DND 5e is not well designed or a good game.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
DND 5e is not well designed or a good game.
DND 5e is not well designed or a good game.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Okay, but HYTNPDND?
It's not like i disagree OP but i would like some argument to compliment the statement.
real people don't have classes
They do tho
>no your spellcaster can't use a halbered or wear plate armor because ummmmm he just can't ok!!! it would be imbalanced!
sucks not having a real encumbrance system, there are plenty of ways to make that balanced
That's fine and all, but it's actually being played unlike whatever system people shill for here.
But i do play zweihander. Okay, i play whfrp, but it's basically the same thing
Nice try Daniel.
>Muh shilling
It's a board about tabletop hobbies, of fricking course anons will engage in "console wars" about their preferred games.
at least console wars had arguments
this thread is pure dogshit
I can't disagree on that.
Most of us are playing other games, this is just blatant cope from someone who can't be fricked to learn anything else.
>Most of us are playing other games
Much of /tg/ is, but most people aren't. Like I said upthread,
, D&D might be outplayed in some narrow, specific markets, but it is overwhelmingly the most played tabletop RPG overall.
Okay but you can still run other games, might be a little harder to get players but the ones you do get will be much better.
Literally one market is dominated by DnD.
ONE.
Please, the only board that plays less games than /tg/ is Ganker.
>implying anon plays DnD in the first place
>implying anon is actually interested in playing any TTRPGs
Come on now...
compare it to a better system's rules so we can finally understand why dnd sucks
Runequest 3e
>movement happens over time, so your ranged weapon is not useless
>no classes, everyone can do magic if they take the opportunity cost of skilling it, your wizard can use a sword
>hit locations give you combat consequences without some doofy injury track
>percentile means everyone can see the odds in a transparent way, no dice abstraction
>>no classes, everyone can do magic if they take the opportunity cost of skilling it, your wizard can use a sword
I'll take things that can be done in D&D for $400, Alex.
>movement happens over time, so your ranged weapon is not useless
What does this even mean.
>percentile means everyone can see the odds in a transparent way, no dice abstraction
What, and this doesn't apply to the d20 for some reason?
>classless in dnd
ok you're hacking it beyond what most ppl recognize as dnd
>what does this even mean
rq3 uses an impulse system, if you want your sword guy to get to the bow guy, his movement takes time in parts of a round, during which bow guy can shoot you.
>this doesn't apply to the d20
your skill is 60, roll under to succeed. wow, i have a 60% chance of success.
>ok you're hacking it beyond what most ppl recognize as dnd
No, what I meant was that in D&D, everyone can do magic if they take the opportunity cost. The cost just takes one of three forms:
1) Taking a feat like Magic Initiate
2) Taking a subclass that grants magic, such as Eldritch Knight
3) Multiclassing
I don't see the meaningful distinction between that and what you're describing in Runequest, unless you're saying that in Runequest someone who's been playing a warrior-type character for ages can take a single skill and instantly become as good at magic as someone who's been playing a mage-type character for the same length of time. Which sounds awful.
>if you want your sword guy to get to the bow guy, his movement takes time in parts of a round, during which bow guy can shoot you.
You're gonna have to explain this in somewhat more detail because at a glance this sounds exactly like D&D.
>your skill is 60, roll under to succeed. wow, i have a 60% chance of success.
What, always, no matter the circumstance? You have exactly the same chance of success to climb a knotted 10 foot rope when under no pressure as you have to scale the Cliffs of Insanity without a rope and while there's a torrential downpour making the rocks slippery?
Because that sounds boring as frick if true.
>classless
sounds like you've never played a classless game. you don't need feats, you buy/roll for skill ratings. the difference is you can build your own "class". no need for the hacker to be shit at guns.
>explain impulse systems
in extremely simple terms, every action has a speed, and is assigned a number from 1 to 10, each round has 10 segments, you go on your number. movement happens over time, you don't just teleport instantly your movement on your turn. ranged has a distinct advantage because they can shoot while melee covers ground.
>skill systems
bonus/penalties are applied to your rating. so a really hard lock might be at your skill -40. you roll under that number, with the odds still transparent.
>sounds like you've never played a classless game. you don't need feats, you buy/roll for skill ratings.
