>flat probability curves
>hit point bloat
>save or lose
>caster edition
>15 minute workday
Inb4 a bunch of grogs come through and explain how they use a bunch of tricks to mitigate the system's garbage.
0/10.
Even BESM is better than D&D.
And that system is broken trash.
>>47934822
>flat probably curves
lol wut?
Also, that's just 3.x
>>47934866
... errr the rest of the stuff.
And the circlejerk commences.
>>47934822
>>47934822
>not true in modern D&D
>HP bloat replaces active defense for the purpose of gameplay, but isn't managed well
>3.pf exclusive issue
>3.pf exclusive issue
>3.pf exclusive issue, and requires a shit DM
0/10
>>47934977
>responding at all
You fucking piece of shit. And you're just as bad as OP is.
>>47934822
>flat probability curves
And the problem with this is?
>>47935032
What is your problem?
>>47935032
Real men love curves, anon. Haven't you heard?
>>47935032
bc being really good at something but having a 5% chance to crit fail/succeed is terrible
>>47935075
I'd call this bait if there weren't innumerable examples of other people retarded enough to think that's actually how the rules work.
>>47935075
Crits in general (And crit fails) do not apply to all rolls and in some cases only exist at all as optional rules or accidental houserules that everyone assume are true because they never read the relevant section of the actual rules.
>>47935204
And generally when you roll dice anyway, crit just means that you always have a 5% chance of crazy damage to go with your 50% or better chance of decent damage
>>47934822
Once I "mastered" it. Once it all clicked and I started shitting out OP builds without trying at all is when I knew. Its a simple case of being able to look at all options and knowing exactly what will work best for me and what my goals are.
The problem is that there is just simply no other option for me. I am the kind of guy that wants character creation to last 3 hours and leveling to last an hour. I want choices, I want options, I want different things to pic from. 3.P is the only system that gives that to me at the level that I want it. If I make 10 different characters none of them should feel remotely the same in how they operate even if I pick the same base class. Thats why I continue to play it.
>>47935075
This is easy enough to address with a roll to confirm. Maybe a 1 in 6 chance to fumble if you get the worst possible roll on your d20. Sure, it adds an extra step, but it's something you only have to do 1/20 of the time (or 1/10, if you do the same thing with crits). Compare this to having to roll 3 dice all of the time.
>>47935289
I recommend picking a goal other than generating the most mathematically powerful character.
>>47935351
Thats what I do I start with an idea like "I want to build a character that swings a big fucking hammer really hard"
Then without even trying I;m talking I was trying NOT to build an OP character when I complied my level one character He swung a huge hammer that counted as colossal for damage. It just so happened that everything I just happened to pick piggybacked off each other. The DM called bullshit until he looked at everything and said "Yeah I guess thats real. I still cant allow it though."
It was only possible with a splat book though that gave level ones a back ground and through it a bonus. I picked smith which allowed me to count as one size larger when it benefited me.
>>47934822
When I realized most people who play it are like you.
>>47934822
It doesn't matter what system is used. The game is what you make it.
Honestly though. Why can't /tg/ be more about the games themselves rather than hashing out the rules dictating the games and trying to figure out which one sucks more?
The bottom line is: bring back the monster girl threads. I love all of you. I'm high af
>>47934885
It's only a circlejerk because one side is so incapable of producing any sort of arguments that they don't even bother.
>>47934822
But it's fun.
>>47935704
>the rules of the game have little to do with the quality of the game
What in the fuck are you gibbering about? Also not everyone who wants to play a roleplaying game wants to have to redesign the entire system they're using from the ground up so it's somewhat playable, they just want to play the fucking game.
>>47935928
Dumb frogposter.
My first experience with trpgs was a homebrew system so... when I eventually tried D&D it only took one game for me to decide it wasn't to my taste.
>>>47935894
>not everyone who wants to play a roleplaying game wants to have to redesign the entire system they're using from the ground up so it's somewhat playable
Why wouldn't a game be playable? Would your reasons be the same issue for video games?
>>47934822
OP, please, do you even bait properly?
Allow me to improve upon your bait:
>flat probability curve: RANDOMNESS IS FUN!!!!
>dynamic Target Number: because I sure love keeping track of all of those shitty bonuses to roll
>a single value to track HP, no real distinction between Wounds and Fatigue
>non-abstract approach to wealth: because everyone loves playing accountant!
>badly implemented stat/skill system, secondary stats should never be used when calculating a roll
>>47934822
It's fine to not like things, anon, but you need to accept that other people might like some things that you might like (and that's perfectly okay, too)
>>47935894
Fuck you.
Post.
Monster.
Girls.
>>47934822
>Inb4 a bunch of grogs come through and explain how they use a bunch of tricks to mitigate the system's garbage.
Sorry kiddo we're not going to do your work for you.
I to enjoy masturbating to my own superiority.
Only if you play 3.5, which for some reason that's what people assume the entirety of D&D to be. Should have stayed at B/X in all honesty.
>>47935074
FLAT IS JUSTICE
>>47934822
more rules, magic, items for combat and roll playing than role playing
>>47934822
Your mistake is thinking the game is shit. Your gm is shit. If you were the gm, then you are shit. This bait is shit. Shit/10.
I like Rules Cyclopedia and 4e.
The rest isn't very good. 3e is shit unless you heavily restrict tiers, and 5e is just bland.
>>47935075
Just confirm fucking crits, you snotling
>>47936346
I agree with all of those.
I fucking hate counting pennies/ammo/ and even XP. At least the last one only goes one way. It's still the fucking worst tho.
>>47935315
>3 dice
2-dice gives the best probability curve anon..
>all the time
Oh, you're just saying 3 because you want it sound like a "lot of work" to roll more than one di, I see.
>>47935412
>I want to build a character that swings a big fucking hammer really hard
That's your problem, though. That's not a character, that's a video game build. Make an interesting character and have their stats/feats/etc exist solely to service their backstory/abilities, rather than thinking "I want to mechanically do something" and then min/max so you do that thing very well but have no character/personality to roleplay with.
Basically stop rollplaying and start roleplaying.
>>47935351
I don't think he's totally wrong. Most people aren't honest about their role-playing goals, play something they don't like, then end up either sticking in out of obligation or quitting.
Though I'm sure he wasn't implying the most OP build, the issue isn't the wrong build, it's having too limited goals.
>>47934822
I generally like D&D but armor not reducing damage and instead making you harder to hit is fucking retarded.
>>47934822
Immediately. I don't play D&D. I feel sad for anyone that had it as their first RP and now feels inexplicably tied to it.
>>47938823
If your armor bonus meant you weren't hit, then it means it DID reduce the damage to zero.
Also, hit points aren't meat points. Even losing HP doesn't necessarily mean you were physically hit.
>>47938901
>Even losing HP doesn't necessarily mean you were physically hit.
Can you explain further? Not trying to bait or anything, just curious because I don't understand.
>>47934977
>save or die
>caster supremacy
>15 minute workday
>only 3.pf
Also every edition before 3
>>47938939
Hit points are plot armour.
Even since 1e AD&D, they're considered to be a mixture of luck, physical stamina, mental fortitude, and magic.
The same description carries over all the way through to DnD5e (see page 196).
If an orc swings at you and you 'lose 10HP' out of a total of 30 it doesn't mean that you're one-third dead. Instead, it might mean that you ducked just in time, or braced it totally with your shield - but it took a lot of your energy/luck/whatever, and you know that it took a lot out of you.
On the other hand, if something didn't even beat your AC, it means it took no extreme level of effort to dodge/deflect/whatever, and you can do it consistently without trouble.
Basically, every hit that beats your HP is deadly by default. You spend HP to say "no it wasn't".
Literally every DnD edition agrees on this point.
>>47938978
Correction on secondlast line - it should say 'every hit that beats your AC', not HP.
>>47938939
not that anon, but most things in d&d are abstract. though I guess you have to know d&d history to get that.
what kind of spicy meme is a 15 minute workday?
>>47938976
Also 4 editions of Shadowrun, Rolemaster, and WoD.
>>47938998
It's when the party blows all their spells and once-per-day shit in one fight and then rests to get it back. In practice, 15 minutes is an exaggeration and very few people would do it, but it's theoretically the optimal way to play.
In reality, it's more of a 3 or 4 fight workday which isn't so bad when you don't put a separate fight in every room.
>>47938976
AD&D had zero caster supremacy if you used initiative the way it was supposed to be used.
It was way to easy for your caster to be killed before he got off that critical high level spell to win the day.
>>47938792
No, a build is starting from the mechanics.
"I want to build a character who utilises the item [large hammer]" is a build.
"I want a character who swings a large hammer", as basic and one dimensional it is, is a character idea. You THEN look at the equipment list and see that there is a [large hammer] there and decide to pick it up, because it fits your concept.
>>47934866
The other editions are garbage for other reasons.
Except 4 and 5. They are kind of alright. But I still prefer other games.
>>47939033
Is that before or after unearthed arcana?
