Why do you hate Dungeons and Dragons?

I don't care for classes and Dnd is the wrist case because you have no freedom of chose despite what 5e shows following that I don"t care for gear and everything else just being +1 +2 etc its needless. But I don't care what people play if you like it that's fine

>This makes sense for Paladin or Cleric because those are actual occupations,

Actually, they don't have to be. Not all Clerics are part of the clergy of a god, and vice-versa. Not all Paladins have to be of the Paladin class (well, depends on edition).

I mean, I guess you can have orders that are like "you can only join if you demonstrate this ability that is literally only available to paladin classed characters", but even then, there's no rule forbidding NPCs to have that ability without having the class, so it's really only a restriction for the players.

Honestly, the fact that Magic is the be-all end-all and trying to do literally ANYTHING without magic is shooting yourself in the foot and asking to fail or jump through tons of extra hoops.

And this is coming from someone who LIKES to play magic characters. But for fucks sakes, magic characters need a niche that's not "I AM A GOD WHO CAN DO EVERYTHING BY MID LEVEL!"

Pic related sums up the DnD experience by mid level.

Holyshit I can't type for shit

Same, DnD is just too much of a High Magic setting for my tastes. And a lazy excuse to get out of consistent world-building.

>he doesn't make his players go out and pick flowers (that may or may not actually grow in the area) to cast level 1 spells
>complains about mages being op

Personally, it's just because there's such a huge variety of options to wrap your head around, and different people have different amounts of experience doing so. So when I make a character for a new game, being new to the game myself, inevitably one or two of the players is going to make something obscure and powerful because (understandably) they've seen and played most of the old tropes and want a fresh experience.

I don't blame them for it, and it's not a fault of the system either that older players are drawn to new things, but every game ends up with some blue alien monk-hybrid with an obscure feat tree that lets them punch people across dimensions and move at sonic speed, while another is a telekinetic ghost that grapples people with puppeteered gauntlets. The vanilla newbies have no idea what's going on while the older players have their fun, and it's really killed my desire to learn the game anymore.

If we're talking 5e, an Arcane Focus totally replaces all material components of a spell except those that have a value explicitly listed.

Huh, it's almost like people hate useless booking busywork.

>As others have pointed out, DnD is basically "MAGIC DOES EVERYTHING: THE GAME"
>HP bloat is a serious problem and makes it often feel like the table top equivalent of a "bullet sponge" game.
>Players are basically Demigods compared to the rest of the human population by like level 5, making it hard to truly challenge them without resorting to demons and dragons, and even harder to make them give a fuck about other people in the world (think Skyrim at high level)
>Forgotten Realms is the "default" DnD setting and it's full of so many Mary Sue DMPCs (lore wise) that you wonder why the players even exist.
>There is no mystery to the gods, magic, afterlife, or basically anything.
>The Alignment system, enough said
>Rules are absolute shit for anything except combat, owing to DnD's roots as a war game, not a roleplaying game.
>Rules and mechanics push heavily towards min-maxing just to play at a competent level, and taking the "required" feats or stats for any given class is more important than actually making a character who's unique or fun to roleplay
>Class balance is still horrible despite this
>All the "fun" class features don't come online until higher levels, but the game completely collapses at mid-level because of power-bloat and magic-bloat
The DnDrone Defence Force are literally the worst shitposters on this board.

I could go on and on. But the unfortunate reality is that DnD has the marketing and pop-culture weight to throw around, so it's going to stay the most popular despite being an absolute abortion of TTRPG design.

We don't care about your houseruled shit when component pouches are part of the base game, and when your suggestion of tedious bookkeeping just makes the game more un-fun.

It's a system with various editions ranging from bad to okay, but it's power and popularity are disproportionate to its quality. There are plenty of systems worse than D&D, but they don't have 30+ years of experience being the icon of the industry that they have apparently learned NOTHING from.

I mock D&D and not other systems for the same reason I mock big-name actors that can't act but don't shit too hard on community theatre types: you're supposed to be really good at this, I just gave you a bunch of money because you're supposed to be really good at this, why are you so bad at this?

Because whenever I play DnD i just think
>damn, this is like anima/ikrpg/gurps but with no redeemimg qualities whatsoever.

