Vent your frustrations with D&D, Veeky Forums

it is THE face of an extremely variable hobby that should have multiple faces in the public eye

it's probably the best RPG out there but it's not without flaws. the rules for full-automatic fire are bad, for example. also the sanity rules could be improved (ToC does it better).

munchkins can exploit simulationist elements. a truly gamist game is fairly well balanced and much harder to exploit

>Tangentially related, but I wish things that aren't Lovecraft and don't really get what Lovecraft was supposed to be about would stop trying to force it in.
true

Like said, it's a game that, at least in later editions, doesn't know what it's trying to do. It's heavily gamist and thus understandably abstract and simplistic in certain departments at the same time as it, due to its age, is filled archaic mechanics, inconsistent subsystems, and stats that are only ever used to calculate other stats. And to top it all of it also tries to be a narrativist and simulationist game because "gotta get all of them demographics, boys" with mechanics that don't fit with what the rest of the game tries to do.

4th was probably an improvement in this department, but it was also the edition that made me realize that I really really don't like the gamist aspect of the hobby.

D&D is the reason why video game RPGs almost always use some sort of level system, which usually means that the gameplay suffers

>I'm seriously annoyed because the hordes of people who wanted 3.5-II generated enough pushback that 5 dropped everything that 4 fixed and went crawling back to the same martial-caster divide, simulationist window-dressing pitfalls that 4e fixed.
Came here to post basically this.

I don't like the feat system in 5e, in that some classes only need to take one feat, but others won't be viable until level 16 save for cheese

Its unwarranted popularity, unnecessary bulk and inelegant design keep too many people from even so much as considering trying a different, more suitable system for whatever game they want to play.

A couple of my friends started a Pathfinder campaign and I've heard complaints that its moving way too slow because they're pretty much actively avoiding any activity in game that would require engaging with the mechanics beyond some simple skill rolls and just end up fucking around in cities instead of doing any adventuring. When I suggested a system that would actually support their playstyle and be far easier to learn play and run, they outright rejected it because it would be too much work to learn.

No problems, personally.

Maybe you should try playing D&D.

Bad luck, old bean. I don't see how a lucky shot killing a tough guy is a failure of the system.

this

My frustration with D&D is that the best versions of it are no longer called D&D. First and most obvious, there's Pathfinder, which attempts to keep going when they dropped 3e.

Then there's the myriad retro clones that sprung up, my personal favourite is Basic Fantasy RPG, which I think is the ultimate incarnation of traditional D&D. Or Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which focuses on weird fantasy. Or there's Whitehack, which successfully blends Fate style aspects with Swords & Wizardry White Box. &c &c.

I don't hate D&D 5e, I just feel that it's no longer the case that you should expect the best games of D&D to carry the name.

the find DC doesn't have to be the passive DC.
If you are using passive perception to look for the "rocks fall" trap then the DC is 20. If you're using active perception then the DC is 10 because its easy to spot if your looking for it.

Passive Perception is more useful for detecting an enemy sneaking up on you. Because the DC is usually set by their stealth roll and not all monsters can have a permanently high DC.

Every edition intensifies Its obsession with balance so it starts slashing mechanics it couldn't balance in previous editions making it increasingly more boring.

Vancian casting however is still the best system I've seen, everybody talks about the superiority of mana systems but I've yet to play a system with it that doesn't let Wizards spam spells at freedom with no thought.

I like 5e other then the amount of choices available when making a character. Once you reach level 3 it your character on a set course unless you multiclass.

That and I prefer older styled art.

>best version of D&D
>Pathfinder
wew

>and I prefer older styled art.
Who the fuck doesn't?

Because it's basically a toss up between either dying in one hit or never dying because you have more health and can deal more DPR than your opponents.

No point in using strategy when all combat boils down to bumping aggressively until one person falls down.

I wish Hasbro was reasonable and gave WoTC a larger budget. 5e is literally made by three guys or so, which is why we have one splat released per YEAR. We could do with at least two.