>>47934822
I never had that moment, I'm not American so I never really got sucked into the D&D style of "role-playing".
I just got a big culture shock the first time I tried it with some ameribros.
>Most of the group is barely in character.
>People talk about niches and slots, like we're trying to build a sports team.
>People "correct" each other's character choices for better performance.
>Feels like arcade shooter on rails where our contribution mainly consists of killing all the things in our way so we get to the next checkpoint.
>People tell me to ease up on the "overacting" because I attempt in-character dialogue.
Like, I'm all for the whole "as long as everyone is having fun anything goes" thing, but the impression I have from real life and from /tg/ is that 90% of D&D players really should be playing MMOS or fantasy flavoured boardgames. And the crazy thing is that since D&D is huge and actively pandering to the WoW generation, nobody really has a clue about more role-playing focused role-playing games (just listen to that sentence, it feels fucking surreal.)
It's not even that D&D is bad at what it does, it's just that what it does should really be put on a separate shelf from role-playing games.
>>47939058
Before, mostly. Unearthed Arcana mitigated some of that with more and better utility spells and lowering caster times.
>>47939180
You seem to have come from one extreme and bumped into the other, instead of realising they're meant to be harmonious.
The ideal situation is that you feel engaged with your character and the story (I'm not going to say immersed, because immersion is not always desirable and can often be detrimental), and that you are ALSO playing the game to the fullest and making the character that best fits the game and story.
For example, DnD is a game about being competent adventurers. Therefore, if your character is incompetent, you're being a shitty player. Same as if you were a shitty actor.
The point of an RPG is that you RP well, and you also play the game well. Otherwise you're not getting the full experience.
It's cool to say "I like this mechanic/power and want to build a character around it", as long as you roleplay it well when you're done. And it's also cool to say "I like this interesting character concept", as long as you also build it effectively.
>>47939180
I think I know, but which edition was it?
Also, that's not "american style" that's just one way.
>>47939203
>(I'm not going to say immersed, because immersion is not always desirable and can often be detrimental)
I have no idea how immersion could be detrimental to role-playing, if immersion is not the point, then there are way, waaay better alternatives for whatever else it is you're getting out of role-playing.
From where I'm sitting, the only job of the rules is to define how conflicts are arbitrated. They're not the point of the game. They're just there to keep it from bogging down. They're not the main attraction or main activity.
If all you're really doing is acting like a game engine calculator, you should be playing board games.
There is no "you're both role-playing and playing the rules" the rules are just there to keep the role-playing going so things don't devolve into free form or judgement calls by the DM.
>>47939180
>shows up ameri-bros with british accent
>their dicks shrivel up from the thought of doing the accent in front of a brit
>>just-just don't overdo it, a-anon
>"these bitches hate roleplaying!!"
>>47939213
You can play like that in any of the previous three editions. It's most boring to do so in 5e, though, since there are much fewer choices to make past level 3 - it's overall quite a dull edition.
>>47939231
>There is no "you're both role-playing and playing the rules"
Of course there is. To take an extreme example, let's take the game 'Monsterhearts' which is based on the Apocalypse World system. Monsterhearts is basically 'Twilight/Buffy (the relationshippy episodes)/Vampire Diaries/Teen Wolf/Jennifer's Body: The Game'.
In Monsterhearts, one of the major subsystems in the game is 'Strings'. Strings are a representation of how much emotional leverage you have over someone else. They also drive play.
One way you can use a String is to give someone else a penalty on a roll.
Strings are abstract when 'in storage', but need to be concrete and roleplayed out 'when used'. E.g. if another PC is going to punch you in the face, you can spend a String and say "I laugh in your face and remind you of what a pussy you were trying to ask the hot girl out" in order to distract them and make it harder for them to punch you properly. You're both playing the game, and roleplaying.
Or to use a VERY simple example, closer to DnD:
As a paladin, you say "I notice my companion flagging, and take a moment to reassure them and help them walk", and Lay on Hands.
You took the mechanically correct action (healed your ally outside of combat) and also roleplayed yourself as a helpful paladin.
As far as when immersion can be undesirable - easy - it's when you run into the "But it's what MY CHARACTER what do!" issue. Sometimes what your character would do doesn't matter - instead its better to do what's best for the story.
It also means you can engage in dramatic irony - e.g. running into danger because you want to play out some kind of rescue scene.
>>47939262
I think his problem is the G in RPG. Games imply rules, without rules, it's not a game.
I think what he pictured RPGs as is just RP, you know LARPing without the LA part. Basically tabletop LARPing.
>>47934864
>BESM
>broken
Thou jest.
BESM does exactly what it was meant to do. It was designed with being broken in mind so it can't be broken.
>>47939462
And honestly, that's totally fine. Freeform RP, or moderated RP like you often see in 'parlor LARPs' are great fun. They're not better than RPGs. They're not worse. They're their own cool thing that share some overlap with RPGs.
There are probably far more people (and especially more women) online playing freeformish RPs on message boards than there are people playing RPGs.
>>47939508
>there are probably far more people (and especially more women) online playing freeformish RPs
Yes, I've heard of Facebook, thank you.
>>47935851
Do you even realize how poorly you troll?
>people don't want to argue with me because they can't
No, anyone can come up with the kind of petty back-and-forth arguments that come up in these threads, regardless of what side you take. People don't want to argue with you because you're a dumb cunt.
>>47938776
>Oh, you're just saying 3 because you want it sound like a "lot of work" to roll more than one di, I see.
The most commonly proposed alternative to the d20 is 3d6. I agree that 2d6 is superior. You only have to perform one mathematical operation on the dice to get a result, rather than two, and the vast majority of the time, the result is going to be 10 or under, making that operation very easy (and because of the limited number of combinations, you can recognize a lot of them on sight, without even having to add). But 2d6 has a very limited range compared to a d20 and so the two really aren't comparable. I guess you just said "2 dice" though, so we could go with 2d10, which is still pretty simple addition (1 digit number plus 1 digit number*). It's still marginally slower than a d20 though, and the effective range is still smaller (disregarding unusual results--you'll roll below 4 less than 1 out of 30 times, and the same goes for rolling above 18-- you have an effective range of about 15 rather than 20). And fuck rolling 2d12.
Anyway, my point is that while I dislike 3d6, I'm okay with 2d6, 2d8 or 2d10, which have their uses. They are by no means demonstrably superior to 1d20, however.
*Okay, it's not always a 1 digit number. You could roll a 10, but that's not any trickier to deal with.
>>47939560
i actually honestly had no idea that facebook was used for this. I guess I'm still in early 2000s mentality when it was more of a thing for private/obscure message boards.
Or Gaia Online. I had some good times there.
>>47934822
By the time I actually played D&D I had already played several other systems, some of which I disliked and some of which I loved despite their flaws. D&D l, however, managed to do practically everything I had learned to hate and none of the things I liked. Surprisingly enough, the end result was not better than the sum of its parts.
>>47935075
By RAW, a natural one ON AN ATTACK ROLL OR SAVE auto-misses/fails. Nothing else.
The ridiculous comedies of error that make such entertaining greentexts where a natural 1 causes a player to cut their own head off are based on terrible house rules.
>>47939180
That's just shitty GMing. I run Pathfinder, one of the systems that /tg/ seems to revile so much for having too much crunch, with my group and we've had entire sessions of pure roleplaying with no combat.
>>47934822
D&D isn't terrible, it's just grossly overrated. I'd chose a multitude of games before I'd play D&D, but I'll also never say no to D&D just because a group wants to play D&D.
To address your points:
Flat probability curves are there to make players second-guess their actions. You can get your character to a +5 or +8, meaning that on average they should succeed about 70-80% of thier rolls; depending on TN. However, because the d20 should roll every number 5% of the time you can never be certain if your character will or will not succeed. Ergo, you should be weighing all the possible consequences before taking any action that demands a roll. This is easily the most subjective flaw between these three, but it's isn't objectively wrong.
Save or lose is a complaint that could be applied to nearly every RPG system out there. Complaining that bad things happen to your character if you roll poorly at certain points of play is principally dumb. I don't really have a counter-argument here because that's not really a valid complaint.
"Caster Edition," is a two-sided coin. The idea that casters are OP compared to martials and skill-bots stems largely from people not understanding the base game, and/or trying to import rules from a multitude of splat books simultaneously. On the other hand I will agree with you if your argument is that D&D martials rarely feel as satisfying as casters. However, this has nothing to do with the class-balance,and more to do with the core combat mechanics of basically every edition of D&D being garbage. 4e, quite ironically, had some of the most solid base-mechanics there were, but then slathered shit on top in a misguided attempt to "give everyone something to do." The fallacy here being that each class should give the players fun things to do, and not the core mechanics themselves.
HP bloat stems from said core mechanic issues, but the 15min work day is a highly contestable point that could be a thread it's self.
>>47939696
>revile
>for having too much crunch
That's not even on the top 10 reasons people hate it.
>>47934822
I realized D&D was garbage when it was still my favorite even after trying out other medieval fantasy systems.I count pathfinder as D&D tho
>>47939772
Please, enlighten me.