I don’t hate D&D I’ve played every edition (but minimal 4E experience)

I rate as follows: 1E, B/X BECMI and RC, 2E, OD&D, 5E, 3E, 4E.

Besides Elminster/Drizzt, who are some of the Mary Sue FR characters that people are constantly bitching about?

>damn, this is like anima/ikrpg/gurps but with no redeemimg qualities whatsoever.

I don't know ikrpg, but it's a huge redeeming factor that it's not GURPS or fucking anima.

I dunno, even D&D has a better non-combat system than the IKRPG. That is the most useless shit, at least in 4e and 5e the basic skill system actually functions.

Basically every single Chosen of Mystra.

It's just too simple a system without enough impact. Combat is floaty and weird and not very deadly.
Play WFRP

>play the game where nothing happens until one dude finally fucking explodes
I don't like DnD but WFRP is only barely better

this pretty much explains my gripes with it broadly, outside of personal poor experience and minutiae like preferring different resolution mechanics.

I'd still play it if my friends wanted to, and will be soon, but I don't ever want to run it.

>Basic skill system actually unctions

OH BOY, I LOVE HOW BEING PROFICIENT IN A SKILL ONLY MAKES ME 10_20% MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED THAN SOMEONE WITH NO TRAINING AT ALL!

Meanwhile the wizard has spells that replace every single skill in the game and don't have to rely on a D20 to succeed.

As opposed to the IKRPG where being a max heroic skill trained, maximum smarts interrogator literally has a lower value for the opposed roll than the lowest possible human willpower score the game allows.

The IKRPG Skill system is BAD, even by D&D standards.

D20 is just as reliable as a D100 if you set the bonuses and target numbers properly, I.e not like in DnD

>double hitler doesnt like gurps or anima
Checks out.

Saying d&d's 5e skill system works is like saying drinking pee is a good idea when dehydrated.

The dice roll isn't the proble, it's how little being trained/proficient in a skill actually matters, because proficiency bonus is utter shit until high level.

The thing your character has been training all his life to do is a thing a completely unskilled amatuer who's never even attempted it before is 80-90% as likely to succeed as you, because your proficiency and training only counts for like a bonus of 1 or 2 for most of the early game. Literally 5-10% of a D20.

Think about that.
Think about how fucking retarded that is before defending DnD.

In this case he's saying that it's better than ikr's, not good

Isnt max proficiency like 12 or 6? Like really fucking low?

Work on your reading comprehension

That shit is why D&D 4e had training be a flat +5 (With you easily able to get 5-7 from stats/race). So 'Expert' vs 'Random smuck' is more like +11 vs +0 rather than +5 vs +0.

It's 6 at level 20, 12 if you have a class feature like Expertise like Rogues and Bards do.

For most of the game, and most of the time DnD is actually """playable""" (heavy sarcasm quotes) it's 1-3.

And it's still better than the IKRPG one.

Proficiency is the worst at lower levels, the class balance is better though

So is drinking piss when heavily dehydrated.
Moronic in the "long" run.

>Why do you hate Dungeons and Dragons?

Nobody really "hates" d&d but some grow tired by it. There are lots of other ttrpg that accommodates different degrees of gaming experiences and we tend to gravitate through what we really want eventually.
The problem begins when we shove the game we want into d&d (thus we say "it suck") and it ends when we find the system that fits better what we like ("this game is much better than d&d"), but those are subjective statements since it can happens that d&d IS the ttrpg that fulfill the game experience we want

You're confusing proficiency with mastery. Proficiency is just a minor boost for being your race/class/background. It can't get too high because of 5e's bounded accuracy. Something like a +10 would be ludicrous when the DC for a "nearly impossible" task is 30. Besides, diffrent abilities and classes add certain modifiers and advantages, like Racial ability bonuses, Expertise, or the Rogue's reliable talent. Instead of making sure you could never succeed in half the things the game offers, they maade you slightly better in a few. It's not what some people are looking for, but it's hardly as retarded as you're making it out to be.

It's retarded when a level 5 wizard has spells that can pass almost every conceivable skill check in the game with no chance of failure while you're sitting over there getting fucked repeatedly trying to do it with the "skills" system.

In before the same tired desperation argument of "B-b-but it uses spell slots!!!!oneone111!"

