That Thing You Hate

To be completely honest, I often wish alot of RPGs would just do away with the idea of experience points and levels alltogether. Sometimes I just wana make a fully complete character (mechanically) straight from character creation, and not really have to grind for my next "level up" at any point during the game. I'd rather the progression come from the events of the RP, if it's even necessary at all. Sometimes I just wana be the wizard who already knows a bunch of spells or the Fighter who already knows a bunch of sword skills, and then just make it through a plot arc on those skills alone. I don't care if I learn a new spell or sword stance or whatever along the way, as long as it was fun and I got to play my character.

God, I HATE those. And nothing is really enough for them. Yes, EK is good at fighting.. But he can't throw fireballs. Yes, Bladesinger is a powerful wizard... But not good ENOUGH at melee combat. They want to have the best of the both worlds, with no drawbacks.

Fuck those guys too.

Not the user you replied to, but i totally agree with you.
I really prefer systems where you start out as competent characters instead of those where a level 10 Character can wipe the floor with a basically arbitrary number of level 1 characters

And by the same logic, cutting down scores of mortal beings will give you the experience needed to improve noncombat skills. It's the price we pay for abstraction. Outside of that you'd have to go for some kind of point-buy or suffer some heavy bookkeeping tracking your progress in different fields.

I know narrativist/rules-light is a meme, but less gamey systems seem much better for fleshed-out characters with plot-driven upgrades.

Using CHA for boobs

Big boobs are a sign of health therefore it should be CON

Talking dragons.

>And by the same logic, cutting down scores of mortal beings will give you the experience needed to improve noncombat skills. It's the price we pay for abstraction.

True for D&D like you say. I think I'm just sick of the kind of campaigns it offers, namely combat-orientated stuff with thread bare social interaction which is usually dealing with some quest-giver, or intel-giver, or a boring two dimensional villain of some description. If there's problem solving it requires killing a load of shit (Which is where 90% of the mechanics are) or some typical wizard scenario 'I happen to have a spell for this exact situation and we cannot proceed without using it at no cost or peril to anyone or anything'.

Let's bring back Skill Encounters!

Spellswords are fun when they're played as a Jack of All Trades to cover weak spots in the party and in their personal skillsets. The problem is that I've never seen a system that can balance them properly. They're either Kingdom of Amalur style god kings and amazing at everything or they're just a worse fighter archetype with cantrips.

One DM I had managed to homebrew and interesting system where basically everyone got magic. It wound up with people being about as mage-y or fighter-y as they wanted within the limitations of their elemental affiliation (Ex: someone with a metal affinity can make their weapon pass through armor, but they can't cast fireball). Unless you were a Northman, I guess, but they were compensated by the ability to wrestle bears (which isn't exaggeration; my party member tackled a horse at canter once).

Preach it brother

This is really a post about how fucking rediculous the power gain of magic users are but it's also a post regarding teh double standard of the community:

See, no matter which side you take on the argument of the "wizard's are always teir 1 and grow in power faster than martials", we run into a problem with regard to roleplay. The wizard player obviously wants to slowly go from being the faggy acid splasher to the godlike demi-plane creating possible immortal fucktard.

Meanwhile, the fighter wants to become... a better fighter? How do you roleplay being a 'better' fighter other than some vague words here and there about 'muh veteran' benefits and 'ive seen shit'? This is shit a wizard can also claim so how do we justify this disparity?

This weird double standard in how we are suppose to operate when our characters 'grow' causes rifts in how players treat each other, see each other and how the DM is suppose to run the game. It's already been said that a DM has to start jumping through hoops and creating silly reasons why the wizard can't just planeshift to hell or teleport into the dragon's lair and skip everything or use scry or whatever.. new excuses have to be made as the wizard levels. The fighter is the opposite problem... the DM has to 'build up' the power of the fighter somehow... or make the fighter seem relevant to the story or why some guy with a sword can stand up to the dragon or explain why the fighter isn't using magic but is still effective etc etc etc.

I don't care that wizards can do literally anything. I care that the wizard GROWS as a character as a story or campaign progresses... a fighter doesn't

The worst thing about these people is that they don't even consider a neutral pragmatist kind of character.

>Nope, my intentions are good, therefore I am good aligned, never my mind my actions, here's my mental gymnastics as to why necromancy isn't wrong.
>Look I asked nicely, see that means it's good

Fuck off.