>>47939889
Pathfinder is essentially a clone of DnD3.x with some house rules tacked on.
This means that most of the problems that apply to 3.x also apply to Pathfinder.
Caster supremacy is the big one - classes aren't properly balanced against each other at all, which makes the GM's job much harder in coming up with appropriate challenged that make everyone feel useful - otherwise you end up with this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
It also uses 'natural language', instead of DnD4e's superior rules templating (regardless of how you may feel about the rest of 4e).
Its adventure paths are often poorly playtested - the most egregious example being the 'Caravan' segment of Jade Regent, where it was clear the centrepiece mechanic of the campaign wasn't tested at all.
Much like DnD3e, there's an overload of skills that could have been condensed down.
Mechanics like CMB SEEM like an improvement at first glance, but because enemy CMD rises faster than player CMB, actually makes those maneuvers LESS useful.
And some people really hate the art of Wayne Reynolds.
I think Pathfinder can be great fun if you play it with only tier 3 or tier 4 classes, and the free SRD is great for making it really easy to do that... but if you're gonna do that, you might as well play a game designed that way from the ground up and just play DnD4e.
Picture is a comparison of natural language vs templated language, although on the left is 5e rather than Pathfinder.
>>47939917
Oh wow, you're like... eleven shades of retarded.
I'm glad I decided not to take you seriously.
>>47939942
I'm not the person you originally asked.
You also haven't offered any counterarguments. You could at least have picked SOMETHING.
The standard defense is to just say "my dumb friends refuse to play anything else". We've all been there. It's an acceptable fig leaf. Just lean into it.
>>47940011
And that's not the person who asked you in the first place. I am.
>>47940018
who could've guessed these issues would arise on an anonymous imageboard???
>>47940011
You're mistaken. You seem to think that you said something worth debating.
You might as well say "The sky is green, what's your counterargument?"
The standard "defense" is just to ignore you.
>>47939638
good fucking taste
>>47939917
They're balanced against each other in that most classes can offer a unique skillset. Although in some cases they do overlap and out perform one another they don't really invalidate each other either. For example a party consisting of a Rogue/Bard can still work. Even though they overlap on skillsets the idea of them covering what the other can't is still there.
The natural language complaint is valid one is valid.
You can't actually "play-test" adventure paths, it would be pointless. A lot of different types of GMs and groups exists, they're ultimately just templates.
I don't know about skills, I feel like they're fine.
Certain feat chains should be condensed though, particularly combat maneuvers/styles.
Actually most penalties that apply to BAB/AC also apply to CMB/CMD. FCMD is a thing.
I agree, Wayne Reynolds is shit.
Honestly though if you have a competent GM tiers won't matter much. There's no reason you can't run a game with a Wizard and Fighter in the same party. As far as Core goes most exploits have been removed/nerfed.
I was slowly getting to the point, but the real thing that made me realize it. Was when a summoner killed an army, that I did nothing too as I playing a martial.
>>47940285
The thing is, if you have a great GM working hard to make different tiers feel useful... imagine how great your game would be if they could put that effort into something else.
Some classes really DO invalidate others. For example, the Inquisitor outclasses the rogue, while still being weaker overall than the cleric.
And of course it's possible to playtest adventure paths. Encounters need to conform to CR math and expectations. In the specific case of the Jade Regent caravan, party is actually mostly irrelevant - the caravan itself is mathematically incapable of overcoming most of the threats it comes up against, when it's supposed to be kind of an upgrade-minigame.
>>47940285
>Honestly though if you have a competent GM tiers won't matter much.
If you have a competent GM you can havr fun with FATAL.
Although, I fail to see how a competent GM is going to be enough to bridge the gap that is between a warrior type who can't cast and a caster type who can warrior, unless he houserules like a mofo or ensures that the top tiers are unoptimized as heck while shoveling magic items that have "fighter only!" written on them at the fighter, but w/e.
>>47934822
>Implying all of this is are problems
>>47934822
When it took our GM weeks or even months of time to prep sessions since he wanted to spent a lot of time balance the high-level encounters, just to have them all become insanely unbalanced encounters anyways that were either ended by the PCs in one combat turn or turned into the PCs getting hopelessly destroyed.
>>47940392
I fail to see how even a shitty GM wouldn't be able to bridge the gap. Casters need magic to warrior, Warrior need magic to caster. It's not hard at all...
>>47940510
Okay, look: A Warpriest can, with a single spell, be basically on par with an equally optimized fighter for an entire fight.
He keeps getting spellslots over his carreer, along with all kinds of new abilities.
The only possible way a fighter can be more effective in some way than the warpriest, is if you have more fights a day than the WP has spellslots. Even at that point the WP is just a slightly worse fighter, and not outright useless.
Which should not happen past like, level 4-ish anyway. Any slots on top of that means that the warpriest has net gains on top of the fighter.
You can do this with most casters that are capable of martialing, I just wanted to illustrate with the most direct one. The cleric/druid that builds for it does it even better anyway.
>>47940374
It doesn't invalidate or really even Overlap the Rogue much from what I see. I assume you're talking about using splat-books or whatever to replicate the Rogues trap-finding/sneak attack/talents? But that would be an issue with the additional content not the core content.
Encounters do need to conform to CR math and expectations but CR and expectations won't be set in stone unless every GM/group plays exactly the same. If you really wanted you could take an adventure path meant for a party of level 1 and calibrate it to a party of level 5 etc. I don't know anything about Jade Regent but if you know the math for the caravan is off then there's no reason you can't/shouldn't fix it.
>>47940545
>The only possible way a fighter can be more effective in some way than the warpriest, is if you have more fights a day than the WP has spellslots.
Unless the fighter takes a backseat and is dealt literally 0 HP worth of damage over the day, that won't work. HP is the fighter's expendable resource, and unlike the casters, he straight up dies if he runs out of it.
>>47938988
>>47938978
>>47938939
Here you go.
>>47940545cont
What I'm trying to say is, if you look at the fighter and say his class features add up to 100%, then a warpriest without spells is at 75% fighter already, but then he has spells which make up way more than the remaining 25%.
Or like... if you feel like it, try making point costs for abilities of classes. Like, just compare fighter to barbarian maybe. Fighter is a class that has desperately little going for it without splats.
>>47940552
>>47940552
>I assume you're talking about using splat-books or whatever to replicate the Rogues trap-finding/sneak attack/talents? But that would be an issue with the additional content not the core content.
The rogue trapfinding shit isn't worth jack, and even if it was, that still only justifies a single level dip.
Sneak attack is still just a shitty damage buff. It's not a "role".
>>47940571
Wands of CLW mang. Also that's an "what if scenario" not something I've seen happen in play. We literally had a campaign that went down in like a week in-game time with about 3 days of action and casters running out never felt bad; except that time when the cleric didn't have the right spell prepared and a lich utterly demolished the fighter in melee.
>>47940545
Okay but nothing you said really addresses my point. You're affirming the Warpriest/Cleric/Druid uses magic to be a better combatant with a biased theory.
>>47940596
Right, so if they are a better combatant than the fighter, and they also get spells for out of combat on top of that AND they have more skill points and less MAD... where does that leave the fighter exactly?
I mean, you can make the argument that when the caster runs out of spells then it's the fighter's time to shine, but... is it? Without buffs, heals and control spells, the fighter also can't do his job. When the wizard and the cleric are out, does your fighter and rogue go ahead without them?
>>47940596
The problem is less "The caster can be a better fighter" and more "The fighter can't be a better caster."
That is, a cleric can, one day, be an epic control caster, and the next, be an epic tank, and the third, be an epic healer.
The fighter can, one day, be a pretty good fighter, the next day, be a pretty good fighter, and the third day, be a pretty good fighter.
>>47940578
As a GM I wouldn't allow a single spell that allowed a Warpriest to replicate another class's BAB, extra feats, weapon/armor proficencies. Not to mention there are alot of ways to remove that buff to challenge the warpriest.
And again you're heavily biased, from your logic nothing the Inquisitor has is worth jack and you may as well play a Cleric.
It's interesting how deep people have to dive into D&D to try and form a reasonable criticism. Most games can be picked apart with less than a tenth of the effort put into scrounging up some meager complaints, with most of them being little more than differences in opinion.
>>47940623
If you have to fix it, by definition, that means it's broken. Because things that aren't broken, don't need to be fixed. In case that wasn't clear.
>>47940642
Then all games are broken, and your definition is worthless.
>>47940623
>As a GM I wouldn't allow a single spell that allowed a Warpriest to replicate another class's BAB, extra feats, weapon/armor proficencies
He's got 75% of the BAB already, and the weapon/armor prof takes a single level dip (not that the WP needs them, since he can be proficient in any weapon anyway, and heavy armor is overrated as shit).
>And again you're heavily biased, from your logic nothing the Inquisitor has is worth jack and you may as well play a Cleric.