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean "HEY, MAKE ALL THE SKILL CHECKS 80% LUCK AND 20% CHARACTER BUILD!"

That's fucking stupid, I want my character to be good at the the things he's SUPPOSED to be good at.

I mean, it depends on how low you bound it compared to your dice, unless you add in other mitigating mechanics ("can't roll under 10").

Play point buy systems then.

This is a thread about DnD.

>Implying point buy has ANYTHING to do with how shitty proficiency bonus is.

I sure do love how point buy changes the values of my proficiency bonus... oh wait...

>3rd level spells can do literally any skill
Read the rules if you actually believe that. And yes, I will bring up spell slots when a lvl 5 wizard gets 9 slots per day in a game that recommends about 4 resource intensive encounters per day.

Then make them good at it by choosing options that uphold that ideal. Besides, rolls are only supposed to be made when there's a chance of failure. If you want to be flawless at things, either wait for high level or play a higher powered system.

I don't want to be flawless, I want my character build to fucking matter without having to just resort to magic when I get sick of shitty dice rolls fucking me over.

Not sure what part of "80% luck, 20% character build" is so hard to comprehend is a fucking problem.

>The DnDrone Defence Force are literally the worst shitposters on this board.
Ooooooh...

it's a poorly designed game. What's wrong with it has been excruciatingly detailed across the entire internet for more than a decade.

i just replace proficiency bonus with advantage desu.

>And yes, I will bring up spell slots when a lvl 5 wizard gets 9 slots per day in a game that recommends about 4 resource intensive encounters per day.

It actually recommends, I kid you not, 6.

The game is balanced around having 6 fucking encounters every single day, or the casters just BTFO everyone.

He means a different system that uses point-buy rules for character creation, including skills.

But you don1t even have to go that far, you can just play a different edition.

I don't know what system you've seen that fucks up proficiency like this, but systems like Fallout PnP use characteristics to determine default skill. So already it's not "20% chance to not fuck up", it's closer to 40%-60% chance. And whenever you get skill points, you can invest heavily into a skill, thus making it depend more on degrees of success, which range from "you are successful, but..." to "you perfectly do the thing and you also...".

>Thread is about why DnD is a shitty game
>Starts talking about Fallout PnP

Well yes, play good games instead of dnd.

You're character build includes proficiency, ability score modifiers, feats, and class abilities. Magic still can't do everything for you, and you're going to have a chance at failure unless you use resources. As for 80% luck, at level 5 you'll have a +3 proficiency bonus, and most likely a +4 or +5 ability modifier. So we'll call that a +7. You have a 23% chance to do something that's specified as "nearly impossible." If you want, you can get advantage on the roll with inspiration, which lets you roll twice and keep the highest. This is the highest DC you can get. You have about a 50% chance to get most checks with a +7, and advantage is easy enough to come by if you actually roleplay (insipiration and situational advantage).

>something about the rules?
bingo. Class imbalance is the least of the three evils. Secondmost of their kind is the limited combat options outside of mother-may-I fighting which really hampers the creativity of some people and lastly I hate the single d20 as a resolution mechanic. I like averages, I like the uncommon to be actually uncommon and I want the highly skilled to succeed most of the time. A single d20 does not facilitate this well as all outcomes are equally possible. A 1 is a likely as a 15

>A single d20 does not facilitate this well as all outcomes are equally possible. A 1 is a likely as a 15

Yeah so?

The value itself doesn't really matter (except for nat 1/20 memes, which are stupid as fuck, but doesn't have anything to do with the d20), since all rides on the DC and the bonus.

If the DC is 10, and your bonus is 8, you are 95% likely to succeed, even if "rolling a 1 and a 15" is the same chance.

>I hate the single d20 as a resolution mechanic.
>A 1 is a likely as a 15.

This doesn't make sense. The game is designed to map a rolled dice value to a probability event.

It doesn't matter if you're using a D20, or a 3D6, or throwing 52 playing cards on the ground, an event that has a 10% of occurring will always have a 10% of occurring whether it's a D20 (roll above 17), it's a 3D6 (roll above 15), or throwing cards on the ground (2 aces land face up).

The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic they added in 5e makes the probability somewhat more tolerable.

>That you use these to be a thief or a hero is generally left up to you.