If I honestly had to answer that question, I'd say let people use the Cortex Plus Milestones system, where you gain XP by advancing your character's character arc. Like for example, pulling from Cap:
>Mentor The Hero:
>1 XP when you choose to aid a specific hero for the first time
>3 XP when you aid a stressed-out hero in recovery
>10 XP when you give over leadership of the team to your chosen hero or force your chosen hero to resign or step down from the team.
Not the best example, but the point is you have some sort of end-goal in mind, and you gain experience by developing your character. It also gives you prompts for RP opportunities, and discourages Hulk Smash behavior unless you're playing the Hulk.

My understanding is that the original plan was that fighters eventually turned into warrior kings. While the wizard could do all kinds of magic shit the fighter got a small kingdom to pull footmen from, lots of dosh from taxes, ways to leverage natural resources, stuff like that.

These days that isn't really a thing but the Fighter class never got reworked around the loss of these resources so you wind up with guys specialized around smacking things with hammers wandering around with avatars of Good and Evil while some bearded dude smites all of Creation with lightning in the background. What martial classes really need is a thorough redressing of their power curve. They shouldn't just increase in skill; they need to get stronger, faster, tougher. An epic level martial should basically be God to anything within arm's reach of himself.

You want a good example of a high level martial might look like? Unironically 2B from Nier: Autmata. Yeah you could take the gatling laser and spend an hour whittling down the sapient radial excavator that hungers for your blood... or you could pick up an iron pipe and beat it to death in like two minutes. Or you could just ditch the pipe and do it with your bare fucking hands because you're strong as fuck and who's going to stop you? Not the excavator. That bitch is dead.

Is it bad if i want to play "good" necromancer ironically? Think Raskolnikov - someone who may have good intentions, but chooses utterly wrong means.

Tolkienisms.

>Tolkienisms.
Expand. Do you hate having similar races or what?

>woooow how come people complain when 5E sucks at modeling a concept that's been handled fine by every other edition of the game since B/X, this is bullshit
Go fuck yourself. It's not like the Duskblade or Fighter/Mages were walking gods.

Padded monsters. There is nothing good about combat that drags on because players swing nerf bats at massive pools of HP or whatever the game uses to track durability. It sucks and nothing else ruins a game faster than having to hack away at a single enemy 20 times before they finally drop. For all that people complain about it, rocket tag is far superior.

My God, I feel like every complaint raised so far is addressed by GURPS, or otherwise "playing something that isn't DND"

Like....just broaden your horizons?

>I want to throw fireballs, fly and fight just as well as a fighter!
No, fuck you. Stick playing EK.

Personally, I feel in any setting where magic is readily available the advantage it provides is too great to justify anyone who fights or risks their necks for a living not to learn some. Conversely, if you're gonna be trawling dungeons you've no excuse to be unable to wield a weapon at a basic level. Everyone should be varying levels of swordmage.

>I'm retarded and don't even know what those classes do
No, I just won't play your shitty game.

Good, we don't want you either.

I just made up monocolored cardboard rectangles on little stands, and explained that the orange ones were gnolls, the green ones were orcs, etc.
Lended itself to theatre of the mind while still being on the grid. I don't like using miniatures because it tends to cause players to to imagine that the figure is literally the character even though its a stock pose and not how you imagine what your guy or the enemy looks like.

I rather like Spellsword type classes, though I've always liked them in the context of Red Mages. The main reason I prefer something like an Eldritch Knight over a Bard is because even basic elemental spells are cool. 5e has plenty of ways to build a great one though so I don't get why someone would complain unless they're after something as strong as both a Fighter and a Wizard.

Nope, people constantly beg me to join their 5E games.

Not the same guy but same gripe. Tolkien's stuff is good but when a campaign or a DM either uses items, races, or characters lifted straight from that mythos or blatently copies of something that Tolkien create, it kinda kills my enthusiasm for the setting. His shadow is so overbearing on and has so sharply defined high fantasy in general that the only way to escape his influnce is to move away from high fantasy entirely.