Yes and no, inquisitor at least has massive skills over cleric, although, if you want to powergame, the cleric is better. The rogue has really nothing over a Bard.
>>47940648
This is called the Nirvana fallacy.
There are levels of brokenness. A crack on a windshield is not at the same level as your car exploding when you turn the key.
>>47940648
I never claimed the entire game was broken. I'm actually personally quite fond of D&D. The problem's that the Fighter is broken, because it needs fixing.
>>47938978
>Basically, every hit that beats your AC is deadly by default. You spend HP to say "no it wasn't".
This right here. Hit points are points you spend to not get hurt when you get hit.
>>47940663
Perhaps you might want to take that beam out of your eye.
>>47940614
They're a "better" combatant so long as that spell you speak of is available though.
Without a caster the fighter and rogue still have options like UMD/Cohorts/Potions/etc.
Bridging the gap between them is still a matter of managing their access to magic which is pretty simple.
>>47940620
That is a valid complaint, and what tiers actually are. Still, the fighter who spends his wealth right can be an epic controlcaster/tank/healer/etc. But he would never really be as good as the Cleric if dispels came about.
Same thing can be said for the Cleric who buffs himself into a combat beast.
>>47940685
>>47940685
>Without a caster the fighter and rogue still have options like UMD/Cohorts/Potions/etc.
And so do the casters.
>Still, the fighter who spends his wealth right can be an epic controlcaster/tank/healer/etc
Okay, show me the epic control caster fighter.
>>47935704
>It doesn't matter what system is used. The game is what you make it.
>>47940685
In my experience, the problem with going, "Oh, the fighter can just get these shinies" is that, well, so can the wizard. And only allowing them to the fighter is extremely difficult to justify, in-setting/story, and tends to be hard to do without either admitting "Okay, the fighter is incompetent and I need to buff him up" or making the players annoyed because they think you're playing favorites.
For example, if the fighter gets Leadership at level 6 for an army of people who approve of his valor, what's stopping the wizard from getting it, and getting apprentices and people who approve of his great intelligence and power? And if the caster's a Sorcerer or a Cleric who both actually use their charisma, they even get more minions than the fighter does! And the cleric even makes more sense, since he's calling on his parishioners! Same problem with equipment. They both gain a lot from their magic items, but the casters start off higher up, and can leverage their magic items better by covering weaknesses with spells instead of using slots for them, or just by crafting.
>>47940642
And again it's broken because it accommodate everyone's needs. That's kind of what the GM is for, if it was fully functional then you wouldn't need one.
Just because something didn't work for you doesn't mean it didn't work for someone else. It's not a video-game, you shouldn't expect a uniform reception. What you should expect is to take notes on what does and what doesn't work for you and people who share your sentiments. Or play something else...
>>47940651
So without magic and multi-classing he's a shitty fighter. Got it.
A Rogue has massive skills over a Cleric too though. And arguably anything the bard can do the Rogue can as far as spells go. He can't replicate the performances but he's got his own skillset. But again your really missing the point of my posts man. There's still no reason you couldn't make a party consisting of a Bard, Inquisitor and Rogue play cooperatively with each other. Plenty of options and substitutions available to minimize the overlap between abilities and such.
>>47940677
Not sure I follow?
>>47940730
>the "the only way you're allowed to play is by RAW" attack
Basically, all you want to do is bitch about little things, and when someone says "Well, you can fix that really easily," you get upset because your entire argument is petty and inconsequential.
You're the guy looking at a giant system with so many great things about it, and hoping your nitpicking matters when most people easily patch or just ignore the molehills you're trying to build into mountains.
>>47940767
Oh, I'm not arguing that it can't be made to work. My argument is just that you can't just dismissively go, "Oh, but you can do this so it's not a problem." It is a problem because I had to do that. (In this case, ban fighters to incompetents, and order them to play a Tome of Battle character instead.)
>Without magic
Yes. The magic user has problems when not using magic. Since he's a magic user, and a good amount of his abilities revolve around that, this is like saying "Without limbs, the fighter is bad at fighting, got it." That's... true, but somewhat missing the point, don't you think?
>>47940767
>So without magic and multi-classing he's a shitty fighter. Got it.
I guess some people will just read what they want to read.
Also, good thing he HAS magic then, to elevate him above the shitty fighter status.
> And arguably anything the bard can do the Rogue can as far as spells go.
I... what?
The rogue can cast 6th level bard spells?
You mean like... UMD? Something the bard is explicitly better at (being a CHA class).
I'm also not sure what exactly the rogue would be covering in that party. In combat, both the bard and inquisitor are just as good or better. Out of combat the bard has massively more skill ranks thanks to bardic knowledge, any weaknesses he has he can shore up with spells, or even boost with spells way higher than a rogue could.
Like, the rogue just feels redundant in that setup. You CAN play with that group, but there's little point to it.
It'd be better if you grabbed an alchemist and maybe a hunter or a warpriest and you'd get the perfect t3 team.
Of course, this is without optimizing. Optimized URogue (if we talk about PF) could get close to bards, although it'd be still kinda redundant.
>>47940715
Right, but you proposed a scenario when they weren't there so....
Look for a fighter with UMD? You should do you own homework really.
>>47940741
Yes, the Fighter is far less versatile and lacks inherent access to magic. But if he's "incompetent" at being a fighter that's not the class's fault. It doesn't build itself and it doesn't make it's own encounters. Something happened between you and the PC.
I'd imagine if anyone took leadership the idea would be to have their followers/cohorts compliment their abilities and cover their weaknesses. Magic items are important to every class but they take time to make. Why wouldn't any of them have crafting cohort/followers?
>>47940836
Yes, and what happened is that we were both new, and he wanted to play the class that hits things, and then took abilties that revolved around hitting things... and was then incompetent at pretty much everything. The Warblade, on the other hand, made it pretty much impossible to fuck up being a fighter, and since it uses Int, had a bunch of skills as well. There's a reason I just tell my new players who want to be a fighter, "No. Play a Warblade instead." And the problem with Leadership is that it's not limited to fighters. The fighter who takes it either tends to get overshadowed by his more effective cohort, or has a cohort who's even more useless. The wizard who takes it either has someone helping with buffs and debuffs, or has someone who doesn't mind getting overshadowed, because he's an NPC.
>>47940836
>Look for a fighter with UMD? You should do you own homework really.
Are you serious?
First off, you made your claim, so you should back it up. Second, if "fighter with UMD" is "epic control caster" the bar is so fucking low a commoner could jump it.
...
I mean, he literally could. He could just put 1 point into UMD every level and be an "epic control caster", by your definition.
>>47939768
>got sick climb bonuses
>gonna climb up a ladder
>get natural 1
>my character falls and breaks his sound
>Is now in a wheel chair from the neck and down
Great system.
>>47940791
>My argument is just that you can't just dismissively go, "Oh, but you can do this so it's not a problem." It is a problem because I had to do that.
Sounds like GMing is a problem for you. Game Design is kind of of one of your duties, in addition to Directing, Refereeing, Storytelling, Hosting, etc.
Also the example I provided only reinforced my points posted in >>47940510 and >>47940685. The fighter would be up shit creek without magic too, just not as much. I'd imagine the Warpriest would be in trouble without his limbs as well, I'm still not seeing where the gap between a Warpriest and Fighter can't be bridged.
>>47940808
So at this point you're just throwing semantics and theory at me, I haven't really read a valid argument to what I said about not being able to bridge the gap between the two classes. So nothing you've posted so far is something I want to read really.
Not to mention the Warpriest is a hybrid class between fighter and cleric anyway kind of invalidating the entire point of your original response.
>>47940919
Woops meant spine!
>>47940933
Except that fixing it was easy once I knew that the problem even existed. Every game after that went fine... because every game after that I told him, "Don't play a fighter, play a Warblade." And during the same game, the wizard, cleric, and ranger were having a ton of fun.
>>47940875
I am serious you wanted to see one so you go find it yourself, I'm not your maid. It is not my fault you missed the later part of my post while fabricating the conclusion I suggested a Fighter with 1 Rank in UMD is an epic control caster.
At least with the Rogue thing you're actually addressing what I said. But just because you don't see the point doesn't mean others won't. Someone might actually think going all dex to damage and sneak attacking is what they want. That hardly counts as invalidation in regard to the Rogue or UchRogue man.
>>47940957
And that's great, you did your job as a GM.
But it's kind of presumptuous to say the bridge can't be gapped though. And in turn implying the classes aren't balanced somehow.
Because despite it's shortcomings at doing anything else the fighter is still pretty damn good at fighting. And alot of people will play them despite their well-known shortcomings and more powerful alternatives. That could be said for Pathfinder or DnD as a whole too but y'know.
>>47941066
I have never claimed that the gap can't be bridged (though I'll freely admit that I have no idea how I would for a fighter, which is why I just banned it for the incompetents). My problem is that I need to in the first place, and when the GM is inexperienced and has no idea what he's doing, he won't know how (and I didn't back then). The problem's that the classes really aren't balanced. The fighter can fight adequately, and can do other stuff if given a magic item that lets them. With optimization, they can even fight really well, agreed. Other classes can fight more than adequately, can do that other stuff even without the item, and can do it even better with the item. And with optimization, they can do all that amazingly.