They've already got a decent budget, It's just poorly managed.

>hits a flailing tentacle with a revolver held one handed
>while being threatened by it
>with a shitty saturday night special
that man is a fucking legend.

>but there are other, better systems for what you want to play
like what?

So much this
Balancing broken things is easy as shit, implementing a whole new system because mechanics weren't included for balancing reasons is annoying. Retards whining about >muh monk killed fun in RPGs.

5e is better than all of those. It's still not great

I actually think most of the 5e art is more consistently good. Just look at the monster manual and generally there very few bad images compared to previous editions.

Also the art generally has a sleek look which I imagine some people liking quite a bit more.

One of my fucking players memorized the entire goddamned book front to back, binding n' all. Every time I make a minor mistake he blasts me with pages of info and just carries this smug-ass "King Shit Of Fuck Mountain" attitude. And I've asked
>"Hey man, wanna GM this game?"
>"No thanks, I'm not creative enough."
THEN SHUT YOUR BACK-SEAT DRIVING ASS UP. I'M THE FUCKING DM, GAVIN!

In 2e, to use skills, you rolled a d20 and tried to get a number beneath your skill level. Difficulty was given as adding or subtracting modifiers. This tied your ability to do something directly to your character's abilities. With d20+skill modifier, present in 3e and above, the random element (d20) is typically 4x or 5x larger than your character's ability.

If even just this had been implemented in 5e, I would be perfectly happy with it.

Just fucking tell him the purpose of Rule 0.

user you're a fucking retard.

It's pretty interesting that there's a really sharp divide between the people who understand the game and have frustrations with it, and people who just blindly hate the game and are talking out their ass.

The 5e art certainly has a processed look. I don't think it is produced without skill or a lack of artistic craft but it is undermined quite a bit by the artificiality that is evident on most of the images I have seen.

Just as an example, have a look at the hand of your mind flayer there. This might be just an old geezer's gripe but I can't look at those strokes near the wrist or across the palm and not see the mouse pointer gliding across them, dictating their shape. Much more care is taken in the creature's face, though.
Perhaps it is to finish the work quicker by concentrating mainly on the focal points of the image (although I would argue that the hand in question IS a focal point of that particular picture.

Quite often there is not a lot wrong with the composition of 5e art, its the transparent computer strokes, highly artificial gradients and lighting (seen in the mind flayer's cape) than make them a little mechanical and difficult to accept organically.

In any case, I agree with 5e art being more consistent overall, but far weaker than the best of the art of yesteryear.

I am very interested to see if any of the modern artists build up the kind of reputations and portfolios enjoyed by the old-era artists that are so frequently posted hereabouts.

I wish they stuck to their guns with DnD Next and had just eliminated feats for everyone except Fighter.

>far weaker than the best of the art of yesteryear.

Like some of the cover art, right?

I'd love to see what someone nitpicking highlights and generally being upset about digital art that the artist only had about 1/20th of the time to make would say about this masterpiece.

I think it's not so much a failure of the system as it is a failure of the expectations of the system.
3e and onward the players are expected to be stronger than the environment and players have come to expect that so the incongruency at early levels between their experiences with variance of small numbers and their advertised expectations can be frustrating.
This isn't so much an issue in older editions where the environment is always stronger than the players and combat is presented as a risk vs reward and not a rote expectation.

The gnome, halfling and down syndrome elf in the phb beg to differ on the lack of artistic talent.

Can you elaborate? This doesn't really tell me anything about your disagreement.

>Like some of the cover art, right?

Aye, some of it. I'm only upset about digital art when it hurts the images, not making some kind of blanket judgement against the whole medium.

There are a lot of real criticisms to be made of the revised 2e phb art, much more than that wonky hand but it has real strengths as a cover art. Its one of the few phb covers to directly depict the subject matter of the game (a band of adventurers in a dungeon).

It's literally the same system mathematically.