>oatbreaker paladin

>5e has plenty of ways to build a great one though
Not really. Hexblade sucks period, Eldritch Knight is a full on Fighter that sucks at magic, Bladesinger is a full on Wizard that sucks slightly less than a normal Wizard at basic combat but is still garbage at it and is better off being a full time Wizard. That leaves Bard, which is another full caster that's marginally less awful at melee unless it steals Paladin smites, at which point you have the class that one guy was complaining about because it can do everything.

What bugs me is that as far as D&D goes, Necromancy is an 8th of all magic since its one of the major schools, but outside of the first couple levels all the effects boil down to making zombies or shooting increasingly powerful death-rays.

I'd totally play a good-aligned Necromancer if they didn't shoehorn the class into being a minion-mancer and actually gave it some more utility involving death or killing undead. Using Necromancy to counteract somebody else's, essentially

Maybe if your standards are too high and you consider a 5e Bard to be 'meh' rather than overpowered, sure

>good" Death Cleric
That sounds like a standard thing to me. Someone's got to keep the dead in their graves and stop necromancers from dicking about.

Intimidate being charisma based. If I'm a fuckhuge barbarian or fighter with a ton of Strength and covered head to toe in pointy objects, I should get a bonus to intimidate.

Same with assassin types threatening someone suoer sinisterly in-character with their knives and poisons on shit. Only to have the DM go "hurr roll intimidate(charisma) check".

Why do only well liked high-charisma people get bonuses to fucking intimidate.

The fact that nobody plays anything other than D&D or Pathfinder reee
I have all these books nobody wants to look at

I hate so many things that thinking about which one I hate the most made me realize I might need to take a break for a few months.

Anyways, I absolutely hate how there are no people who know how to play nWoD properly. I don't mean how to run a proper story or have the "correct" tone, but knowing the goddamn rules. Every single game I've ever played, the ST always fucks up something that majorly destroys the game. Several examples:

>ST was too generous with the XP at the end of the game and our characters went from average to beyond broken overnight
>ST was stingy with the XP, meaning nobody could even get a single dot merit for a month
>ST would request a roll for two Skills and an Attribute making half the rolls incredibly broken and the other half needlessly difficult due to untrained penalties
>ST allowed endless Flaws at chargen and everyone played something to the effect of an antisocial, aloof, near sighted, one-legged dwarf for that extra XP

-Campaigns pitches with little hint regarding the plot, setting, tone, themes, appropriate character types, or anything else that might help me participate better.
-On-the-spot character creation (i.e. no session zero). It rarely gives time to make quality character-lore
-Aimless campaigns with no larger plot. Please just give me a broader goal to work toward.
-Insufficient NPC appearance descriptions
-Lack of attention to the PCs' living conditions and lifestyle choices
-Using random elements to resolve situations where the outcome is not in doubt.
-Players who fail to brush up on rules before playing.
-Multiple PC species choices. Pick one, go in-depth, have variety within it. Could be mice, could be humans, just pick one.
-Thinking that playing a non-default species exempts you from putting effort into your roleplaying

-Combat that takes more than 45 minutes max
-Character alignments. I don't need a roleplaying game manual to tell me right from wrong.
-Pound-by-pound inventory (I prefer the osr systems like the ACK's stone one)
-Indeterminate item charge numbers (i.e. dungeon world's "roll a die to see if you run out of arrows")
-Resurrection from death (i.e. the kind people would actually want, as opposed to being a zombie or other wretched mockery of life)
-Playable undead
-Long-range teleports
-Hit points (as opposed to locational wound boxes)
-Armor not affecting damage taken. It's okay to affect both hit chance and damage (i.e. fallout 1-2 armor), but not just hit chance.
-Special damage types ignoring armor.

I agree for most. Personally, I do play other games whenever possible. Broadening my horizons is exactly what has allowed me to articulate and contextualize these problems.

I'm this guy I've been gently pressing my friend to use GURPS instead, or at least give it a try. Another friend has a shitload of books and we're all free to use them but the GM says he's sticking with D&D because that's what he knows ... even though his ideas for campaigns coincide perfectly with actual GURPS expansions that we have access to.

have you tried not playing deeundee

Castlevania made the whip popular.

>have you tried not playing deeundee
See

>I do play other games whenever possible. Broadening my horizons is exactly what has allowed me to articulate and contextualize these problems.

That autist for whom the rulebook is God and cannot be overrulled no matter how much it makes sense. Rule 0 should be a thing to allow for on spot flexibility.