So a fighter can be brought up to higher levels of effectiveness, agreed. It just takes too much effort for too little payoff, and the cleric who's putting no real effort into it beyond reading what his spells do is still going to be about as or more useful than you are at that point.
I hate it for the same reasons OP does, along with things like
>The arbitrary number treadmill that is levels
>Strict class distinctions as opposed to a more open ended system
>AC as dodge rather than as damage reduction
>Rolling twice to hit and deal damage instead of two people rolling against each other or one person rolling once
Which other hip systems like Shadowrun, WoD, ect. don't do for very good reasons. D&D may not be able to discard those or else risk losing its identity, but those mechanics should have remained in the 70's.
>>47939508
>>47939462
>>47939262
Fuck off, I explicitly said that I think the rules are there to prevent the whole exercise from turning into freeform role-playing.
I just happen to think that immersion and role-playing is the core of it all. This means that I think "but my character would do this" is a perfectly valid way to decide what to do, because that's the whole point. What would it be like to be this person, in this setting? What happens when we put these different people together?
If you act out of character "for the sake of the game" you're essentially meta-gaming because you want to see the next dungeon or whatever, in which case MMOS are a great choice for you. Role-playing is improv acting with rules to let people interact without having to shake hands and just decide mutually what happens. If you just use it as dungeoncrawler allstars sim, or as a way to let the GM live out his author fantasies while your job is just to knock down the mooks he lines up, I think you're out of touch.
I love good rules. I love good rpgs with rules that tie in strongly with the theme they are created around, because you're choosing what type of game you want to play based on what kind of flavour and stories you want.
But D&D is just a kitchensink system with way too many rules for everything, played by people who have lost sight of the reason you play role-playing games to begin with.
Pro tip, it's not for the sick combos or dungeon operating and if that's your reason, good for you, but please realize that you're essentially eating ice cream with a knife when there are tons of perfectly good spoons out there for you to use.
>>47941026
> It is not my fault you missed the later part of my post while fabricating the conclusion I suggested a Fighter with 1 Rank in UMD is an epic control caster.
Never said he had 1 rank. I said 1 rank/level. Fighter at best can swing.... 1 rank/level+a feat for like, +2.
Which is the same as a commoner.
I mean, when you say
>Still, the fighter who spends his wealth right can be an epic controlcaster/tank/healer/etc
And then when I ask you show me, coming back with "look for fighter with UMD" is fucking ridiculous.
Even IF he passes all the checks, IF he spends all his money on control spell items (wands/scrolls and other shit) at best he can be as effective as a wizard with the absolute bare minimum INT, since UMD items don't scale off of your stats, making them ridiculously shit for control spells. And also VERY expensive if you don't go with minimum CL items.
I don't ask you to do my homework, I ask you to point anything out that could make this viable, because one of us has to be missing something really huge here.
>>47934822
i realized i just dont like dungeon crawlers.
>>47941135
>played by people who have lost sight of the reason you play role-playing games to begin with.
And this is why people can't talk with you. You enter the discussion with arrogant assumptions, develop an insulting caricature you try to group everyone into, and still somehow expect people to take you seriously and to reply to you in earnest.
You're a fuck.
>>47941718
You have summarized my feelings adequately.
I wanted to actually write a reply to that post, but seriously, fuck that guy.
Doesn't even get a fucking (you) from me.
>>47941121
Okay so I don't like 3.X much either but
>Shadowrun
>rolling less
What the actual fuck are you talking about.
>>47941763
I think he means that the rolling is done simultaneously, hence taking up the same amount of time as 1 person rolling once. Though you kinda need buckets for SR, so it's sort of a weird point.
You could just roll your hit and damage at the same time in D&D as well, so... yeah.
>>47936346
>non-abstract approach to wealth: because everyone loves playing accountant!
I played a game for a long time that abstracted wealth into an "Item" skill that you had to level your skill points. You just had an infinite supply of money, but it was capped in what you actually had. Kinda like Link's Rupee purse, except it's always full to the max amount but you can't buy things above your purses max amount.
It was fucking cancer. It led to players being unable to receive payment or reward for anything they did and helped make the game world feel like a cardboard fluffworld. The only benefit it gives is letting the hypothetical inbred mongrel fucking hick player who never passed kindergarden and can barely count on his fingers to not have to keep track of his money.
Abstracted wealth is BAD. It serves no purpose. Keep track of your fucking rupees. Fuck you.
>>47941873
There are levels between "wealth is a skill" and "you must count every single fucking gold coin".
A simple solution would have been that long lasting rewards like titles/land/etc. give permanent bonus to their "wealth" skill. One time rewards would be one time bonuses they can use up (like a potion of bulls strength except for your wealth).
That's it. Still don't have to count fucking gold coins, but you actually represent stuff in the world.
>>47940919
Climbing a ladder doesn't require a roll and rolling a 1 on a skill check doesn't kill you.
>>47940919
> Applying critical failures to skill checks
> Rolling to climb a latter
3/10, you tried a little
>>47941926
Somewhat ironically, Skull and Shackles, a Pathfinder Adventure path, introduced a pretty interesting and functional wealth system with Plunder.
>>47941763
But most of that is still in later versions too. If people like that then it is fine, but most of those mechanics aren't modern by any stretch of the imagination.
how you gonna be a wizard with 10 intelligence
maybe play 3d6 down the line, and you'll appreciate the fighter class
ofcourse when you can just decide that your character has 20 int and 7 cha, the wizard is gonna be fucking broken
but for an average character (10-11 in each stat unless your an old fucker) your better off swinging a sword than trying to use magic
>>47942059
That's kind of the problem though. The Players Handbook classes shouldn't need you to be some NPC level stats to be valid. That's for NPC classes, like the commoner or the warrior. If your best argument for a class is "Well, it's good for people who weren't good enough to get into another class" then why is that a class for players?
>>47942059
You'd be better off as a druid whose animal companion now outpowers all the fighters in the party.
>>47940919
Except that's not how that works ya git. There is no auto fail on skill checks. There are no critical fumbles except in optional rules or house rules. Rolling a 1 on an attack roll is simply an auto miss. Rolling a 1 on a save is the only other auto fail, and that might also be an optional rule.
All the boogeyman stories about 5% of the time your character screams "potato" and lops off their own head is propogated by the /tg/ complaints department. D&D is not that bad, especially newer editions. Read the book again and realize how much of the bullshit is shitty house rules.
It's hard sifting through all this darkness...
>>47935351
When you understand the available content then your characters will always be mathematically powerful whether or not that was your goal. What people like about DnD is how creative you can be with character builds and they seldom go out of their way to make them shitty.
>>47941939
>>47941944
We always roll for climbing ladders.
Usually its a DC 15 or 20.
Ah, another thread where everyone bitches about the most popular system and says nothing on what systems supposedly do it better.
>>47942081
well maybe you shouldn't play on demigod mode, some players like to start off grabbing their fathers rusty sword and killing some diseased kobolds in a cave, in that campaign a wizard sucks because he can't prepare any spells, or maybe he got really lucky with his int roll but got a constitution of 3
but yes i agree that with the popular high point buy system that most people use with pathfinder, some classes are much better
>>47942140
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon!
>>47942155
Hold on, are you implying that the standard level 1 with adequate stats is demigod mode? Because that's hilariously false in 3rd, in 4th it doesn't really matter because they're all the same, and I have no idea in 5th, because I've never played that, but I imagine it's much the same as 3rd. Heck, the NPC Elite Array is still enough for a good wizard, and that's, well, the NPC array of stats.
>>47942158
Ha, look at you. Looks like being called a bitch-anon has really gotten under your skin, eternally triggered bitch-anon.
>>47942158
Have you stopped getting triggered by seeing D&D on a D&D board, ETBA?
>>47939574
>And fuck rolling 2d12
Can we please stop pretending like base-12 isn't objectively better than base 10 numbering system?
>>47935075
If you're really so good, you'll have advantage and then it's a 0.25% chance of failure.
>>47942119
Then you're, quite objectively, playing the game incorrectly; exceptionally wrong. Most editions have something towards the beginning, or around the skills; somewhere in the book, that deliberately stats you don't roll checks for simple tasks.
>>47934822
I've only played 5e and I wouldn't call it garbage but, yeah, there's other systems I find vastly more enjoyable.
>>47942119
>>47942941
Im not even kidding. My new group dont really do it but for severial years almost everything we did was DC 15 or 20 and required some kinda save, i think it is because our first GM ever just did that.
>>47942678
you're fucking retarded. it's crits, not pass/fail.
>>47942968
>A normally commoner can only climb a ladder 25% of the time
Did you use this example to tell them they were retarded?
I would put climbing a ladder at a DC -2. Only way to fuck it up is with penalties.
>>47942192
>>47942212
How does it feel? Getting cucked by the SJW pandering shitshow of an edition that's 5e?
