ITT: Tropes you hate the most

I kinda agree. They are two sides of the same kind, but the more martial guy in armour, makes me think cleric but the guy in robes slinging light magic makes me think priest.

Cleric is just a person of the church. Can as well be a priest.

Gurps solves both of these.

Actually, D&D's cleric class was explicitly modeled after Van Helsing in its original incarnation

Preaching to the choir, my dude.

Yeah. You're not allowed to do any combination you want because each class now has limited skills and multiclassing isn't a thing.

It's a base dagorhir but with changes. There are 4 classes and they restrict the types of weapons and armor you can use, while also simultaneously saying that you can play whatever kind of character you want.

>Fighter
All melee weapons and any armor (1 hp leather, 2hp metal, or 3 hp leather over chainmail which is so clunky and slowing no one uses it and only I wear a maille coat), can use regular (2 red hit HP) shields. Only ranged weapons you can use are javelins, which are inaccurate and have shitty limitations. (Can't throw Archer
Bows, 1 hand swords, and limited chakrams (can't throw Wizard
1 hand swords or 1 hand damage staffs, fireball, ice ball, acid ball, lightning ball magic.

>Cleric
1 hand swords, half-strength (1 red hit) shields, healing spells, and root spells (you have to stand still and attack your legs or else lose them and die when you move). It's basically a pure support class.

It really wouldn't piss me off if the guy running this thing wasn't purely doing it to jerk off his Berserk power fantasy while simultaneously claiming that this is just like real fighting.

Pretty minor one but

>I'm playing an elf and as such must be a hippie who loves all creatures great and small

No motherfucker, I'm going to be playing an evil shitheel in a game where we are all playing evil shitheels and I'm going to only eat things I kill with my bare hands.

>D&D is every fantasy ever

The D&D cleric is moderately to heavily armored mace wielding undead turning divine champion modeled more after Knights Templar and Van Helsing than robe/ceremonial wearing staff wielding prophets/saints/holy people people would actually consider a priest.

For many people, yes.

I once saw a 3rd party class that was supposed to be all about full plate. I don't know why I thought it would be good. It's just full plate with worthless mechanics that make fighting more annoying.

Armagurd or something.

Some people like divine magic but don't like hitting people with a mace.

I've never seen a non-vidya with a Luck stat. If we're discussing vidya, I hate games that don't explain what the character options do.

>increases effectiveness of weapon attacks

By what? In what way? You're giving me a decision and nothing to base it on.

Even D&D allowed the non-armoured, non-brawly sort of holy guy. 4e's Invoker was a much more 'Moses the representative of an angry god' sort of character and was an unarmoured holy man with a holy symbol or a staff.

Shadowrun has a luck stat. It's called Edge, but in, like, the first sentence of telling you what it's about they pointedly say it's how lucky you are

>hating on luck
Looks like someone broke a mirror

>Empire is Evil because it's an empire

>Rebels are Good because they're rebels and totally not terrorists

Fuck you, I like hospitals, schools and well patrolled roads connecting the old kingdoms and facilitating trade whilst reducing banditry.

Every game with stats should absolutely have a stat to represent the metaphysical power the character wields. It’s part of what is really fucked up in D&D stats is that Charisma is the metaphysical stat, but it is only mostly treated like the metaphysical stat.

D&D would be much improved with the stats being more like:
>combat experience (Strength)
>handiness (Dexterity)
>athletic ability (Constitution)
>academic training (Intelligence)
>instinct (Wisdom)
>emotional strength/empathy (Charisma)
>metaphysical power (Power)

That makes something representing a character and sets clear boundaries for what ability does what.

>game doesnt have rules for sexual dimorphism

Many would make the case that 4e isn't d&d

Call of cthulhu has a luck stat. POWER × 5. Always struck me as kind of weird. Much prefer how luck rolls work in the new delta green, it's literally just a 50/50 shot.

Apparently in the newest Coc, you can spend your luck stat to pass rolls, but having a metagame currency in call of cthulhu doesn't seem to fit thematically, to me.

