D&D needs improvement

Raven Crowking said:
Spikes are an option, even if the picture has none banded mail in 3.X is ripe for spiky goodness on the basis of a small surcharge. Read the text; don't just look at the pictures.

RC

But that isn't WOTC saying "Banded has these awesome spikes always". In this case it comes down to player choice of if they want to have spikes or not. For some players it would be an appearance thing, for some it would be useful when they grapple. It's a PLAYER CHOICE!!! OH NOES!!!

Naturally the DM is free to say spikes are lame and not historical so players can't have em. Rule 0 wins again
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SSquirrel said:
But that isn't WOTC saying "Banded has these awesome spikes always". In this case it comes down to player choice of if they want to have spikes or not. For some players it would be an appearance thing, for some it would be useful when they grapple. It's a PLAYER CHOICE!!! OH NOES!!!

Naturally the DM is free to say spikes are lame and not historical so players can't have em. Rule 0 wins again

No, that's WotC saying "Throw 'em on anyway". It has nothing to do with a "player choice" when you're comparing something historical (roman armour) with something in game (banded mail). Knowing which version (attempted historical accuracy vs. who cares) you are dealing with helps quite a bit in this sort of situation. Because, interestingly enough, the "attempted historical accuracy" version dealt with Roman armour, and it is fairly easy to determine from that standpoint whether or not Storm Raven is correct.

Not that his focus on some small point of minutia proves or disproves the statement that the OP made about the relative value of the Roman shield vs. its D&D value.

BTW, "It's a PLAYER CHOICE!!! OH NOES!!!" is a pretty worthless comment. Letting the players buy jets with tactical nukes is a PLAYER CHOICE too. OH NOES!!! Just because something is a "player choice" does not mean it is good or that it should be part of the core. Whether or not making spiked armour available is a smart choice or a stupid choice depends only upon the relative merits of spiked armour, not on who is making the choice.

RC
 

Raven Crowking said:
Whether or not making spiked armour available is a smart choice or a stupid choice depends only upon the relative merits of spiked armour, not on who is making the choice.

True enough. In a game which presupposes giants which can grab characters and creatures which can constrict around a character, spikes make sense, so a character might do well to opt for them. So in general it would be a smart choice. In a setting which is more realistic (and further away from the D&D paradigm), spikes wouldn't be as a obviously smart a choice.
 

ColonelHardisson said:
True enough. In a game which presupposes giants which can grab characters and creatures which can constrict around a character, spikes make sense, so a character might do well to opt for them. So in general it would be a smart choice. In a setting which is more realistic (and further away from the D&D paradigm), spikes wouldn't be as a obviously smart a choice.
This is a key point.

One cannot ask, "Does this make sense?" It has to be, "Does this makes sense for D&D?" D&D cares about what is balanced (or at least what works) for the play experience first, then what works for the D&D genre, and then, rarely, maybe cares a little about what's "realistic".

E.g., I once got into a huge discussion (as have we all, I'll bet) about justifying ASF. There are lots of in-game rationalizations you can make to justify it, but really it comes down to simply balancing arcane spellcasters against other classes. You have to realize that first before you worry about whether it makes perfect sense. That's just how D&D is.

Hit points are another great example (as we've been discussing in the ranger thread). Hit points do exactly what they're supposed to do in play; explaining what they represent, however, will drive you mad if you think too hard.

Ergo, if you can't get over these concepts, you either need to find a different system, or look forward to some heavy lifting. :)
 

Raven Crowking said:
Sorry, but I find this to be a lame response. Why not simply try to fix the problems you see to make your game the game you want?

This is along the lines of:

Poster 1: "Piña Colada sucks! It's got alcohol in it, and as a teetotaller, I abhor that. Plus, I really hate coconut. Yuck! Oh, and I don't like drinks with ice. I prefer them to be room temperature. So why don't they get rid of the ice, the rum, and the coconut stuff? It would make for a better PC."
Poster 2: "Hey, maybe PC isn't for you? Just drink Pineapple Juice"
Poster 3: "How lame. Why couldn't he make his PC the way he wants?" :P

Kashell said:
Slowly, and surely, you realize that the system is flawed

Nah. I knew it from the start. Good luck finding anything human-made that isn't flawed. Except the stuff I create, which rules.