Yeah, no, I get that, and I have played classless systems. My point is that I'm assuming that Runequest doesn't let someone who has otherwise been building a warrior-type character and buying skills based around being a warrior, to buy a single skill that instantly makes them as good as anyone who's spent the whole time building a mage-type character.
Like, I dunno, to express it in Vampire: The Masquerade terms since that's the classless system I'm most familiar with, you've been building a gangbanger lick with dots in Potence and Celerity and Fortitude and Brawling and Dodging and emphasis on Strength, Dexterity, and Stamina and so on. You can't, though, then decide you want to know magic, put a single dot in Thaumaturgy, and instantly be as good as a vampire who's been building a mage this entire time. You're gonna have to spend time leveling up Thaumaturgy and gradually building up skill in it, and - assuming that you're gaining Experience at the same rate - you're never going to be able to catch up to someone who's chosen to be specializing in Thaumaturgy from the beginning.
That's got a direct 1:1 correlation in a classed system like D&D. A character gets to 5th level as a Fighter then decides he wants to know magic. He can multiclass into Wizard, so now he's a Fighter 5/Wizard 1, but his wizard skills are only going to be on-par with a 1st level wizard because he's only just picked it up. He can devote the rest of his career to being a wizard and eventually become like a Fighter 5/Wizard 15, which is a highly skilled wizard, but he's not going to be as good as someone who played a Wizard straight to from 1st to 20th level.
No, that's wrong. There's a fundamental difference there beacuse the cost of specializing in WoD is not the same as the cost of branching out into something new. You can't take 4 Wizard levels for the cost of taking your Fighter from 7 to 8.
>ranged has a distinct advantage because they can shoot while melee covers ground.
This doesn't sound meaningfully different from D&D, it's just splitting a turn up across the initiative count.
>bonus/penalties are applied to your rating. so a really hard lock might be at your skill -40. you roll under that number, with the odds still transparent.
And what about circumstances where you couldn't possibly know the difficulty? Like trying to negotiate something with someone you've never met or heard of before, how could you possibly be aware of how difficult it's going to be?
>What, always, no matter the circumstance? You have exactly the same chance of success to climb a knotted 10 foot rope when under no pressure as you have to scale the Cliffs of Insanity without a rope and while there's a torrential downpour making the rocks slippery?
Are you deliberately being fricking stupid as shit? Imagine only ever having played D&D, fricking hell, man. Pathetic.
>>what does this even mean
>rq3 uses an impulse system, if you want your sword guy to get to the bow guy, his movement takes time in parts of a round, during which bow guy can shoot you
This is literally 1E d&d. 1E subdivided the round into segments, you can move X per segment. Weapons have reaches. So the spear guy gets to the bow guy. He can get to the bow guy faster if he charges, which has defined mechanical effects. The bow guy can split move and fire if he's an Elf. Otherwise he needs to be stationary, but can make two attacks potentially as long as spear guy hasn't engaged him in melee.
kind of, RQ takes into account your character's statistics to figure speed instead of having missile/melee segments.
here's how i use an impulse system in my shitbrew
cont.
>movement happens over time
This sounds like it would be a huge pain in the ass to deal with as a melee based character
>everyone can do magic if the allocate points
Multiclass. There are subclasses that let mages use swords if you really want to (hex blade warlock, blade singer wizard, valor bard, forge cleric, etc)
>hit locations give you combat consequences
Any dm will do this if you ask
>percentile
Just because you’re severely autistic, and need to metagame as hard as possible to ensure you character passes every skill check 100% of the time doesn’t mean everyone finds your flavor of autism appealing
DMs don't allow called shots regularly, the frick are you on? Everything about your post is stupid.
>This sounds like it would be a huge pain in the ass to deal with as a melee based character
It actually gives you more to do as a melee based character as movement it's just simply "I charge at him" all the time.
>Multiclass. There are subclasses that let mages use swords if you really want to (hex blade warlock, blade singer wizard, valor bard, forge cleric, etc)
Read
>Any dm will do this if you ask
First of all, not every GM will. Second, that's still a flaw of the system for not having something the GM can use instead of forcing him to either make something up on the fly or homebrew.