Why? Veeky Forums's just going to tell me my frustrations are not the systems fault, but the fault of my own personal bias, the people I play with, or my irrational hatred of a system I apparently don't understand.

It sounds like that's all true and you're just a little bitch.

I think the d20 is too swingy, compared to other mechanics.

Is this wrong?

No, but Veeky Forums will tell you it is for some sweet (you)'s

Can you demonstrate this with an example? Also, if they are the same, why was the system changed in the first place? Even considering DnD transferred companies, I don't see the incentive for the new company to change the fundamental mechanic.

Has anyone tried playing with 2d10 instead? How did that go?

It's technically fixable but you won't find the in DnD

Yes, because you don't understand that how "swingy" a game with a binary pass/fail mechanic is depends far more on the target numbers than the dice, and the game has a number of adjusting mechanics beyond the core mechanic. It's like you just discovered the difference between flat and curved probability, but never realized that's only a small part of a far larger equation.

What you mean to say is "I think the DCs are too high in D&D for my entitled punk ass, I hate challenges and excitement."

And the answer for that is "Use Advantage/Disadvantage more often. Git Gud."

...

Too obvious.

>i got schooled!

Appropriate that you used a fish image.

He's right about the d20 being technically fixable it's just that it isn't done RAW in DnD

It is, it's just that his personal taste doesn't match that of the standard. The solution? Adjust the DCs to match your taste.

We just play systems that use 3d6, dice pools, or hands of playing cards instead.

Why make an effort to adapt D&D to your needs, when a different system already exists that not only fits your criteria, but your players also find it more engaging?

>when he doubles down with a second line of bait.

Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

Come on user, did you never have math in school?

>Also, if they are the same, why was the system changed in the first place?
because having different resolution mechanics must be justified in the different behaviour they generate. when a second mechanic gives a very similar or in this case literally the same behaviour of another one, consolidation, why NOT consolidate?

True, but then you would be playing DnD

Because those other systems include a lot of shitty mechanics, and having to fix them in turn is a lot harder?

You just compared the old system to itself mate.

If you say so.

Adjusting DCs doesn't stop it from being D&D,, you true scotsman purity fallacy faggot.

>too swingy
completely subjective
d20 causes people to 'press their luck' more, which is something in line with DnD's playstyle. Complaining about that is like complaining about the color of the PHS's sidebar, completely arbitrary

I use a homebrew where proficiency is used for AC instead of armor when you hold something to deflect the blow (shields still add to AC) and armor adds to HP (the heavier the better) that can be recovered quickly by various means. I need to iron out the non-armor AC conversion before it is viable at all.

>other systems include a lot of shitty mechanics, and having to fix them in turn is a lot harder?
Well then it doesn't fit your criteria, does it?

Such as?

Why would I adjust bother adjusting the DCs when I could just not play DnD?

>only reaction images

I love it when idiots out of there element want to express their irrational indignation but don't have the base knowledge to even enter the discussion.

Old system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

new system:
Every point of skill increases chance of success by 5% points
Every point of DC decreases chance of success by 5% points

fixed

>completely subjective
>whether or not 1d20 is swingy compared to 3d6 is subjective

No. Whether or not the difference is an issue to you, is subjective. But 1d20 is objectively swingier than 3d6.

*their element

....

This might be the dumbest thing said in a thread with a lot of dumb things. Not even 3.pf said the DCs were set in stone, except for Pathfinder Society.

My main issue is that there was never much support for Immortal level play in later editions. It's immortal level play that My group and I crave.

Because adjusting DCs is hardly even an afterthought?

Why are you insisting on discussing a game you obviously don't understand?

>whether or not 1d20 is swingy compared to 3d6 is subjective
no
whether or not that is TOO swingy is subjective

No, it's not "swingier" it's the linear progression of modifiers (and in many d20 games a linear progression of target numbers) that is swingy which is a rules aspect and not the dice itself.

Thanks for agreeing with me?