5e will finally kill the shitty D&D you grew invested in by embracing what D&D was meant to be; the RPG gateway drug instead of the brain rotting shitcrack that's 3.PF. Your community is rotting from the inside thanks to the sjw cucks at paizuri and your game is already less popular than 5e is with a grand total of 4 fucking books.
And when they realize however accessible the system is that it's shallow as fuck, they'll look beyond to find other games; they will try Dungeon World, and DCC, and FATE and Savage Wordls, and GURPS and whatever they like, they'll even try 4e, but nobody, nobody will fucking play your edition, not because it's shit (which it truly is), but because it'd mean having to play with pimpledick losers who can't move past the incredibly flawed edition they got emotionally invested in fucking fifteen years ago, and their dossier of "totally cool" houserules for their oh so original, donut steel settings with stats for all kinds of anthropomorphic races.
It'll be only you, and your "friends" in the basement, stench so thick not even your single working mother, who works herself to the death and cries into her pillow while you are slurping mountain dew and sucking the wizard's cock (not you, of course, but one of your totally original anthro NPCs), over what a failure her cuntspawn became.
Then one by one they'll try, actually try other RPGs and realize what you couldn't, that 3.PF is an irredeemably shitty system that only retarded autists play.
You'll be left alone, and decide to mount all your achievements in this life; all the dossiers with the NPCs and all the books and splats you bought and printed for yourself.
>>47943185
You build the fucking tower of babel, hoping to find Monte Cook in his ivory tower, so you can suck his cock personally. But he casts his gaze upon your work and says "3rd edition was a mistake"; the tower crumbles under your feet, and as reentry burns your body like fat fucking bacon, tears roll down your cheecks and you cry your final fucking lie, fooling no one, not even yourself
>"it's the most popular system!"
>>47943185
you've gotta hide your bait if you're gonna post a textwall of trolling.
>>47943185
Oh, look. It's ETBA, and he's off his meds.
>>47934822
You knows, I must thank you /tg/. Here I am, thinking about finding a game online so I can finally play instead of run. Every time I do, though, I come here to /tg/ and read a thread or two. Reading the hate and vitral spewed out at something as simple as game choice really helps me kick the urge and get back to running a game for people in TL.
>>47942119
>>47942968
People can play and enjoy things however they see fit, but I hate playing RPGs with this kind of shit aforementioned.
In practice, skill challenges and rolling dice CAN create tension (and push the game forward, of course), but it's unnerving how desperately GMs twist mundane actions into these false dichotomies.
For example, "make this sandwich perfectly or get seriously wounded somehow" adds nothing to the experience if there is 0 narrative justification for an ambiguous result. Parts of me laugh at those "crit fail" stories but then I cringe a bit when the in-game events reduce the image of a character into a clown (assuming the character isn't clinically retarded).
If there's one thing I successfully pulled out of the Fate Core rulebook, it's the advice that if there's a roll, something should happen upon success or failure--"nothing happens" is a very unfulfilling outcome.
>>47943185
>And when they realize however accessible the system is that it's shallow as fuck, they'll look beyond to find other games;
This was true for me, but I've found that one of my friends has grown particularly attached to the system and insists that it's better than all other games and is the best. He doesn't want to try anything else.
>muh elegance
>muh simplicity
>le refined grace
He even praises the huge hp values and pointless skill system as good game design.
>>47934977
5e has the 15 minute workday thing too.
>>47938978
>Hit points are plot armour.
If they are plot armor, why mages have less plot armor than melee classes
>>47944881
As someone who hates 5e, I can tell you this is false, because you can only benefit from a long rest once per 24 hours.
5e's problems are mainly the following three things:
1. Class/archetype balance is still poor - average damage per day is balanced but almost nothing else is.
2. Monster CR is poorly figured, especially with regards to saving throws
3. It's really boring and uninspiring.
If 5e kept the same class design as 4e (simplified, naturally) then I'd be fine with it and could deal with issues 2 and 3.
>>47945869
To reinforce the genre expectation of wizards being vulnerable and beefy guys being able to take more hits. It's a gamey concept, yes, but that's because DnD, like all RP*G*s, is a game.
>>47943185
This is the most embarassing thing I've seen an idiot write in probably six months or so.
>>47945948
I don't like 5e much and even I'm embarrassed to have that guy agree with me.
Wait, are people in this thread saying that 4e was written in a good format and people aren't tearing into them? Can I say that I actually liked how 4e was formatted and not get chastised?
>>47948005
Most of those have either stopped caring or gone.
I love 5e, 4e is formatted better.
>>47948005
Didn't you hear?
If you like anything that someone else doesn't, you are slack jawed moron who should kill themselves because their fee fees are hurt?
>>47943185
this is a great post
When I tried lady blackbird.
>>47949223
You whore.
>>47941066
>Because despite it's shortcomings at doing anything else the fighter is still pretty damn good at fighting
No, they're really not. They can do HP damage and that's it, every single other thing they can theoretically do is set up to fuck them over for specializing in them.
>>47942059
>maybe play 3d6 down the line, and you'll appreciate the fighter class
You mean I'll appreciate the Druid, who sidesteps the issue entirely while laughing at the Fighter for being unable to do his job because of shitty stats that are now completely eclipsed by a level 1 animal companion IN A GAME THAT ASSUMES YOU HAVE AT LEAST 16 IN YOUR PRIMARY STAT, retard.
>>47942155
>HURR DURR let's use a stat generation system that was meant for a game where stat modifiers were much rarer and the game was built to be playable with 10 in all stats - but let's use it in a game where stats are exponentially more important and the game is balanced around higher stat numbers than 10!
How much alcohol did your mother drink while she was pregnant with you?
>>47934822
>Accessibility - (books are easy to find, stuff is available online for free, legally, fit stone editions).
>Player base - D&D is the easiest game to find players for.
>Settings - so many settings, many of which are quite good.
>Adventures - Lots adventures, again, some very good.
Easier to get a d&d group together than Shadowrun or GURPS.
And d&d might not be perfect, but there are worse games.
My biggest problem is that everytime I play with someone, I feel like I'm roleplaying a mentally retarded man who is just flailing about.
It's like, every action has a 1/20 chance to outright fail and most will be pretty much the same amount of failure if you roll below a certain threshhold like 10~.
And then there's the missing
And then there's the "You can't do that because you don't have the whatever stat" even though it's something as little as "Walk forward without tripping and dying."
I probably have shit GMs. Shouldn't I feel like I'm playing my character and not shepherding some retard like a voice in the back of their head?
>>47949958
You definitely have shit GMs
>>47938978
why does bandaging someone restore hp if they're not actually wounded
>>47951218
Why would bandaging someone restore HP on the basis of them being wounded?
You know bandages don't actually close or heal the wound in any meaningful way, right? They're literally just there to keep dirt and turds out of it and make a vague attempt at keeping the blood in.
Applying bandages to someone, under an HP-as-actual-wounds system, would do nothing immediately except prevent the wound from getting worse.
>>47951218
Restores morale.
>>47938978
This sort of thing just plain bothers me, because of things like.
>What does magical healing even do?
>What the fuck is armor class supposed to represent if HP accounts for dodging anyways
>How the fuck does someone just take a Disintegrate to the face despite not being inherently tougher than other people?
I mean, I guess it makes sense in the same world where if you chant the right words (an incantation taking less than six seconds, by the way) and wave your fingers the right way, you summon a fireball, but you can only do this so often and unless you spend a bazillion years to learn it you can't, and you apparently don't have to make a deal with supernatural beings at all, because magic is all around you but only people like you can tap into it?
Seriously, D&D collapses the second you think about it too hard, which I guess is why most people don't.
>>47938978
>Instead, it might mean that you ducked just in time, or braced it totally with your shield - but it took a lot of your energy/luck/whatever, and you know that it took a lot out of you.
And if you're a high level character, it might take you weeks to gain back you energy? That's a stretch.
>Literally every DnD edition agrees on this point.
That may be the case, but it's a rationalization of a mechanic that doesn't make much sense. It's like trying to translate the workings of Pac Man into real life terms. Hit points don't make much sense as meat points, but neither do they make much sense as fatigue points.
>>47951253
>>47951288
why do on-hit effects like knockback or con-save vs. spider venom exist if attacks don't actually hit
why doe I take damage every turn for a minute if someone hits me with alchemist fire
if a giant monster swallowed me and I start taking acid damage from it's stomach am I not being digested
I recognize that this is a bait thread that's not really worth going through, but the OP did cause me to have a thought.
I'm not a fan for the d20 system, I'd much rather other systems and have greatly enjoyed a one shot or short term game for quite a few other systems, but when it comes to long term campaigns and the people I would be acting with, the d20 campaign groups were the least insufferable.
Maybe it's just on my side, who knows.
>>47951489
>if a giant monster swallowed me and I start taking acid damage from it's stomach am I not being digested
You're not actually being digested at first, I guess. You're just really bummed out about being swallowed.