>Just because you’re severely autistic, and need to metagame as hard as possible to ensure you character passes every skill check 100% of the time doesn’t mean everyone finds your flavor of autism appealing
I actually think you're both autistic here. d20 is just as transparent as d100, you just multiply whatever you need to roll under by 5 and you have your % chance. That said, what makes percentile better is the ability to shave off or add smaller bonuses than 5%.
Yes, and?
Quick question why is it that DND elves are always so fricking ugly, while the rest of the elves in literally every other TTRPG is the complete opposite!
Not to defend DnD, but the Elf in your pic is pretty much anime anime women number 1 with pointy ears.
Elves are much nicer when there is something alien about their facial and body features. Making them just cute humans with pointy ears is a waste really
At least she does not look like she is about to abduct me and experiment on me, most DND elves look like grey aliens
Yeah, they could look better in DnD but I dont think normal girl with pointy ears should be the way to go..
>he said while posting a generic anime girl that could be from anything
garbage art style
they don't have Elmore anymore
>Hatsune Miku with big breasts and elf ears
Traditionally fantasy elves with otherworldly features > generic animu elfu
It's worse in Pathfinder
WE
WUZ
C-C-COMBO BREAKER
He even tilts sidewise like gangsters
This is what happens when you make them look too human.
A Black Man with a Elf year poorly slapped over his normal ones.
>black man
>looks human
>filename says half-elf
If anything Pathfinder makes elves more distinct than most with their big eyes and very skinny bodies.
Literally who actually wants this?
Who looked at Elrond or Legolas and thought, "Hmm, this otherworldly, based-on-Norse-myth, most beautiful creature on earth needs to be...uglier and blacker"?
Black elves are fine, elves looking like mundane humans are not.
Elves are Europeans, Europeans are not black, anon.
Nah, elves are a fictitious race drawing from European mythology without being slavishly bound to it. Being beautiful and otherworldly is a whole lot more important to the concept of elves than their skin color.
Elves are in fact the European's ancestors.
how is this different from a regular human besides ears?
Why are you posting an elf whose body is 99% slime?
What makes it not well designed or good
d20 is pretty shit. very swingy and totally linear with equal chances of rolling a 1, 10 or 20 as opposed to 2d6 or 3d6 which is more consistent.
But casuals are obsessed with their heckin d20s and will have literally dozens of different d20s and refuse to play anything that doesn't use the DEE TWEENY so they can get a NATTY TWENTY.
Dnd combat is also pretty basic, fighters pretty much just hit things with a sword, grappling sucks and your epic special maneuvers like tripping someone over you can only do x times per day. AC is stupid with how it treats taking less damage/being more durable with armor and being HARDER to hit as the same thing
I won't disagree about the combat being basic and limited, but the d20 thing seems more like a minor gripe. I don't really see how consistency is a benefit given it will reward specialization and punish attempting to do anything outside of your wheelhouse.
How so? What makes magical healing shit?
>I don't really see how consistency is a benefit given it will reward specialization and punish attempting to do anything outside of your wheelhouse.
Are you moronic?
Maybe. I just don't get the appeal.
You don't get the appeal of having a game's results match believability and expectations?
I can see the merit if you wanted your game to be gritty and realistic, where you want lucky shots and terrible failures to be extremely rare, and where you want the skills of your characters to matter a great deal since the modifiers will be more meaningful (at least up to a certain point).
Outside of that, if you're more interested in a 'general fantasy' sort of game where luck is a bigger factor and you want characters to be able to have a slight chance of succeeding on something they're not too good at, I don't see how a 3d6 would benefit.
>d20 is pretty shit. very swingy and totally linear with equal chances of rolling a 1, 10 or 20 as opposed to 2d6 or 3d6 which is more consistent.
This is such a brainlet take. You are genuinely stupid.
Linearity is good. It means modifiers remain consistent in value, which makes calculations easier and helps keep the game from immediately breaking apart if you move beyond a very limited range. More importantly, consistancy in a Pass/Fail binary outcome system is more determined by the Target Numbers, not the die involved. You can easily make a 3d6 game feel more "swingy" than a d20 game just by placing the avg TN lower on the d20 game.
Basically, you're trying to come up with reasons to dislike D&D, and are just repeating things you've heard other people say without really understanding them.
Like, there's plenty of actual reasons you might not like the game, but complaining about things like d20's or classes or admitting you don't understand how D&D combat works really just makes you look like a complete fool.