In short -- the rules are far too complex.

Detailed, yes. There's a lot of stuff out there, and that's great. You know, I don't like to drink myself senseless every week, and I failed to start smoking in my youth, so I'm always in desperate need of ways to blow my money on, lest it accumulates in my house and chokes the cats.

You must all agree with me

Now. I disagree with that, and even If I didn't, I would, just out of spite!


because I consistantly see threads here for "simple combat" or "simple stats" etc.

That's because "leave combat/stats just as they are" isn't that much of a hot topic, really.

The common excuse is "oh, but it's the DM's decision to include that stuff". But why should the players be limited?

Because my Forgotten Realms campaign doesn't have Gua'ould weaponry and therefore doesn't need an "Alien Weapons Proficiency" feat, or a "Chevron Master Decrypter" Advanced Class, while Antimon's StarGate d20 Campaign doesn't have elves and therefore shouldn't feature Bladesingers or Arcane Archers.

d20 is one of the systems that is designed to work in a lot of different campaigns. Not everything is for everyone.

Plus, unbalanced PrC's are no indicator that the game is unbalanced. I can create unbalanced stuff in every single roleplaying game out there.

XP system - Arbitrary and needlessly complex. The DM should assign XP as he or she feels, not as the rules dictate. (In more rules-lawyer environments, such as Living Grayhawk, XP values are already planned in game write-ups so why have such a complex system??).

Would a system where the DM does just what he wants not be more arbitrary? I for one like to have guidelines. Makes it all go smooth. And I don't see anything too complex with that. I think a DM should be able to perform single tasks like cross-referencing tables.

Hit Points - Soldiers and adventurers in real life stop fighting after they're wounded --not after they keel over and die. It makes no sense that a fighter should have 300 HP and only feel hurt after getting down to zero.
[/QUOTE]

Soldiers and adventurers in real life use guns to hurt others - not magic and mental powers.

We all know that HP aren't that realistic, but they're not supposed to be. They're supposed to be quick and easy, and they're performing splendidly.

Hit Dice - Just because I'm a Barbarian, and you're a wizard, I have three times the amount of life as you. What?

While you trained dodging blows, rolling with blows, and just sucking up pain, I've been sitting in my library, reading these real nice books about demonology. They contain vital information about demons, their appearance, their powers, and... OKAY, I ADMIT. I'VE BEEN STARING AT THE COLOURED RENDITIONS OF SUCCUBI AND MARILITHS AGAIN.

HP aren't just a way to take damage, but to avoid damage. As we already established: it's an abstract system. Losing hit points doesn't mean losing a chunk of meat and some ounces of blood, but also rolling with a blow, turning a fatal strike into a glancing one, and getting a bit more winded in the process.

AC - I'm wearing a ton of armor, therefore you can't hit me. Rediculous notion.

It's not about hitting, it's about hurting. Sure, my strike won't miss, but unless I land a good blow, all I hit is the armour, not your soft flesh.

Initiative - I'm more flexible / faster than you, therefore I'm always the first one to react in situations. (It would make more sense if initiative was based on wisdom -- skills like listen and spot.)

Actually, a combination of wisdom (for wits) and dexterity (for reflexes) would be best. WoD uses that. But Dex alone's good, too, let's keep it simple. (After all, the game should not be too complex, as you said).

Strength Adds to HIT - I'm strong, therefore I aim well.

Ever tried to fight with a weapon that's almost to heavy for you to lift? You might get in strikes at the enemy's general direction, but by the time the weapon gets near the original spot the guy was standing on, he'll have run three circles around you, hamstrung you, and be slapping you on the face with a cheesegrater.

Dexterity Adds to HIT only if I take a special feat (or ranged) - I've got good hand eye coordination, but I don't have this ability, so I can't aim melee attacks.

I agree that Finesse should not be a feat, but rather something everyone can do. But that's hardly a reason to ditch the whole game.

Platinum Pieces - Where in the heck did medevil soceities learn how to smelt platinum?!

From the same guy who told them to make big large lumps of stone walk around or shoot lightning out of their hands, or bring back the dead after they've been put through the meatgrinder and fed to dogs.