Or maybe you never got swallowed but are experiencing existential angst over the possibility of being swallowed. And your teammates aren't cutting you out of the monster's stomach to save you, but cheering you up by explaining that they could cut you out if the monster had swallowed you. Upon hearing this convincing tale, the monster concedes defeat, becoming as good as dead from your perspective as he wanders off never to be seen again, leaving you with his treasure. And it's not the monster's pelt you sell to the merchant; instead, you are telling a story about how luxurious and valuable the pelt would've been and the merchant gives you not gold but encouragement that boosts your mood, increasing your mercantile skills so that you can do more with less..
>>47934822
Congratulations, you've shitposted the thousandth copy of this topic into existence! Hope you enjoy beating this fucking dead horse!
Seriously, man, some people like D&D, some like Pathfinder, some like Shadowrun, some like the 40k RPGs. Just accept that sometimes, you're not going to be able to find a common ground with someone in terms of gaming and that you two don't need to fight over it. You just have to respect that some people are comfortable with D&D and make it work.
Except for 5e. Fuck 5e.
>>47951468
you've gotta remember that things that abstract are carried over from od&d. where strength determines if you strike something, not how much damage you do, because strength is abstract. it's not just how much you can lift but a measure of all of your weapon skill.
>inb4 weapon proficiency
it didn't exist till later.
>>47951798
>Defending Pathfinder and dissing 5e in the same post.
"Some people like to eat manure; just accept it. But fuck asparagus! That shit is nasty!"
>>47951753
>Burning to death submerged in lava
>20d6 points per round
>Step out of lava
>10d6 damage per round for 1d3 rounds
>~40d6 damage, average 140 damage
>Level 20 fighter has 10+19d10+approx 40 hp (Con 14)
>Approx 154 HP
>14 HP left?
>"Man, I really miss my ex-wife. I mean, really."
Dude, HP as plot armor is like the JAWS voodoo shark of D&D. Attempting to explain why some things are the way they are just makes them even more nonsensical.
I'm just going to stick with: It was originally designed as a war game, so it sometimes just makes more sense to treat characters as balls of stats.
>>47951852
Really, you want to do this? Alright, lets look at the myth that the 3.x game had the worse of the spellcaster supremacy and why it's actually 5e. Specifically, lets look at the average level one cleric and see what's wrong with this list. Tell me why a level 1 cleric casting a fucking Inflict Wound spell deals 3d10 necrotic damage while Cure Wounds only heals 1d8? Why does Guiding Bolt deal 4d6 and you can fire it from 120 ft without penalty, along with it giving your team an advantage on the next attack against them? Why does Sacred Flame have a range of 60 ft and fucks you on a failed Dex throw for 1d8 radiant damage? That's not even adding in the scaling of damage if you cast a spell at a higher level.
Nothing that the wizard or cleric can do in Pathfinder at level 1 can match the killing potential of a cleric in 5e at level, and guess what, the cleric in 5e can actually defend himself fairly well unlike a wizard who gets fucked for wearing armor. Guess what, you cuck, you just replaced the wizard superiority for cleric superiority. Have fun taking a potential 30 damage from a level one spell without a critical.
>>47951966
So there was this episode of classic Doctor Who, where he winds up on a spaceship with men supposedly abducted from different periods of Earth's past. You've got an ancient Greek, a Mayan, a Mandarin and an Aboriginal Australian. As usual, everybody can converse with the Doctor and his companions without difficulty in modern English (with British accents). This was before the days of "the TARDIS" translates, so it's just something you ignore and move on. But nobody could understand the Aboriginal dude's language. And I'm like: "No! Quit calling attention to the issue! You're making things so much worse!"
>>47951985
Despite slightly preferring 5e to 3.5 (less autistic number crunching), I have to agree with you, to be honest.
I said it when 5e first came out, and I'll say it again: At will damage orisons were 5e's biggest mistake, excpet maybe taking out martial dice from all but one base subtype and making every other subtype that gets them garbage.
>Muh DPS is not like the Fighter's
Wow, it's almost as if the class designed to do damage is supposed to fucking do damage.
WOTC hasn't learned shit, and it's never going to learn shit, not after it tanked 4e.
I'm trying to find a fantasy equivalent that people enjoy and want to learn so I don't have to deal with this crap ever again.
>>47952092
So lets agree to this.
>Pathfinder's problem
Fucking numbers, man. I will admit, unless the newbie is a okay with math, don't introduce them to tabletop with Pathfinder (desu, D&D's probably a bad idea in general to introduce someone to tabletop with) because the numbers will kill them. Do 4e if you want to introduce someone to tabletop using D&D, or better yet, use a different style of system because it can be a headache.
>5e's problem
Main problem is the whole caster thing (there are other mechanical I don't care for, but I can't gripe there) though I'm also pretty against it due to one of my former group of friends turning asshole against both 4e and Pathfinder as soon as it came out. I don't like 4e as much as Pathfinder, but I can play it as a middle ground. Sadly, my former friends decided it was no 5.e or no.e.
Essentially, I just don't like the inherent superiority and smugness that a lot of its players have. It's a fucking system, does it get the job done for facilitating a storytelling experience? Yes? Okay then, good for it, now shut the fuck up about it, you answered an ad for a Pathfinder game, not a fucking 5e game.
Sorry if that comes off as pretty bitchy or preachy, but god, I just... I really don't like 5e's players. Just to make it clear, I gave 5e a chance when it came out but I just couldn't play it for some of the bullshit in it. If you like, fine. Just understand that I like vastly prefer Pathfinder and don't insistent on comparing the two in my presence. Some light conversation about it, maybe, but make constant comments during the game solely about how something is better in 5e or in any other game in general. It invites a loss of focus on the narrative you're trying to write.
When 4chan told me, obviously. Thanks 4chan, you're the leading authority on knowing everything ever.
>>47952240
You can get away with being a broken if you're rules-light. The GM is going to improvise enough that it won't matter too much. You can get away with being a bit broken if you're rules-medium. Maybe shit isn't perfect, but if the system is quick and easy enough, folks can overlook that (and there will still probably be some level of improvisation to counterbalance problems). But if you're rules heavy and broken, that's just plain unacceptable. What the fuck is the point of all those extra rules for if they don't even get things right? So I'm more forgiving of 5e's flaws than Pathfinder's.
>>47952296
Which rules do you mean? If they're the ones that are just there to add on if you want to add them on, then don't use them (like Mass Combat and Kingdom Building rules. Fuck those things, I don't want another sheet to manage. Sadly, the same 'fuck it' policies applies to a lot of stuff in Ultimate Intrigue and I'd been looking forward to that book ;-;).
>>47952240
You're a whiny, dribbling cunt, who likes to eat literal dogshit, is what you are.
If you actually believe any of that horseshit about caster supremacy being worse in 5e over fucking pathfinder, go into the 5e thread.
Let's see how many nanoseconds it takes until you're fucking laughed out.
>>47953319
You sound like a bigger cunt than him.
>>47953338
People spewing verbal diarrhea brings out the worst in me, what can I say.
>>47953319
Are we talking about the same retards that refuse to believe that there are any problems with 5E and shit the bed the second homebrew comes up? Nothing they say is worth anything.
>>47951985
>the cleric in 5e can actually defend himself fairly well unlike a wizard who gets fucked for wearing armor. Guess what, you cuck, you just replaced the wizard superiority for cleric superiority.
This is pretty disingenuous, because the 5e wizard also gets fucked for wearing armor, and the 3.x cleric does not. It's "caster supremacy," not "wizard supremacy," wizards are always just used as the example - clerics and druids are way worse.
>muh damage
I don't remember what Color Spray did in 3.5, but in PF Color Spray effectively removes all enemies in a 15ft cone from combat for 5-10 rounds. Compare to 5e, where only a certain amount of HP worth of enemies (starting with the least and going up) are hit with a fairly steep malus for one round, 5e is a lot more tame.
There's still caster supremacy, to be sure, but in my experience wizards can't trivialize every encounter they meet and require some amount of thought to do so on the ones they can, compared to 3.PF where you toss Sleep into a room and the fight's over.To be honest I'm okay with some amount of caster supremacy, as long as they're not so much better that they render other classes worthless.
>>47935289
Mutants and Masterminds is like dnd but fun. Granted it's not about picking the most mathematically powerful character and more just making your vision for a character
>>47934822
Yeah, everyone knows D20 +-D3 is the future, duh...
>>47934822
I started with dnd, then moved on to try some new systems. I soon realized that the questions dnd forced me to ask myself and the GM were sucking out the shared sense of excitement that made me love roleplaying in the first place. I was always asking myself "Can my character do this fun, interesting thing?" instead of just rolling with it and keeping an eye on GM's yes' and no's. I also think dnd and it's splat and homebrews are too comfy for some players to go and try other things.
Oh, and I always hated the way combat was treated like in JRPGs. Roll initiative, fade to battle screen, take your turns. It's a strategical minigame that always fucks with the action, pacing and world consistency.