>You can easily make a 3d6 game feel more "swingy" than a d20 game just by placing the avg TN lower on the d20 game.
No you can't because 8-12 are still the most likely results.
That's not the result itself, but the number involved. The result is Pass or Fail, and if I want Pass to be more "consistent", all I have to do is put the target number lower. Or higher, if I want fail to be more consistent.
Look. 3d6 with a TN of 11 and 1d20 with a TN of 11? Identical Pass/Fail rate of 50%.
But, drop the 1d20 to 10? And it's now passes 5% more consistently than 3d6. Average TN at 6? 25% more consistent successes. Yes, it's really that simple.
The dice involved are only half of the equation. They play a larger role in non-binary results, but in Binary Pass/Fail systems what actually determines consistency is the avg TN vs. the avg dice result.
That was alot of words to say almost nothing and be completely wrong on what little you did say. Typical DnDrone behavior to call other people moronic then instantly prove you're projecting.
Complaining about d20s and classes and AC has been happening since the 70s. Each one of them has been the impetus for someone making a different game.
>Linearity is good. It means modifiers remain consistent in value, which makes calculations easier and helps keep the game from immediately breaking apart if you move beyond a very limited range.
That’s the brainlet talk. Linearity is neither inherently good or bad but the lowest common denominator likes it because they are stupid. The latter part is especially untrue seeing as Hero System exists.
take it from somebody who has played with the unearthed arcana 3d6 rules before, rolling 3d6 instead of 1d20 is absolutely garbage
it makes it so that every roll is basically predetermined. If you don't hit on 9-12 then it's statistically improbable that you'll hit and you shouldn't even try, if you do hit on 9-12 then it's statistically improbable that you'll miss and it's like spearing fish in a barrel.
It also makes it fricking impossible to fight anything that's higher or lower level than the party. 1d20 is just fine, maybe 2d10, but definitely never do 3d6.
>take it from somebody who has played with the unearthed arcana 3d6 rules before, rolling 3d6 instead of 1d20 is absolutely garbage
That's because the numbers of 3E, which already work poorly, work even more poorly with 3d6. That's not the fault of 3d6, that's the fault of 3E's faulty math.
>very swingy and totally linear with equal chances of rolling a 1, 10 or 20
Which literally does not matter considering that you're trying to roll over or under a given range. You're not trying to roll a 10 or 13 or 17, you're trying to roll that number or higher, and all that matters is your percent chance of success or failure of doing that. A 10% chance of success is a 10% chance of success whether it's rolling 19-20 on a d20 or 15-18 on 3d6
(actually it's slightly less than 10% on 3d6 but provided you have more than two brain cells to rub together, you understand the point I'm making and agree with it)
The virtue of 2d6/3d6/any other multiple dice system is solely that it allows you to have a chance of something to happen that is smaller than 5%. But That isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, since a strong argument can be made that if something has a less than 5% chance of happening then it isn't worth rolling in the first place, since the result is just too unlikely to make the rolling engaging or fun.
Depends on the game and what's trying to be accomplished. Even then, that's just accomplished by determining the percent chance of success or failure, which is perfectly possible with a d20.
it does matter for things like crits on the lowest possible number or highest. 18 on 3d6 is 1 in 216 vs 20 on a d20 being 1/20. If that's not enough you can add 17 and 16 as crits
>it does matter for things like crits
No, it doesn't *matter*. You, personally, like crits to be exceptionally rare, but that is a personal preference, not something that is objectively the correct way of doing things.
rolling 1s and 20s all the time is kind of dumb, just end up with people tripping over all the time
>rolling 1s and 20s all the time
Well good news, you don't. You roll them both a combined total of one-tenth of the time.
> just end up with people tripping over all the time
Someone hasn't actually read the rules, I see.
In D&D 5e, a natural 1 on an attack roll is merely an automatic miss. This is by and large pointless because, due to the small numbers in D&D 5e, a 1 + modifier is unlikely to hit anyway. Attack bonuses generally cap at +11 meaning a natural 1 is a total of 12, and almost nothing has an AC of 12 or less.
Even then, it is JUST a miss. You don't trip and fall on your sword or something ridiculous like that per RAW. If someone homebrews that at their table, and their group finds it fun, fine, but it is beyond pointless to try and argue this or that homebrew. We discuss rules as written or we don't have the discussion at all, we literally cannot progress the conversation if we can't agree on that basic point.
