually get access to the advanced class features.

I think that would be a fun system and allow lots of customization and options. Right now if you pick something like an Orc barbarian you are functionally identical to every other Orc Barbarian in the game.

Those really aren't that much different than normal d&d, i.e kill and loot

But I've played gurps games without any fighting. You know how political intrigue games stink? I've played a really fun on in gurps. Because gurps has a well thought out social system

The poster count still isn't going up when you post dude. Looks like the only actually defending the game is you.

5e has been the top seller for several years now.

Keep in mind that 2/3rds of all sales means that all the other games are competing for that remaining 1/3rd.

That's a red herring, of course the conversation will be back and forth, don't expect every single post to be a unique person who wanders in.

You know it. If someone could port over all the degeneracy from 3.PF to 5E, then that would be like the philosopher's stone of arousal.

>But I've played gurps games without any fighting

That's because GURPS combat sucks.

And, the social system is one of the most obnoxious I've ever encountered. Some people enjoy actually roleplaying, and GURPS does its best to suck any joy out of interaction with other people.

But only about 5% of players regularly want to experience something other than 'adventurers going interesting places, killing monsters and such'.

I had a feeling that at some point, when the trolls got tired of attacking 3.pf, they'd switch gears to 5e. I didn't expect it to be so soon though.

The poster count didn't move up for any of the pro-D&D posts made in this thread beyond the first.

76.31 of all games on roll are a version of D&D or a close kin of it. Holy shit.

>Gurps combat sucks.
That's false, nothing is better than being grenade dude.
Although it is kind of rocket taggy, but that really changes with the tech level and superpower level.

And the social system is good, if a bit autistic but so is everything else in gurps(it still knocks the socks off of d&d)

Is that really that surprising though? After all, Roll is catered towards games heavy on combat that use maps and miniatures, and it is catered towards people too socially awkward to actually play with real people.

Sounds like what my players and I have been tinkering with.

>Traits and talents specific to species, race, gender, nationality, and a system to create your own from scratch.
>Instead of classes, your character's relationship with the setting determine which traits you have access to.

Nobody is attacking 5e for anything but maybe being a bit bland (and maybe, if you are a turbo autist like me some other minor issues).

3.PF meanwhile is finally being recognized for the huge pile of failure it is. Good riddance, it only took 15 years.

>site is called roll20
>more than 75% of games are d20

what a fucking surprise

To be fair, the specific example you cited may be intentional. Most subraces get +1 to an ability score, but Mountain Dwarves get +2 STR since their proficiency will overlap with any class that's expected to use Strength.

>3.67% gurps

I dunno, I don't like it if it's supposed to be wasted.

You can do much more than that with the system. D&D ends up with being rather rules-lite when it comes to social matters because it goes by the philosophy that you don't need extensive rules for those things, and instead has most of its rules centered around combat because they're necessary to determine the outcome of conflicts and it's what most people enjoy.

But, those social rules are still actually fairly robust compared to rules-lite games, which makes it quite easy to switch between killing monsters, negotiating contracts, investigating crime scenes, having elaborate cooking contests, arguing in court, and so on and so forth.

Next to no adventure ever published is entirely about combat, and many actually end up being rather sparse with it, instead focusing on everything from discovering the identity of an assassin at a dinner party to getting an orphanage restored by seeking out wealthy benefactors. With experience obtained not just from killing monsters but accomplishing literally any difficult task, the game actively encourages players to not always seek risky combat as their first solution.

I love how people who are obsessed with how popular games are go through mental gymnastics like these.

It's actually huge just about everywhere. There's only a few countries where it's not the top game, and even then ends up easily in the top 5.

I can't tell if you are an especially persistent fanboy, troll, or an actual paid marketing shill.

Either way, my condolences.

Sure you can talk with NPCs but in every case you are a group of heavily armed mercs with diverse combat skills rolling into town, sure you might "discover secret" or some other plot event but at the end of the day you have to go through the dungeon of traps and monsters and treasure to actually save the day.

>social system-robust
It's roll dice vs target number

That's literally risus

>marketing shill
By now my vote is on this. A particularly incompetent marketing shill.

keep telling yourself that. Sales in USD is not reflective of the number of people actually playing it.

No, RISUS at least modifies your roll by what stuff you chose is applicable, instead of it being either trained or untrained.

Most games can be reduced to one or two Boolean and rng vs tn.

International Amazons all agree that D&D is huge. I don't know how you expect to use anecdotal evidence to compete against data like that.

I've always been confused by the untrained mechanic.

It's like d&d characters don't even have hobbies or something

Again, sales are not reflective of whats actually being played.

They don't, because D&D as a system does not encourage creating characters with meaningful or related depth, if anything it punishes it.

Of course it's not 1-1 reflective, but I'm willing to bet that it does tell us something about the frequency of use.

>ITT: OP doesn't realize it's Veeky Forums that makes RPGs bad

It's worse

Well, if you have it as a hobby, that would mean you have it trained. That's also what tool proficiencies represent. It's a simple, streamlined system, and it works for what it is, I just don't think claiming that the system is actually robust is anything short of lunacy.

At least in 4e you got better as you leveled, but a level 20 fighter will still have 0 to his arcana skill, despite most likely having spent the last 20 levels fighting magical shit, along with guys who keep flinging magical shit.

Having to represent hobbies by spending skill points I find way more limiting than just saying "Okay, you can cook then" or something.

What do you mean hobbies?

>Craft X
>Reading as a past time turning into X ranks in Knowledge X
etc.

Not at all. Though published adventures tend to try to include at least one dungeon (since that's what's popular and it would also feel sort of bait-and-switchy otherwise), there's really no hard limit or requirements, and the classes are generally flexible enough to handle almost anything outside of combat that you could expect smart/strong/skilled people could take care of.

I've run plenty of game sessions without any combat (or traps), and the system handles it quite well, and in some ways better than many other systems I've used for combat-less sessions.

WotC sold the core books for $20 cheaper on Amazon just so people would buy them there and inflate the ranking.

Skill Points and needing skill points to perform mundane tasks are part of the problem. Add that D&D does not make it clear that you really shouldn't be rolling the dice to do mundane, regular, things and you have a recipe for flat characters.

Anecdotal evidence isn't either.

>oh look, a d20 based game that tries to be everything at once yet fails to do any one thing great sucks
color me surprised

>oh look a butthurt troll whines in a troll thread

What a shock.

neither are anonymous polls, or polls done by a single company in a small geographical area.

so why are we wasting time arguing about something we have no respectable data on?

cause we are Veeky Forums

then how about we set to work making something instead of bickering pointlessly?

So you mean individual skill points?

Well, at least OP isn't using the same copypasta anymore.

That'd be great, if Skill Points weren't used to overcome challenges and thus have to placed optimally. Especially if you're a Fighter.

All data points to D&D being popular in every English-speaking country and also doing well in countries that speak Spanish, French, German, Portuguese Polish, and Italian. And, the English version even sells well in countries that don't speak those languages.

The only country where it's only really done modestly where it has an official translation for is Japan.

That's what the data points to. If you want to argue "nuh uh", do you have anything outside of anecdotes and your limited personal experience?