>Old is always better
>"once we elves ruled the world. Our empire has never been equalled and never will be"
>the rebellion is always right
>Evil is generally for it's own sake
>Being powerful and good means I can judge above my pay grade

That last one is what bothers me. Powerful wizards. Elmininster go about fucking with nations because he arrogantly thinks himself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. I loathe the harpers for this reason, they go and keep tabs, spy and act on a national scale all in accordance with an old faggot's individual morality.
I want to play a campaign where the main goal is to dismantle them, kill the seven sisters and end the moral thought police. Or just do it for a major city, like what happened in luskan

>Not using S.P.E.C.I.A.L.

can't you royally fuck people up by straight up being better at fighting while also being a class that has other stuff?

Are you claiming that a specific pattern of destructive behavior you just named is a physical illness?

what?

>larpers
>competent physical abilities
Pick one and only one.

I've never been to a LARP, all my friends are reenactment fags but I'm too poor to get a license for a musket so I can pretend to be a Prussian as well. Is it that bad?

>shields are destroyed after two hits
wtf

Like most things on Veeky Forums, you're seeing a knee-jerk overreaction.

"Shields were indestructible walls" becomes "shields had a finite lifespan and reasonably could only take so many hits" becomes "shields were made out of paper mache and spit." Same thing with katanas and English longbows: pushback against incorrect "common knowledge" information has resulted in "common knowledge" that is just as incorrect but in the other direction to the point that you wonder why katanas and longbows were used in the first place if they were so objectively shit.

>you have to stand still and attack your legs or else lose them and die when you move
what

It might as well be.

Just play a cleric and not use melee weapons. Or whatever you want to do.

So more of a scholar, then?

I use luck as an advantage, guess I have to thanks gurps for that.

My most hated trope "lol lets not do the main quest".

>I'm going to only eat things I kill with my bare hands.
That's not very hygienic.

Compared to the actual clergy, no

Ermagerd?

4e freed us from a lot of stupid D&Disms that 5e ended up bringing back.

>The game tries to back peddle on lore for no reason

Dagorhir has shitty rules. Shields take two 'red' strikes. These are solid strikes with a two handed weapon. It's usually ok if you don't get a power fantasy rules lawyer tapping your shield twice and yelling at you to drop your shield, which we do have because a fucking mexican cop plays sometimes and he's the worst.

Shields also dissolve with acid spell hits.

You can repair a shield as a fighter, but can only get it back to 1hp if it's broken, if it has 1 hp you can take it to 2.

It's convoluted.

It's like if tree roots held you in place and you have to hit the roots off. Exploitable though if you root someone and knock them over, cuz it takes their legs and equals death. You have to cut the roots off or burn them off with a fire spell which you don't get as a non-wizard.

Japan also outlawed guns for the sake of preserving social order so it's not like objectively shit weapons don't survive for retarded cultural reasons.

>You need a license for a musket.

Dude whatever rotten little socialist hell hole you live in you should leave.

Muskets kill people

So does socialism

As if clerics werent physically inactive enough, unless you have a domain that encourages it like the war domain chances are that most clerics will stick to shooting lasers

>Undead and necromancy are necessarily bad

I know Gygax was a christian an all but they had decades to fix this gay shit and here we are still demonizing them for no particular reason

...

Well yeah.
Desecration of the dead.
If you want good/lawful necromancy it's called resurrection and reincarnation

This

>fucking with the dead isn't bad, only Christians say so

m8

You are an average peasant. You just buried your mother after she passes away. Some fucking necromancer comes and raises her bloody corpse as a zombie to do his bidding.

You are an adventurer traversing the land. A fucking necromancer attacks you. It might have been enough that he killed you, such dangers are expected, but he fucking traps your soul and sucks on your essence for eternity.

You are a nobleman, your family already has been. A Necromancer fucking raises the bodies of your ancestors as skeleton servants. "Dude, I need these to combat another evil man, just deal with it," he says to you.

Most higher necromancy is evil. Stop trying to go against the grain with moral subjectivity.

Not him, but I don't think any of those except the soul trapping qualifies as evil.

Luck in BRP is actually pretty good for deciding small details, like if you find keys in a car you're stealing or something.