The advantage / disadvantage has a massive effect. Statistically, it works out to having a +4 to +6 bonus (+20% to +30% chance of success) on most of your rolls.

>generally
Come on, man.

I just don't think what user said justifies playing D&D instead of systems based on d100 skills. I don't even play D&D.

If you want to know why I think D&D is a "shitty game", then it's because classes may restrict players and also railroad them.

On one hand it's a good thing, because I had a campaign that was abandoned, because players didn't know what skills they wanted to have. I had a necromancer forget about necromancy and any magic on top of that and heavily invest into survival, because he felt like I didn't hand him necromancy related stuff on a plate often enough and we were innawoods.
Why not resurrect animals to at least hunt for you? I don't know.

On the other hand I have other players who know what they want to do and that includes mixing magic skills with non-magic for utility purposes, like levitation, illusions, telepathy. And there are more of them than the necromancer guy I mentioned.

>People complaining about d20 and flat resolution curves

If you have a tiny, insubstantial chance to succeed or fail, then why roll at all? The entire point of a d20 flat roll is that bonuses are small which allows them to stack without getting overpowered, feeding into a sense of progression, and the flat probability curve which gives the underdog the best chance to succeed in a moment of heroic daring. In a given session you're only rolling outside of a combat a few times anyway so those bonuses are a godsend, and within combat you roll enough that the law of large numbers comes into effect and over the course of many battles the people with the best mods are going to be doing and avoiding the most damage.

I don't like almost anything else about D&D, but complaining about the probability system is stupid.

>systems based on d100 skills

What exactly do you mean by this? I've only played D&D and Dark Heresy. Are there more skills in those systems? Do the skills have a larger impact on probability of success?

Can you share the pdf of whatever book you're reading that says generally? Would genuinely be interested in a version of D&D that is less restrictive

You're referring to one class out of a dozen or more depending on edition and source books. The one class, might I add, which defining feature is the moral restrictions that comes with it.

You're "intentionally" being stupid and trolling. Fuck off.

>complaining about the probability system is stupid.

I feel that most of Veeky Forums does not understand how to separate the game's a dice roll mechanic from the game's mapping of rolled results to the probability of events happening.

Flat resolution curve vs. bell curve has nothing to do with determining your chance of success at a certain task. If the game is designed such that you have a 10% chance of hiding in the shadows, the random number generator you use is completely irrelevant. You can use D20, 3D6, D100, playing cards, throwing spaghetti at the wall, etc... it doesn't matter. The game would be designed such that you only have a 10% of getting whatever result you need with your random number generator. It's always going to be a 10% chance no matter what.

The only time this argument is necessary is when you want to generate a hard integer for something like damage values. A D12 weapon will be more "chaotic" than a 3D4 weapon.

>they have apparently learned NOTHING from.
I bet if DnD team wanted to make different game, they would be very much able to do so, but it has great momentum. If they would steer the wheel too much, they would make a lot of people angry. See 4e.

>I LOVE HOW BEING PROFICIENT IN A SKILL ONLY MAKES ME 10_20% MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED THAN SOMEONE WITH NO TRAINING AT ALL!
I believe this particularly is on purpose, it was never supposed to be realistic.
1. You will never (or only late in game) end up in situation, where you don't need to roll, because you have +bazilion to a skill/attack, thus making it challenging for whole length of campaign.
2. Flatter progression rate makes for different feeling of the encounters. (More consistent, maybe?)

There are a lot of reasons to criticize DnD, but i think these two are somewhat misplaced - it is supposed to be like this.

It's like this, right (just off of the top off my head):

Pros:
>1d20 mechanic makes checks and combat resolution "random xD" which suits lighthearted campaigns and groups
>Neat class packages instantly give inspiration for character creation
>MMO-like combat gets your vydia friends instantly hooked
>Good character art in the books
>Premade settings/monsters/etc if you're not creative or just lazy
>That cute girl from work just finished watching Stranger Things and this is literally the only system you can maybe convince her to play with you

Cons:
>Quadratic Wizards, as has been said
>Exceedingly long skill list
>Mildly complex character creation and combat rules will counter all the pros related to "easy to get into" and "popularity", meaning the cute girl from work will leave as soon as you try to explain what an attack of opportunity is
>Rules like Take 10/20 and minutia inventory management discourage narrative play
>Tracking XP and XP penalties
>Multiclassing is "not optimal"
>The rules are not light enough to justify abstractions like hit points
>The rules are not detailed enough to give the game a sense of "realism"
>Did I mention that wizards are OP

Tl;dr D&D is overrated because there are systems out there with all of its pros and less of its cons. Pic related.