Further, the "automatic miss" thing only applies to attack rolls, not saving throws or ability checks. You're making a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, you roll a natural 1, you add your modifiers and get a total of 10, then you succeed if the DC is 10 or lower and fail if the DC is 11 or higher, just like you would with any other roll.
>A 10% chance of success is a 10% chance of success whether it's rolling 19-20 on a d20 or 15-18 on 3d6
But it isn't that easy 3d6. 3d6 doesn't have a non-uniform distribution, so each modifier has declining marginal impact as you get further from the mean of 10.5.
>d20 is pretty shit. very swingy and totally linear with equal chances of rolling a 1, 10 or 20 as opposed to 2d6 or 3d6 which is more consistent.
That you're holding up consistency as a great advantage of a random number generator should have been a bit of a clue that you've taken a wrong turn somewhere, but I guess that would have required you to put some thought into things.
See, if you're randomly coughing up a number where all of the different results produce a difference (like, say, a damage roll) then yes, a bunch of small dice will give you a more consistent result than one large. But that's not really where the d20 puts in most of the work in DnD, and multiple-damage-die weapons do exist. Instead the d20 is mainly used for things like skill rolls, or attacks. Occasions where the actual final outcome isn't four or twelve, but success or failure. And that filters out the distribution of the dice results, and leaves you with just the probabilities for success or failure. If you have a 50% chance of success it doesn't matter if you roll that as 11+ on a 1d20, 11+ on 3D6, or +29 on 19d2, any time you roll there's an equal chance of hitting or missing. Now there are systems that care about the exact degree of success/failure, but DnD isn't one of them.
(Now behaving like the universe bends over backwards in response to some once-in-a-billion-years event every time you hit the 5% chance of a nat 20 isn't for me, but that's on the people playing it that way, not the die itself.)
Ah, but when I roll a 17 on the d20, it jeans jack shit. It's just pass/fail.
But if I roll a 17 on 3d6, it means I was either very lucky or had a bunch of skill points invested in the roll, which means a 17 is qualitatively a better roll than a 15 or a 16, and that's more intuitive. Many people play the d20 like they're rolling 3d6 and act like a 20 is a BIG DEAL when, due to flat distribution, it isn't. But a 20 on 3d6 is impossible without bonuses to the roll reflecting competency and quality.
So what?
Largely agree with you, but I think 5e has a bit of problem with skill checks which comes from how swingy the d20 combined with the low contribution of skills. All too often (especially at the tiers of player where 5e actually happens) I've seen a character who is meant to be good at something fail only to watch another player roll and succeed. +6, +8, even +11 to some extent just isn't enough to overcome the d20 spread. Suddenly Lucain the scrawny Wizard is passing athletics feats the Garon the Fighter is failing, and the master lockpicker of the group is being outdone by a Paladin who with a +0 to Sleight of Hand.
You can of course simply deny certain party members the ability to undertake certain skill checks (and this is what a lot of people advise), but it makes the game even more mother may I.
>deny certain party members the ability to undertake certain skill checks (and this is what a lot of people advise), but it makes the game even more mother may I.
I don't see your reasoning. Obviously the Thief is the only person who should be picking locks. Would you also grant the Monk the ability to turn undead like a Cleric or Paladin?
Lockpicking isn't magic.
But lockpicking should not be an ability check, it should be an exclusive class feature.
I only play 1st Edition, btw.
>DND 5e is not a well designed game
>but I think 5e has a bit of problem
But it's not an exclusive class feature, so thr problem's there. T
Not that it actually makes any sense for most classes to be unable to lestn lockpicking, but that's more of a problem with class-based systems in general.
>Would you also grant the Monk the ability to turn undead like a Cleric or Paladin?
Because Turn Undead is class ability and thus exclusive to the class, whereas Locking picking is an ability check made with Thieves Tools (dunno why I said SoH, that would be something like pick pocketing but otherwise the example is still sound).
>Suddenly Lucain the scrawny Wizard is passing athletics feats the Garon the Fighter is failing
Like what? It better not be lifting, carrying, or jumping, because those aren't checks.