>desecration fo the dead

Nigger fuck off with that billshit, its not a justifiable thing to get worked up about, the person has already left that body, rude maybe because some retards like you ger offended but not evil

>le soul traps

thats beyond the scope of basic corpse raising, some necromancy can be evil sure but so does every other fucking kind of magic

A necromancer raising a soulless body is doing nothing immoral

First and third are almost certainly theft. A person's dead body is a part of their estate, and is therefore the property/obligation of their heirs.

>its not a justifiable thing to get worked up about
Basically every major culture in real life disagrees with you and magic doesn't even exist with measurable effects
>the person has already left that body
And most cultures believe that they may be dead but they are still watching and somewhat concerned with the affairs of the living

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

> Never seen a non-vidya with a luck stat

Call of cthulhu has one.

>Luck stat
>Useless 90% of the game
>god-tier final 10%

Paladins. They're a dumb idea that was already covered by clerics (well they would have been had Gygax not been an idiot and limited clerics to blunt weapons) and attract the worst players.

Yeah, I hate it too. Especially since it seems to inevitably break into some sort of dumb shit like special good undead once someone is feeling written into a corner that would have been totally unnecessary had this fucking stupid idea not been included.

1. Then it's not the necromancy that's evil, it's the violation of someone's property without their consent.

2. Why exactly is soul trapping any more evil than any other form of imprisonment? What exactly is a soul?

3. You just repeated your first point.

None of those demonstrate how necromancy itself is evil. This is like Socrates asking virtue to explained, only to have several things listed, not one of which was virtue itself.

for virtue to be explained*

Cloistered cleric, you're slightly better at divine magic and skills, but you suck at combat

>The LG Paladin/Fighter are the leader of the group
>Bard makes original songs for the party. they're awful
>Dwarf woman have beards
>Humans speak Common
>BBEG is only in it for lust and power

Gurps is shit

Akchtually, old d&d clerics were paladins, the division came later

Wrong.

If you are powerful enough, you change the world as you wish within limitations of your power. The rules you use depend on your personal moral views. Running around and making things the right way (as you see it better for everyone) is somewhere ng or cg in DnD terms. If you don't have the balls to determine what is right and what is wrong for yourself then welcome to LG.

Oh hai /pol/

>The BBEG (ugh) actually had good intentions all along
>he didn't tell anyone this because ???

So does obesity and ignorance.

The reason rebellions are typically the "Good Guys" is because by necessity the heroes are now underdogs. This means the challenges they face are greater and the stakes for failure are higher. When you reverse the roles, where the powerful, wealthy, Lawful Good Empire does battle with those dastardly Chaotic Evil Rebels hiding in the sewers then it's what? A bunch of paladins effortlessly crushing an ill-equipped and poorly-trained foe beneath their plated heels.

Obviously that's not the only way you can portray this dynamic (see any War on Terror movie ever made) but I guarantee you that's what most people who complain about "Good Rebellions" want.

>but I'm too poor to get a license for a musket
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I assume Star Wars and other media have made the "Good Rebels vs Evil Empire" trope more intuitive and familiar for people. History may also be a factor if one is someone like an American.

>/pol/
>not /r9k/
Even then, it's probably just "muh realism" and "-4 STR" autism.

Star Wars definitely played a part but it's always been pretty popular. Mostly because Americans are for obvious reasons naturally sympathetic to Rebels.

In fact this is even exploited by the rebels in Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" where they bullshit the people of Earth by telling them their revolution began on July 4th.

>Lawful Good Empire does battle with those dastardly Chaotic Evil Rebels hiding in the sewers then it's what? A bunch of paladins effortlessly crushing an ill-equipped and poorly-trained foe beneath their plated heels.

So, basically Blue Rose?

t: Necromancer

I've needed to roll 'Luck' a few times when I run LOTW and I'm honestly not sure about something (Generally because the players go looking for something I'd not planned). I tend to use a raw Lake (The dice you roll for stuff to take actions) roll.

It works well in LOTW because the game actually has a mechanic called 'Interesting Times', where pairs of 0s in your lake mean that stuff happens outside what was planned (Like someone succeeding on a roll to jump through the window to escape the assassins chasing them...and realising they've landed in the middle of the enemy barracks surrounded by very surprised, half asleep soldiers). Interesting times are supposed to never negate the action itself but also be 'And then stuff got much more complicated'

This. Was about to point out cloistered clerics.