Is 'its a very good game but not good enough to justify the overwhelming monopoly it has on the market' a valid enough complaint?

>1d20 mechanic makes checks and combat resolution "random xD"

Explain, mathematically if possible, what the hell you mean by this. If you cannot, provide an example of another system that you think solves this problem.

I could easily just point out that every class has alignments tied to it but that's something that can just be houseruled away, totally understandable. Instead I'll just keep posting these.

Yes, because the "very good game" part is objectively wrong.

I don't like having to run 4 filler encounters just to set up one encounter that isn't a cakewalk, especially with a system as bland as 5e.

Not sure why you're upset; I marked that as one of the pros? 13th age also uses this, and I wrote in praise of it. Also I thought it was widely understood that the 1d20-based skill system's probability curve is a lot less predictable than more commonly-used systems, like 3d6, 4d6 or even the 1d100? You can see the probability curves by yourself at anydice.com

The problem is that it's nearly impossible for the market to be split evenly among every RPG in existence and there are a fuck ton.

So inevitably one is going to be "king". In this case it's D&D because it's the original, has the highest name recognition, is fairly easy to get into, has tons of support material, and since lots of people play is easier to find groups.

All of these things justify it maintaining its market lead because that's just the way things are.

If any game were to supplant D&D it wouldn't be because the game is strictly better than D&D and all other RPGs (where that's really impossible to say due to the subjectivity of RPGs in general), it would be because it reached a level of popularity and recognition, along with the side benefits of more content, that everyone flocks to it further reinforcing its lead.

No game like that exists nor do I see one kicking D&D out of its spot any time soon. If a Star Wars RPG can't do it (like it or hate it, Star Wars is IMMENSELY popular), then nothing can.

>Exceedingly long skill list
Correct me if i am wrong, but 5e have 18 skills. I think 4e had similar amount. Is that too much?
Or are you referring to class and race features and traits?

>Rules like Take 10/20 ... discourage narrative play
Why? I can see that about encumbrance, but Take 10/20 is just incorporating something really intuitive for us autist.

>Multiclassing is "not optimal"
It is not, but your quotation marks makes me think i am missing something

>my opinion is factual and objective

There's no RPG that is perfect and all have pros and cons.

It's upsetting to me because I study probability and Veeky Forums neckbeards don't seem to understand what they are talking about sometimes.

>1d20-based skill system's probability curve is a lot less predictable than more commonly-used systems
I don't understand why this matters though.

1. If you are using a D20 system, and the difficulty check of something is DC18, then it means that you have a 15% of succeeding.
2. If you are using a 3D6 system, and the difficulty check of something is DC14, then it means that you have a 15% of succeeding.

The only difference between the two is the DC value, which as the game designer or game master, you set to yield a 15% of success.

Magic. Fucking magic. Not even in mechanical sense. When magic is something that is everywhere and an average magic user can just throw enough knock, fireball and levitate to solve everything, when producing flame and spraying acid is a goddamn cantrip then magic loses all of its magic.
Fuck this gay earth.

Dunno about Dark Heresy exactly, but I play UESRPG that is based on Dark Heresy (though I try to move my party to Shadowrun, TES is getting pretty boring). Please bear with me if I describe the same mechanics Dark Heresy has.
UESRPG relies on 1d100 rolls for everything except damage. And it relies on Skill Tests most of the time, except for something that doesn't belong to any skill: resisting a spell non-damaging requires rolling for Willpower, not being set on fire requires you to roll for Agility.
Skills are based purely on characteristics, for example default value for Alchemy is Intelligence -20.

So yes, if you're defaulting, you have the meme-ish "20% chance to success!!1" with average characteristic value being 40-45 at the start. But improving a skill is really cheap, so already you have a 45% chance of success. Spend some more, and the chance is already 60% and more. You don't even have to grind this experience, you have enough points to make your character be good at something even at the very beginning of a campaign.
And you can go above 100% success rate, because it all comes down to degrees of success.

user above talked about chance of an uncommon event being equal to chance of a common event. Lucky and unlucky numbers fix that somewhat mechanically, otherwise its GMs responsibility.