Also if you don't like this aspect you can try to avoid binary pass/fail. The rogue will auto succeed on picking the lock and is simply testing to do so silently. Meanwhile the non-rogue will be noisy regardless and is testing to see if they are able to pick the lock at all. It's easy to implement.
>Like what?
Swimming, climbing, jumping beyond ordinary distance, and that's without getting into some of the other athletics stuff. Honestly such a versatile skill.
>Also if you don't like this aspect you can try to avoid binary pass/fail.
And now we're into homebrewing to fix this aspect of the system. It's just not a great system. I don't have a problem with the D20 in other scenarios, but Crawfishes desires to both keep numbers low and retain the D20 for skill checks (and the like) definitely has problems.
>Swimming, climbing, jumping beyond ordinary distance
In the instances you describe (unskilled PC outperforms skilled) I always fluff the outcome as a consequence of misfortune rather than failure on the skilled PC's part (their foot becomes tangled, the wall crumbles, they slip). Feels better than "sorry you're just feeling super weak atm".
I know degrees of success is a houserule, but it's a simple solution. Also, implementing actual consequences for failure dissuades players from fishing for 20s and can stop the problem appearing in the first place.
Not against your solution. Between appropriate description, only allowing a player to roll if it's logical, more frequent use of passive checks, "taking the 20" and similar methods there's plenty of ways of mitigating the awkward swings. But hey, it's a thread about 5e's flaws and I think this is one. If it wasn't it wouldn't require so many patches. Alternatively, maybe there's just a mismatch between what the game is trying to be and my desires for it, but I feel like a game with such clearly defined archetypes should follow that through into skill rolls.
Perhaps giving more classes the rogue's expertise feature would help a little.
>I always fluff the outcome as a consequence of misfortune rather than failure on the skilled PC's part
I want you to stop and think about how moronic this looks when it keeps happening.
Less moronic than the PC suddenly becoming incompetent for no reason.
It's just as moronic because somehow bad circumstances crop up for the better PCs more often than the others. Maybe the mechanics shouldn't be making moronic situations to begin with.
Oh wait, you took my post to mean I never use misfortune to justify unskilled PC's failures. You've misunderstood.
Someone unskilled getting lucky isn't a moronic situation. It happens in real life all the time.
It's moronic when it happens too often and when the inverse happens too often. 5E sucks at representing competence in skills.
How often is too often? What's your metric?
More than very, very infrequently. A bare d20 has a 11.25% chance of matching or exceeding 1d20+11, which is what a level 8 PC with Expertise and a maxed stat would have.
And how often should it happen?
Less than half of how often it does.
Say 5%?
3E was a fricking freeforall as far as skill math goes, so while it doesn't have this issue, it's laden with so many others so let's roll it back one edition instead. In 4E, skill training is an immediate +5 up front. Starting attributes cap at 20. Races can have racial skill bonuses, which are +2 to some thematic skills, and backgrounds can give bonuses ranging anywhere from +1 to +3. Skill Focus exists to give a +3 bonus, but it's not commonly taken. The gap you'll usually see between someone with nothing and someone with a reasonable investment is +0-+2 to +8-+11, but the absolute bounds both ways on level 1 permanent skill bonuses are -1 to +18.
>epic special maneuvers like tripping someone over you can only do x times per day
Anyone can shove anytime. Maneuvres reset on a short rest.
Tripping someone and doing damage isn't worthy of limitation.
Shoving replaces a single attack. If you have multiple attacks you can still deal damage within that same turn.
And if you don't, tripping and doing damage still isn't worthy of limitation.
Why not?
Because the idea of something that basic being limited is stupid as frick?
>knocked prone
>all enemies now attack my character at advantage
>lose half my movement getting up
>can't get up at all if grappled
>every enemy can attempt this with every attack while suffering no drawbacks
Sounds fun and definitely not something that will widen the caster/martial divide.
It is fun. I've seen games do it and it's not a problem.
Those games doubtless have very different mechanics/tone.
There is no tone whatsoever that makes tripping someone and doing some damage to them worthy of a 1 hour rest. It's gamist bullshit, and worse, it's bad gamist bullshit.
That's dishonestly reductive and you know it. No-one wants to play a heroic fantasy game and spend every turn flat on their back getting gang raped.
>gamist bullshit
It's hardly the worst offender in 5e.