>>47951985
>muh level 1
Pathfinder fans are the worst. Pathfinder is garbage at level one, and by the time it's not garbage your wizards are flying around and summoning lions.
Even at level 1, sleep and color spray are objectively the best attacks in the game and a strength based cleric or druid is just as effective as a fighter.
>>47943185
SJW pandering? Why, because there's a black dude on it?
>>47957293
No, because it has one single sidebar saying that you can be whatever special snowflake gender you want.
Meanwhile, Pathfinder has gay trans asexual genderqueer non-whites as the majority of good and helpful NPCs and straight white males as almost exclusively evil in nearly every AP and no one ever calls them out on it.
>>47957378
Don't forget how some NPCs in one module were literally nothing more than "They're fags". That's all there is to them. SJW shit like that makes me an angry faggot.
I think D&D is a great way to get new people around the table. It isn't my go to RPG when playing with my friends who are familiar with games. As far as getting somebody into trying a game for the first time, 5e really seems to be the most intuitive and streamlined, especially for larger groups.
>>47934822
>>flat probability curves>hit point bloat>save or lose
Never understood this.
>>47943185
I don't play D&D but where did it touch you?
>>47942119
Why don't you roll balance when you walk for every step you make (DC 15-20) ?
>>47957402
Is that the AP where they dedicate something like a page of text to describing that two characters are in a homosexual relationship?
>>47942119
... You realize that climbing a knotted rope is DC 5, right? You're claiming that climbing a ladder is something like 2-3 times harder than climbing a knotted rope.
>>47953692
>I can't actually argue against them, so I'll shittalk and avoid!
That's the spirit.
True excellence in understanding roleplaying games is realizing that every system is garbage in its own way, becoming cognizant of this, and learning to play in such a way that this garbage becomes just a quirk.
>>47934864
But BESM is great if you're not a complete dickhead.
>>47958337
>playing an anime role-playing game
You're already a dickhead at that point.
>>47939041
The difference between "I want to build a character who utilises the item [large hammer]" and "I want a character who swings a large hammer" is practically nonexistant, I don't see where you draw a meaningful line in the sand to declare that one is a character and the other is a mechanical build, when they're both the exact same concept.
>>47958563
The brackets obviously make his point for him, anon.
>>47943185 >>47943203 Underrated.
>>47958452
>not being able to see the basic underpinnings of a generic system
You're not just a dickhead, you're also an idiot.
>>47943185
>>47943203
Is this copypasta or did you just make it? Because it's pretty good shitposting, I like it.
Is it unethical to give your character more attribute points than normal because they're supposed to be an exceptional individual?
Example: my Monk is exceptionally intelligent, but also quite strong and dexterous. The intelligence is genetic and inherent, but the strength and dexterity were gained through training. It is also such that their constitution and perception wouldn't be consequently crippled. If anything, these attributes would also be pretty strong.
I guess the system gets really retarded if you just houserule in superhuman characters. I don't know what to think. It seems fine from an RP perspective but cheesy from a gameplay perspective.
>>47958946
Yes, cheating and giving yourself more points is unethical, dumbass.
>>47958946
The way I always run it is, if you can justify it, you can do it, but you have to be consistent.
If your "perk" is a little too "perky," I'll ask you to pick two negative things to balance it out. e.g., my characer has superhuman strength, but he's terrified of spiders and has a stutter.
>>47959002
I don't want to dump stats though.
Ozymandias can't exist because to be so strong and fast he would have to be a dumb barbarian, right?
>>47959041
No, Ozy would be in a game where you calculate stats differently, you stupid sack of shit.
Like M&M, where all costs come from the same pool.
>>47959041
Ramses II? Nah, was a regularly built dude.
I started playing D&D when 3.5 was at the height of its popularity. New splats every few weeks, it felt like, and my group was playing at least 3 different games a week.
This was around the time that EVERYONE was trying to homebrew their favorite series into a d20 format.. and when that started happening, I really started to notice the glaring flaws in the system.
Some classes got an assload of skills
The six attributes were never really used cleverly..
Having a high dex score more or less meant you ruled the entire damned game. High Str was nice too. Everything else? Well, they had their niche uses, but only if you struggled to play a game where murdering everything wasn't an option, the system came down to a handful of dice rolls.
Either you succeed with ease, or you don't and you just roll again. There was never any tension or any reason to attempt something that you couldn't just breeze through.
>This cliff is a really hard climb, so you'll need to get some good gear and..
>Nevermind. Bill just rolled a natural 20 and has +15 to climb.
It's just such a wonky system. It doesn't feel like a roleplaying game by design and it's rules are so fucking shit for combat that the best way to play was to exploit a poorly conceived rule, rather than fighting with any kind of strategy.
>Oh, he stepped away from me, thanks to this combination of obscure feats, I get 10 attacks of opportunity that also double as sneak attacks. Let me just roll this crate of d6s to let you know how dead it is.
>>47957481
>flat probability
When you roll 1d20 there's an equal chance of rolling any number on it. People passionately hate randomness for some reason and like there to be very little variance in roll results.
I once had a FATE group which uses fudge dice. If you're not aware how that works, you roll four dice and the results can be +, -, or 0. Rolling a + raises the result by 1, rolling - lowers it by 1, 0 is neutral. This results in the majority of all rolls either being totally neutral or only different from your relevant stat by one point.
Well, this was too much randomness for one guy, so when he ran a game he changed the system to use his own weird rolling method with even less fucking variance for the sole purpose of making results purely based on your skill points.
I can't comprehend it. What the fuck.
>hit point bloat
When a fighter has 60+ hp at 5th level and you need to beat them over the head ten times with a longsword before they die. I personally prefer when players and monsters go down in two or three hits.
>save or lose
When you fail a save and the effect is so bad that you've basically already lost.
I wouldnt say garbage but it does have its shortcomings and doesnt fit with every style of adventure that well.
>>47951985
>Why does Sacred Flame have a range of 60 ft and fucks you on a failed Dex throw for 1d8 radiant damage?
wow that sounds like a shooting a bow at them.
Except that the bow adds dex to the damage.
>47934822
>flat probability curves
If you're going for heroic cinematism, this can actually help, because it increases the frequency of extremes
>hit point bloat
Again, as long as what you're going for is cinematism, and you use hit-points the way that the book actually describes them, instead of as meat points, they make perfect sense as a meta-stat of PC plot-shield.
>save or lose
Not in any edition I play... I think you're equating 3e with all D&D
>caster edition
Again, not in any edition I play, I'm now 99% certain you're equating 3e with all D&D, and yes 3e is shit, but D&D will only be shit as long as people like you equate the OGLd20 system and D&D
>15 minute workday
Okay, now I'm SURE you're mistaking the single OGLd20 system, that had a bunch of different names over the years (3e/3.5/PF, but they were identical games) with all of D&D's long history. This would be a mistake.
>>47959118
>Having a high dex score more or less meant you ruled the entire damned game.
This isn't really accurate. I'm guessing you had a guy who was hitting things and not getting hit, but this isn't actually a meaningful avenue of power in 3.5. The str-based character is more effective as a general rule when it comes to combat, and if your goal is AC then magic is the way, not dexterity.
>243 replies and 20 images omitted.
>>47938976
Many editions of D&D before 3 did not have caster supremacy, including AD&D 2e.
>>47939025
Okay, you know what, the roles in SR were actually pretty damn well balanced. The fact that a mage/shaman supernova stunball spell could knock out a whole room was pretty well balanced by the fact that everybody got to act well before you got to shoot your super-rocket, and the fact that you couldn't target non-astral entities while astral projecting, so if you wanted it to be useful, you had to be physically there.... or did you not understand that part of astral projection, because my party played one game before we realized how astral projection worked in 4, and THEN we thought Mages were broken, but once the misunderstanding was cleared up, there was no issue. The sam/addept gets either 6 or between 3-Infinity regular highly accurate attacks (depending on edition's initiative mechanic) and the mage got ONE attack with moderate accuracy that if it hit would probably knock out everything it hit AND might knock him out. Now, in 5th, it's the same, but the mage attack isn't any better than the 3-infinity attacks the adept/sam gets in any way. That's not balancing, that's nerfing. Granted, the mage was a BEAST if you didn't know he was coming, because he could clear out an entire room of mook-guards with stunball before they could call for backup, but once combat started in EARNEST, they basically hid behind a barrel, and if anything was still alive after the sam and adept had all their initiatives, they would mop up the remainder.
>>47959118
If you actually understood the system, you would give the edge to full casters, especially Clerics and Druids
Are there any systems for SPACE that offer as much content and customization as DnD?
Most of them turn me off due to all the weapons being too 60s and 70s, pew pew lasers and shit. I'd love a mixture between ballistic and advanced weapons and systems.
>>47941121
AC as DR doesn't make sense.
>>47959633
GURPS.
It even has like a dozen different space settings if you don't like Ultra Tech and Space's defaults.
>>47959663
Yeah, I've never understood the mad hardon some people have for it. It sounds stupid as hell to me.