Once, a long time ago, I was running a low level adventure of DnD 3.0, (3.5 hadn't come out yet, which should tell you how old this is and that I'm still bitter over it). Long story short, the party worked for this one nobleman, and the rogue tried to fake being sick at one point. Said nobleman sends his healer, a 2nd level adept, to go check him out, see what can be done to help. I tell the guy he's got to make an opposed roll, his bluff vs the other guy's heal, to see if he can fool the dude.

You would not BELIEVE the shitstorm. Bluff is opposed by sense motive and nothing else Reeeee! Nevermind that a quasi-doctor checking you out at length is going to be using his medical training, not his knowledge of human nature to determine whether or not you're sick, that's what the rulebook says and to deviate from it is EVIL.

People using alignment as anything more than another another general character trait or treating,it as some massive monolithic force that dictates and restricts actions. Writing 'Lawful Neutral' on a sheet shouldn't mean any moee than writing 'honorable' and 'pragmatic' under character description. It's a shorthand to showcase where your character might stand on certain things, but nothing more. Trying to do so just leads to pain

Playable monster races. If it doesn't bring out a higher level of min-max bullshit it brings out someone who masturbates to kobolds or gnolls or something similar.
I also think it kind of defeats the entire purpose of those races. If goblins aren't there to be canon fodder why didn't you just make them halflings in the first place? It's just wasting the chance to make something that's really monsters that happens to use tools

Although I will shit all over PF any day of the week, I have to admit that their Magus was one of the few Spellswords that both catered to the class fantasy and were satisfying to play.
Dreamscarred's Psychic Warriors were also pretty good

Back in the early editions of D&D, all the healing and ressurection spells were in the necromancy school. I think, if you want to really drive home a "necromancy is not evil" theme, then that's where a lot of your healing and condition removal spells should be.

The study of death is also the study of life after all.

It's not like clerics were ever called necromancers though. Necromancers in dnd always referred to the guys that raise zombies and use death rays

>it's fucking 2017
>people still don't handwave XP
Really nigger?
I've been stuck in the "we only want to play 3.PF"-loop for 7 years now, but I've seen XP used only a handful of times at most. Otherwise it's always been "level up after a big dungeon, story arc or because it's been more than 3 months since the last level up"

And there's plenty of systems that start you of relatively competent or don't use levels. Just get your head out of your own D&D shaped ass

Agreed. Charisma is so many more things.
How pretty you are, sure.
Your force of presence when you walk into a room though.
That thrum people feel inside them when you make eye contact or they sit by you.
When you speak, that thing in your voice that turns eyes to you.

Likewise, low cha isnt only ugly.
Trouble around large groups of people.
Stutters and stammers.
Selfconcious!

Nope? You have giant tatas? Cool. Shithead.

Fair enough, but I think it's a valid branch for the school to turn to. Barring that, I know in 3.x there's a focus on nonlethal negative energy effects like waves of exhaustion, that are designed to ignore undead and cripple the living.

There's already some pretty good untility in abilities like speak with dead, but some dinvinations could also probably make the jump if you're trying to call some dead dude or dudes.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'd be after, although Wizards don't usually get many healing spells. I do wish there were more things like Chill Touch that disrupted Undead as a side effect.

Honestly just making an Int-based Cleric with Turn undead and calling it a wizard is probably easier. It's a concept I do want to really try one day just to buck the typical good necrimancer shlock

Some classes get strength bonus to intimidate, or get feat options. But what's scarier, the muscleman going "I tear you limb from limb, suck marrow from bones! Speak!"

Or the gnome who sits next to you. Chats you up, and mentions that the ballet is in town, isnt your sister in that troupe? He'll have to get a ticket. Lovely thing, so elegant. Maybe they could meet after the show. Is a shame that muscleman is so clunky though, he might tread on her foot in accident, and with his weight, it would snap, he career and life would be over.

That said, the DC of an intimidate check ought to vary based on many conditions.

The former. Gnomes arent really scary. Sure, that might be convincing, but it's still just using the fact that you have that muscleman on your side to actually carry out the threat. Charisma based intimidate is essentially just bluffing people into making them think you're a bigger threat than you are, while Strength based is the 'honest' approach.