Two Weapon Fighting - Historically speaking, two weapon fighting was another method of defense, just like using a shield. It was also employed as a method of disarming opponents and confusing enemies. But never was it used as blatantly attacking an opponent like one would do with two fists. Drittz did it, therefore I can too.

Historically speaking, dark elves never really walked around here.

Bard - What the heck were they thinking?

Music has a certain kind of magic even in our world - let's give it real magic in this fantasy world, since it really does have magic. Let's have a class that uses music that way. Let's make those jacks-of-all-trades, since as a performer, you have to put up a good show and make ends meet if you can't fill the concert halls.

Druid - nature boys are suddenly religious too?

Religion can mean more than just torturing others because their faith differs from yours. Many people don't realize that, but it's true nonetheless. Worshipping nature, or aspects of nature, has been done, and is still done, in our own world.

Wizard/Sorcerer - FAFS (Familiers are free stats)

That's all you came up with? Come one, it has all been done before.

Let me help:

"This memorizing magic part is rubbish. By the time you memorized that spell, you forgot what you were going to do with it. What good is a spell that summons beautiful virgins into your bedchamber if you need 50 years to prepare it, and once you cast it, don't even know what you're supposed to do with those."

Skills - There are too many. Specifically, most of the skills in D&D rely on DC set checks, not opposed.

"Damn! I tried to find us some berries here, but the local nature won the opposed survival check again. We'll starve. I told you we shouldn't have gone into the Murkwood - it's an epic-level forest!"

More skills means more skill checks the DM has to make

Come again? Wouldn't a smaller list just mean that the surviving skills would be used more often? You still have to make a check each time the players might succeed or fail at something.

Listen and Spot - Why isn't this one "sense" skill?
Climb, Run, Swim, Jump, etc - Why isn't this one "athletics" skill?
Move Silently, Hide - Why aren't these a "stealth" skill?
Tumble, balance, etc - Why aren't these an "acrobatics" skill?

This isn't WoD.

I might agree that a small handfull of the skills we have should be incorporated into other skills, but listen, spot, hide and move silently can stay where they are. You can have good hearing but bad eyesight, after all.

Craft - Why is this even a skill in D&D? Buying a masterwork weapon or armor isn't hard, and crafting one takes too long.

So, if there was no craft skill, who'd create all these masterwork items for you to easily buy? Where do the shops get their merchandise? I know! They buy it!

Knowledge (of) - Why aren't these skills associated with other classes or skills? I mean, if you're a wizard, you MUST know SOMETHING about arcane magic.

You're not a wizard, so you CAN'T know ANYTHING about arcane magic? Is that it? I don't think so.

Besides, you can limit yourself to learning spells, leaving the rest out of the curriculum. That means you know how to say the words to make a fireball, but you won't have any idea that the gentlemen made of iron there won't be harmed by it...

Perform - We know the bard is useless anyway, so why is this even in D&D?

Because bards aren't useless, many people want to play characters that are great performers, and fantasy literature is chock-full of heroes with an artistic bent.

Spellcraft - Why isn't this associated with a class?

You mean, like, being a class skill for that class?

Or something only that one class can do? What about the rest? Can't they learn about spells? Even though they cast spells (7 of the 11 core classes have at least some magic)

Item creation feats - Why should I waste a feat and XP when I can just buy the item for the same price?

Read again: You pay half the market price.

Plus, who creates those items? Right: Those with the feats.

And what if you can't buy the item? You can't just go to Dorf (population: 20) and buy a holy avenger and order the Armour of the Celestial Batallion which you'll pick up right after this dungeon crawl.


Any +2 to 2 skills feat - Worthless. Most of these skills aren't used much anyway.

Yeah. Never heard anyone using spot or listen. Or hide and move silently. Or diplomacy and sense motive. I say because I can't think right now of a reason why every single character I'll ever play will take these feats, they shouldn't exist, because noone will ever use them.

Shields - Wow, if I didn't know better, shields are worthless. Wonder why the Romans sent full armies into battle with full tower shields and did just fine with little or no armor?

Seems you don't know better.

Attacks of Opportunity - My enemy is suddenly able to attack (again) because I did something. (???)