So there. If people say that D&D is superior because of convenient modifiers, it's not.

You need to play with support only casters my friend. Fixes almost all of D&D's problems.

Well the difference, I suppose, comes from changing the DCs.

Having a +2 bonus for whatever reason in d20 would instantly change it from a 15% chance to a 25% chance (a simple +10%). Having a +2 bonus would change that 15% chance to a 37.5% chance (a weird and wacky %)

Which includes which classes? Even Clerics and Bards get blasty spells. And they sure as hell can bypass a ton of the game's obstacles with zero effort with those "support" spells.

Fuck this gay earth.

> Correct me if i am wrong, but 5e have 18 skills. I think 4e had similar amount. Is that too much?
Haven't sunk my teeth into 5e yet, I'll take your word for it. 10 skills is already pushing the envelope; anything beyond that is excessive. I personally prefer games with no skill lists at all, but if you must have one then you should try to condense it. I think 3.5 had "spot" and "search" as the most glaring example of two skills that could have been one. I understand the difference narratively and mechanically, but would it really have hurt the game to combine them into one skill? Same thing with things like "escape artist", "use rope", and then there's the problem of skills that are extremely situational like "swim" or even "ride", which have the player hoping the GM or the narrative will come up with something that requires them to use those skills, instead of being "proactive" with their use.

>Why? I can see that about encumbrance, but Take 10/20 is just incorporating something really intuitive for us autist.
True enough. If you're autistic enough that you need to assign numeric values to something that could ultimately have been narrated away then I suppose this rule makes sense to you. But the existence of the take 10/20 rule implies that the game was designed with the existence of pointless dice rolls in mind. Not sure I'm explaining this 100% correctly.

>It is not, but your quotation marks makes me think i am missing something
Nothing really. I just meant to imply that some players don't give a shit about optimization, which renders my point about multiclassing moot, at least for those players (that is, assuming they also don't mind being constantly overshadowed by the players who did optimize their build).

5e does not require paladins be good, I'm pretty sure that is old 3.5e stuff you're looking at.

So what you're describing is that players can rank up in skills and easily obtain a higher chance of success at their chosen skill.

Whereas in D&D 5E, a skill proficiency just gives you a flat +10% bonus (at level 1), and the player has no ability to improve his skill besides just leveling.

That does actually bother, I might homebrew some rules to allow characters to get higher bonuses at one or two of their chosen skills.

Maybe they were *shudders* playing 3.5

I'll take your word for it. OP didn't specify 5e though.

>Haven't sunk my teeth into 5e yet, I'll take your word for it. 10 skills is already pushing the envelope; anything beyond that is excessive. I personally prefer games with no skill lists at all, but if you must have one then you should try to condense it. I think 3.5 had "spot" and "search" as the most glaring example of two skills that could have been one. I understand the difference narratively and mechanically, but would it really have hurt the game to combine them into one skill? Same thing with things like "escape artist", "use rope", and then there's the problem of skills that are extremely situational like "swim" or even "ride", which have the player hoping the GM or the narrative will come up with something that requires them to use those skills, instead of being "proactive" with their use.
Most people nowadays would be playing and talking about 5th edition, which does basically all of those things

The only really niche skill would I guess be animal handling

>Having a +2 bonus in d20 would instantly change it from a 15% chance to a 25% chance (a simple +10%)
>Having a +2 bonus in 3D6 would change that 15% chance to a 37.5% chance (+22.5%)

I guess that is true, but isn't that already part of the game design? The game designer would have already worked out the math and decided upon the circumstances that a +2 bonus happens.

A 3D6 system game designer designates that a +2 bonus is a +22.5% chance of success in a specific circumstance.
Thus, a D20 system game designer would give a +4 bonus, (which is +20%) in the same circumstance.

This is all assuming that game designers designate a percent chance first, then work out what rolled values or bonuses are necessary afterwards.

>The game designer would have already worked out the math
You can rejigger the math to work normally, but it is definitely just infinitely easier to roll a d20.

In 5e it's not about your alignments so much as it's about your oath.