I mean, it's not like a Fighter couldn't also threaten to step on someone's sisters foot, and then back it up with the fact that he's so heavily armed nobody could hope to stop him. That approach is less dependentbon stats and more on knowing the dude has a sister

But... But a pop-tart IS a sandwich...

depends on the setting

>Charisma based intimidate is essentially just bluffing people into making them think you're a bigger threat than you are
My organization head can leave my coworkers and I quivering in our cubes just by raising his voice and talking about our lunch-breaks. No muscleman required. A child can whisper to me "give me 5 bucks or I'll scream that you touched me", and I'll give it. If an officer demands 50$ cash or he'll write me an 85$ ticket, he's getting the money.

It helps to remember that fear has sources other than direct physical violence.

D20 modern standard setting

All of those still imply muscleman. Its just the muscleman that'll show up and throw you out of the building or throw you in jail if you refuse to go along with it. The implication of eventual force is still there, otherwise a piece of paper with an 85 written on it wouldn't mean anything

Weeaboo shit. For some reason I just loathe all things japanese. I can't really explain it, it's just irrational hatred. Their whole culture is just too cringy.

I'm not worried that someone will throw me out of the building, or will actually put me in jail over abuse or tickets; chances are it won't come to that. It's about losing leisure time, being embarrassed and harrased, and having to pay more money than I want to.

While the threat of overwhelming coercive does serve as the foundation upon which civilization as we understand it exists, the structures built upon it also enable people to exert pressure through economic and social forces as well.

NO IT ISN'T
I WILL FILLET YOU

It still boils down to a bluff that they're more of a threat to you than they are, or that they have something else threatening like the law on their side if they bluff the authorities as well. It's also far more direct in a fantasy context where you're more likely to have severe punishments over fines.

>My organization head can leave my coworkers and I quivering in our cubes just by raising his voice and talking about our lunch-breaks. No muscleman required. A child can whisper to me "give me 5 bucks or I'll scream that you touched me", and I'll give it. If an officer demands 50$ cash or he'll write me an 85$ ticket, he's getting the money.

Sounds to me like you're a coward.

>Boss says you're not getting a lunch break
Take the break, he tries anything then he's up for an employment tribunal

>Child tries to extort you.
Call the kids bluff, they have no evidence.

>Cop tries to extort you.
Take the ticket, get the cop done for corruption.

You sound like a huge wuss to be quite honest famalam

>That Thing You Hate

Players. Every single one of you.

Paladins. They basically took the MC out of Three Hearts and Three Lions and turned him into a character class that does nothing but serve as fodder for arguments and a lure to that special brand of edgy dipshit who thinks that playing a "good guy" means being a complete psychopath is acceptable.

Oh and on top of that, any criticism of them gets a bunch of people climbing out of the woodwork insisting that their way (and only their way) of playing a paladin is the right way that completely redeems the fucking class, while overlooking the fact that a class that claims objective moral certainty on a philosophically inconsistent standard of morality is inherently going to cause problems.

Would these guys be good necromancers? Maybe just neutral. It seems like this setting judges the person with the gun, not the gun itself.

Reminder that natural law is a philosophically indefensible position.

The gamist/narrativist dichotomy and all the gatekeeping it encourages.

People who think they're playing an MMO. Using the term "DPS", thinking they need a dedicated healer who doesn't do anything else, thinking the enemy is obligated to attack their most heavily armored opponent instead of the much more dangerous guy in robes, that sort of thing.

Convincing ~4 other people to learn a rules-heavy system they have no familiarity with is harder than you seem to think it is.

I hate it when players insist on shaking up the status quo of a setting, and define their characters not as people with thoughts and emotions but as a checklist of retarded justifications for goals that revolve around breaking every premise of a setting. "Let's go kill to see what happens" is probably the most irritating, as it by necessity hijacks the entire campaign for the purpose of amassing enough power to pull some bullshit that by all rights shouldn't work, but often does if the GM is too much of a pussy to say "no, fuck you, that's stupid, they literally have more defenses than it's remotely possible for you to break past." (The Scarlet Empress is one thing, since Exalts are supposed to pull crazy bullshit, but making a character in Deathwatch whose most deeply held goal is a desire to kill the Emperor for no IC reason in particular is retarded.)
At least breaking core premises with cringey crossovers or time travel are an immediate warning flag for those of us playing a setting because we like it or want to spend a little time exploring it and what we can do in it, instead of just to fuck it over for shits and giggles. Trying to turn the whole campaign into "work within the rules to smash the foundations" bothers me, especially when it's just one player pushing for it and everyone else, GM included, just kind of goes along with it out of apathy.

