We had a pretty good thread full of genuine discussion and criticism over at >>58571418. Let's keep the ball rolling...

We had a pretty good thread full of genuine discussion and criticism over at . Let's keep the ball rolling, shall we?

>What unpopular opinions do you hold about D&D? What things would you change about it without starting from scratch with it?

Attached: LIGHT.jpg (500x724, 139K)

We did? Where?

I simply play another game man, it's like you want to make a kayak as your car,could you? Yeah, but it's better done in an actual car chassis, it will save you lots of problems and lots of people have worked hard to perfect cars alreadys so you only have to add your dice plushie to customize it.
Unless you go OSR DnD doesn't have any kind of appeal, lots of other games do the same better.

>What unpopular opinions do you hold about D&D
Every humanoid race that exists within an edition should be playable.
If the Monster Manual classifies it as a humanoid, the players should be allowed to play it.
If it is humanoid, it has free will. And if it has free will, it can choose to be a hero.
The "alignment" associated with them should merely represent their cultural background, and not the beliefs of every single individual

Attached: firenewt[1].png (750x750, 174K)

I played other systems before I started playing D&D
Yet D&D is the one I em having the most fun with

>What things would you change about it without starting from scratch with it?
Slightly alter the alignment system.
Change good/evil into altruist/egoist for the purpose of character alignments

You. I like you.

How do you align with "egoist"?

He means like the Fated in Planescape. Also he's incredibly dumb.

The sort of people willing to throw everyone under the buss without even flinching for personal gain

I love bounded accuracy.

Eberron had the best religion and extraplanar shenanigan, even better than the great wheel. Fite me.

Dead characters get stuff to do while dead, even if it's just giving minor bonuses and the like.

Go back to spheres, but spread out options at different levels among them (So, if you pick Necromancy, you're stuck with just necromancy spells, but there's a few higher-level shenanigans for general usefulness; summoning a wraith to carry you around to fly, etc.)

Clerics and paladins are one class. They don't get spells, they get a pile of favor and selections of abilities they can spend it on (Paladins pick the fightier powers, obviously) and regain more or less of it the more or less they please their gods. They also get a fairly random Intervention ability to cover shenanigans.

Druids and rangers can fuck right off.

Sorcerers and warlocks are one class, sorcerers as the "Bloodpact" option and warlocks as the "Inkpact" option.

Attached: 1505417544600.png (700x337, 23K)

Magic items are widely available, but numerical bonuses are dependent on the wielder (e.g., a low level character using a wand of lightning won't make as strong a bolt as a higher level character, a low level character with a Sword of Accuracy won't get as large a bonus as a higher level one, etc.)

Antimagic fields don't exist, or are more of a doomsday weapon than a precaution. It's a fantasy world, everything is magical.

Orcs are fucking boring. Half orcs manage somehow to be moreso.

Explicitly mention XP rewards for thwarting, outwitting, and/or tricking foes, as well as 'consolation prize' XP for fleeing. Distribute a sock filled with bars of soap with the DM's guide in case anyone is tempted to abuse the fleeing XP rules.

Distribute setting-themed core rulebooks, with specific options and base rules. Hopefully make up the extra design costs from collectors and the like.

>rangers can fuck right off.
Don't be like that bby, how would you improve them?

>Man who shoots stuff
Fighter, or make less shitty fighting classes in general (Like instead of a melee-heavyarmor/ranged-lightarmor/melee-lightarmor-and-skills divide, you've got "Supernally strong and tough, option of bigass sword or absurd MH bow/Debuff and abuse debuff master crossing with tactician/fast guy with lots of little hits grading up to just flat aoe attacks" as the trifecta of fighty classes)
>Druid's retarded little brother
We have nature clerics, who get to actually pay for their abilities, as stated above.
>Muh twf
It's shitty anyway, and you know it. File it under 'fast, lots of hits guy' above.
>Muh buddy class
Communicate with the people at the table to get buddies. Break the action economy in the second round of classes where the design team actually has some fucking clue of what they're doing.
>Favored enemy
Literally the worst. If the DM does throw them at you, you're decent. If he doesn't, you cry.
Anything I missed?

I like the 5e firbolg, they're like a race of Hagrids and I think that's neat.

Attached: firbolg.jpg (1536x864, 292K)

I didn't even know about them before this point but that's fucking baller.
While I'm at it, 4E and 3.5 dragonborn were both pretty cool, in different ways. I like the fluff on 4E tieflings, but the browhorns are fucking stupid looking.

I really fucking hate Rule 0.

Not in principle. I understand that GM's are suppose to be flexible and that not every action in game can be done via the rules as written but it encourages a lazy mindset that by just tweaking a few numbers you can make a game do something entirely different and turn a game about fantasy and swords/sorcery into high-flying modern day superheroes or something.

If you don't like a rule: ask yourself WHY you don't like it. Is it cause you just don't like that element of the setting? Why? Is that element there for a good reason? How much emphasis does the game put on this rule? Just because you don't like something on first glance doesn't mean it doesn't have value and if you explore that mechanic or idea more fully you might even warm to it.

At the VERY LEAST don't just change something because you just autism out when you read something. At least CONSIDER why it's like that and what changing it would entail.

Attached: Guts'_Enraged.jpg (778x881, 146K)

>character is not doing so hot
>DM changes rules to boost them a bit
>They figure out how to actually use their class
>Start stomping on things
>"Oh no, I can't roll that back, they'll just go back to not contributing."

Attached: Sam.jpg (300x400, 20K)

I like tiefling browhorns. I think it works well as a look for a cursed race of devilmen. And Pre-5e firbolgs were triple goddess worshipping fey giants with vaguely celtic culture and a preoccupation with the wild hunt.

Attached: ScarfaceTiefling.jpg (500x641, 83K)

I understand that 3.5 has a lot of flaws, but it's the only game with enough crunch/simulationism/grit/detail to satisfy me. I like fantasycraft too, but it's too meta and narrative.

>have you tried not playing D&D?
No, I haven't seen anything else that's interesting.

And you couldn't think to just inform the player of how to use his class abilities why???

Or better yet just say:

"Hey bro I gave you that buff but only cause we didn't realize ________ could do ___________ I think we should roll that back."