It's not reductive whatsoever. It's true. It's not what low fantasy looks like, it's miles away from what high fantasy looks like, and it's inappropriate for something inbetween the two too.
You're not an authority on what is appropriate in fantasy. It's not even about high to low fantasy. It's about characters handling like heroes instead of powerless victims. Besides, as already pointed out to you, tripping and dealing damage within the same turn (the same action even) are entirely possible.
Heroes don't have to take a power nap after doing a basic maneuver four times.
As already explained to you, they don't in 5e either. Look man, you got the rules wrong. Don't sulk about it.
The frick they don't.
I've already explained to you how they don't. Most martial characters can do it within a single action.
You explained wrong. Shoving then attacking is not the same as attacking and shoving.
I guarantee that you cannot re-read what you just posted with a straight face.
Yep 3d6 are superior cause it is almost equivalent to just doubling die modifiers, and since players never take negatives in anything they do. Any time they have a negative they argue to not engage in activity or get DM to not have a roll involved, this all helps their rarely ever fail power fantasies.
>I need things to be consistent! I need my character to always hit!
I’m not gonna disagree that 5e is shit, but you’re coping because you got unlucky. I would rather have a greater chance to fail than a great chance to succeed, because it makes things more interesting and riskier:
I'd rather the game make sense on its face than be 'interesting' to gambling addicts.
the guy who is an expert in something should not be constantly failing
Yes they should, because succeeding at tasks is gamist rollplayer video games. Constant failure is where you get all the fun and interesting stories, and my personal fun is what makes D&D objectively well-designed.
magic healing is kind of shit imo, makes it hard to balance having a healer and not, amongst other issues
Correct.
Why do you think so? Where do you see the failings in it? Is it just the bounded accuracy meme or something else?
Doesn't matter, people play it, in larger numbers than any other tabletop RPG overall (though admittedly it is beaten out by some RPGs in specific markets). It is wildly successful at the most important thing a piece of entertainment needs to do: it gets butts in seats.
Glad you finally realized something the rest of us have known for years already. Better late than never, I suppose.
What a novel and original thought.
It can be good. It's mostly a toolkit full of optional rules. Played vanilla, it sucks, but you can remove some rules and put the optional ones instead and it becomes a decent game.
So, for an experienced DM it's a 'good' game. For newbies, not so much.
There is no combination of optional rules that would make 5E a good game by my standards.
>it's another "my personal good changes applied to my personal good campaign for my personal good group universally makes the product a good one" homosexual
Agreed.
It's not a terrible game, but it's good either.
Isn't it well over ten years old? Is your real complaint that they haven't made a new edition?
2014, so not quite ten years ackshually. Older than 3rd (8 years) and 4th (6 years, lmao) were when they were replaced, but not 1st (12 years) or 2nd (11 years).
>d20 vs. 3d6
Dice pools counting successes are where it's at. If you can't even fill your hands with dice when really going all-out in something your character's good at and then revel in the sound of all those dice being simultaneously rolled, you're missing out.
>was super into 5e for years
>Now I'm very much over it
>regular group finishes a campaign, offer to run a one-shot in a different system
>another player buts in saying they want to run something. They never run anything so this'll be interesting
>it's a 5e adventure with a bunch of 3rd party publisher mechanics grafted on, pretty much all community theater shit
>go along with it to be a good sport
Honestly the worst part of 5e is that it's almost impossible to get groups away from it. They'd rather play 5e poorly than try something new
>go along with it to be a good sport
That's the thing that fricks us all. 5e/d&donly gays don't go along, ever, even if you have a full group ok with cautiously trying something new they just need one whiney homosexual to bring everyone straight at step 1. Find other hobbies you can prioritize ahead of ttrpg and stop compromising anon, propose to run whatever you like and at the first whine agaist cut thing short and do other stuff. No game is always better than shit game, frick 'em.
Errm okayyy…? But it’s best for ERPing with beautiful babes so why don’t you try and stay being an incel
It's perfectly well designed for what it is. It's an appeal to 3.X and 4e players by cribbing the simplest good ideas from them while removing just enough crunch so story-gamers can ignore the rules and do stupid stuff all night. It's designed to be a lowest common denominator comercial success, and they achieved it.
5E is NOT an appeal to 4E players. Frick you.
>Implying that's the fault of the edition and not the game itself