On a tangentially related note, I was pretty annoyed when WoW dropped Cataclysm and fucked over the zones I'd gotten attached to, even though I'd long since stopped playing.

I understand the appeal of handwaving xp, but I still use it because I feel like more difficult fights should have bigger rewards.

Then how do you make magic items/research spells?

Spending xp to make magic items isn't in Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is a lot worse than 3.5 (Which is a steep cliff to climb, I'm sure), so I've never played it.

I generally use the "checkpoint level up" system that gets suggested in the books. It works way better for everything

Is it possible to play as a necromancer of the neutral alignment? Like as a doctor who studies bodies and body parts (from living or dead) through the use of necromancy?

It's something that depends a lot on the specific setting of whether or not its possible, but this is a 'things you hate' thread. It's gonna be mostly opinion.

That said, I personally dislike it, since neutral necromancer scientists often just boil down to the player running off with corpses to be secretive about disecting bodies. If anything, Necromancer would hinder your study of the body, as it's hard to know what a vital organ or muscle is when undead can shamble about with just bones.

Oh yeah, when people suggest GURPS for everything. Nearly forgot about that one. Thanks.

to be fair people are pretty stupid and food doesn't get to learn

Can't compare using/abusing dead things for your own goals to having a firearm.

Even if used as a weapon, a skeleton, once a living being, now a grotesque plaything of the negative energies, is far more scary and disgusting than a gun, and you'd easily connect the dots that the scary skull-man controlling it was an evil fuck.

If your gun was loaded with acid rounds or some other fucked-up deal that would not only harm but inflict horrible pain on the victim/target, it would've been deemed inhumane (see "dum-dum" round IIRC Hague act that prohibits them from use in firearms, making hollowpoint rounds a no-go for modern militaries, even if they are a solid choice and are often used in home-defense situations due to not-penetrating as much and expanding within tissue better, thus having a better chance of instant incapacitation a foe due to cutting up the CNS).

Now, depending on the setting, you can have good or neutral necromancers, but in D&D they're generally seen as very evil due to using negative energy tools/corpses.
I honestly don't mind them being any alignment and don't like these discussions but I had to butt in with the gun comparison.

>What is it?
The fact that I LIKE and enjoy Pathfinder, and my autistic need for a Chargen minigame keeps bringing me back

tl;dr;
guy with gun can be any alignment
guy with flamethrower that inflicts loads of pain more than a gun is evil

mage is good (debatable, but let's not open that can of fire-mage shit)
necromancer bad because using relatively scary, corrupting and painful magic

It also depends on how people perceive it, and what people.
Soccer moms go allguns=bad, fudds go blackguns=bad, /k/ goes allguns=good;
Better have those in mind when worldbuilding, because once upon a time, crossbows were banned, longbows were banned, square bullets were banned, hollowpoints are now banned (for military use)... They probably banned swords a long time ago too as a symbol of war and evil. How an object is viewed is very subjective.

>still being on the grid
why tho
Seriously why

> tfw will never have a DM as good as I am

>-Thinking that playing a non-default species exempts you from putting effort into your roleplaying

why would I when they're treated like human commoner 1 regardless of race, size, or color

You sound like you're autistic and hate fun.

I fucking hate players that see all the other characters as rivals and refuse to fucking cooperate. The kind of asshole who's going to be secretly stoked if the other player fails a roll and dies, and would never lift a finger to help. EVEN WORSE if they actively sabotage another player because fucking over their character in the game to them is like jokingly calling them a faggot.

I once had a player who was woken up by a vampire in the night, and when I told a player whose character was sleeping in the next room that he heard banging coming from next door, he just gave me a shit eating grin and explained that his character rolled over and went back to sleep before giggling like a cunt as the other player got fucked up.

It's this weird pride + schadenfreude synthesis where they feel like their character looks better when the others fail, and they enjoy letting it happen. Nevermind that their characters are supposed to be a fucking good-aligned unit that has huge motivations to work together.

I feel like I'm not explaining this perfectly, but I assume some of you should be able to know what I'm talking about. One of the deepest and most common rots that makes campaigns unenjoyable.