Because they're are reasons other than the d20 to not play DnD, (specifically 3.pf and 5E), your reading comprehension isn't that great

There are*

Do you know what a bell curve is?

He's just going to keep falling back on that "lol u jst don't understand the D&D systum, because you're dumb" as a way to defend it. He's not here for discussion, he's to be inflammatory.

well, yes. just wanted to clarify that I'm in fact not a retard who thinks d20 isn't more swingy than 3d6.

Eh, I feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt

The more dice you use, the more likely you end up with an average roll. A single die has a flat probability distribution. If there's a definition of swinginess, it would be this, and a single die lies at the extreme end of it.

But we were specifically talking about the d20 though, you moron.

If he literally admits to not even understanding that the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument launched by people who don't understand game systems beyond their first step onto mount stupid, then there's really no recourse other than to say he doesn't understand the system if that's the complaint he felt was safe and unchallenged.

5e is watered down 3.5. It contains lesser versions of everything I hate about 3.5 (terrible class balance, different classes using exactly the same spells, monks sucking even in comparison to other martials) and removes what I like about 3.5 (massive amounts of character build options and an extremely complicated and interesting character building experience)

I have my gripes, mostly with hit points and the statistics of rolling a d20, but they don't stop me from playing the game. What I hate about DnD, is how easily triggered everyone on Veeky Forums gets about it. You can't say anything bad about it at all without everyone getting butthurt. I posted yesterday in a thread and said that I currently wasn't playing DnD but something else, and this one poster was so fucking offended. The situation always reminds me of the"war on Christmas," where Christians constantly feel the need to defend the most popular holiday on Earth, as if there is any chance it could ever actually end. DnD is the most popular system, it doesn't need you to defend it when some guy says it's just not his thing and he'd rather play something else.

Sure but the d20 being workable isn't really an argument in favor of DnD when it's only a nitpick about the system while much bigger problems exists

>the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument
Sounds your own biases are preventing you from having a decent discussion.

I like D&D. It's a fun RPG about adventurers and monsters and treasure and stuff. I like the thrill of pretending to be an adventurer and go into scary places to do battle with monsters. Do you think you would be brave enough to be an adventurer? I'm not sure if I would. Sometimes I think so, but I hesitate to do dangerous things in real life so I think not.

>the d20 being "swingy" is a simpleton's argument
>wanting more consistent and contained results is a simpletons argument.
>wanting a curve of probabilities makes you a simpleton
Exceptional bait.

It's these skill checks. It's either succeed or fail. So if there's no danger or consequences for failure, or if there's no narrative reason to even fail, you shouldn't have to roll. But players get into the habit every time, and of course it's like 50/50 if you can even succeed, so a good amount of actions are pointless. Or on the opposite end, the player is super excited for rolling a 26 on some mundane History check just to keep the game going.
It's just a nonsense attitude, half of your effort results in nothing.

In a binary pass/fail system, the 3d6 with a certain average DC will end up being more swingy than a d20 with a different average DC. In a vaccuum, the 3d6 provides more consistent results than a d20, but games are not designed with only the 3d6 put into question.

Simplest illustration is where the 3d6 is set with a DC of 11 (50%) and the d20 is set with a DC of 10 (55%). The d20 ends up providing more consistency, with more successes than failures thanks to the slight skew provided by the DC.

This can be exaggerated, to the point where the DC for the d20 can be set at 2 (95% success) and the 3d6 is left at 11, and suddenly the d20 is dramatically more "consistent" in terms of result despite the values generated by the 3d6 falling within a narrower range.

But it is a simpleton's argument based around not understanding the actual underlying mechanics of what makes a game more or less "swingy," and instead focuses on one of the least important considerations of the equation.

I hate how much people on here fucking whine about it. Like, constantly.
I have complained about shitty underpaid jobs with abusive bosses that I still can't easily quit due to dire financial circumstances less then some people on here complain about D&D, and keep in mind that one of those things affected literally every single aspect of my LIFE to some degree and not just what hobby I wasted my free time on.