(a lot of rubbish that makes it clear that the OP wants 100% accuracy and realism instead of something that can be played fast

Really, D&D isn't for you. May I suggest finding one of these guys who still makes armour and weapons, get him to make a custom-fitted full plate for you, get two swords - one only for defense, disarming, and confusing, never to attack, and then look for other people who do the same, and then just hack at each other? I can tell you, there will be no useless skills, no classes that suck, no complex rules. And I can guarantee you that you won't continue fighting as if nothing happened after the first couple of hit points lost due to being hit (which your armour won't do anything about). I suggest carwheeling around the enemy pretty early, before he guts you. :D
 

JustaPlayer said:
My thought's exactly. I mean how about the historical acuracy of evlves, dwarves, halflings and half-orcs. Might as well do away with them too.

There's no burden of historical accuracy on non-historical elements. Would you feel perfectly comfortable playing a game where Longbows had a range increment of 20', fired once per round with a MEA to reload, and Crossbows had a range increment of 1000' and had a free action to reload?

They WOULDN'T BE RECOGNIZABLE as their namesakes with those stats!

Perfect historical accuracy is not a desirable goal for any game system; there are too many unfun details to keep track of. Still, it's better if there aren't major jarring "WTF" moments when comparing the in-game physics with real-world physics.
 

Moderator:
Folks, I am sure all of you know The Rules, right? You're supposed to keep things civil. To that end, please try to address the arguments a person makes, rather than ther person themselves, or what you percieve to be their habits. And please resist the temptation to be snarky. Treat your fellow posters with respect at all times. Thank you.
 

True, Elephant. But, then again, we seem to have no problem with swords being far superior to pretty much any other weapon, despite realism. :) RPG's, and DnD in particular take a "good enough" approach to historical accuracy. That's good enough for me.
 

buzz said:
One cannot ask, "Does this make sense?" It has to be, "Does this makes sense for D&D?" D&D cares about what is balanced (or at least what works) for the play experience first, then what works for the D&D genre, and then, rarely, maybe cares a little about what's "realistic".

D&D is a game, and thus does not care about anything.

Something has to make sense for the players of the game, not the game itself, which (Dawkins aside) is neither a living thing nor sentient.


Kae'Yoss said:
This is along the lines of:

Poster 1: "Piña Colada sucks! It's got alcohol in it, and as a teetotaller, I abhor that. Plus, I really hate coconut. Yuck! Oh, and I don't like drinks with ice. I prefer them to be room temperature. So why don't they get rid of the ice, the rum, and the coconut stuff? It would make for a better PC."
Poster 2: "Hey, maybe PC isn't for you? Just drink Pineapple Juice"
Poster 3: "How lame. Why couldn't he make his PC the way he wants?" :P

Kae'Yoss, while there is a lot of truth in what you're saying, it isn't the whole story.

First, I don't believe that the posts I initially responded to were the equivilent of "Hey, maybe PC isn't for you? Just drink Pineapple Juice." While not certainly true of all initial responses, there was a certain invective present in some of them, and a certain inaccuracy as to what the OP was saying.

Secondly, I don't believe that D&D is equivilent to a Piña Colada. There is only one way to make a PC, and a drink either is a PC or it is not. Despite the original Gygaxian invective to that effect, D&D is not now and never has been played that way. D&D has always been like a bar where you mix your own drink to your own tastes -- and with the OGL I would venture to say that it is a fully stocked bar for the first time. Cobbling elements together to make the drink you want means that you no longer have to start from the ground up if you don't want to.

Again, look at the OP's original post. There is a reasonable percentage of the problems he sees that he automatically has fixes for. He doesn't like Dex for initiative, but prefers Wisdom. Problem solved. He wants Hide and Move Silently to be one skill called Sneak. Problem solved. He wants tower shields to provide a better AC bonus. Pick your number; problem solved. Problems with hit points, and a desire to have a death spiral? Pick up a copy of Darkness & Dread and see if that system works for you. Think archers should be able to hit you behind a wall? Reduce the cover bonus; problem solved. Etc., etc.

WotC has addressed several of these issues, in Unearthed Arcana, so while the OP's estimation of agreement is overstated, he isn't just a lone voice in the wilderness either. Heck, the UA gives specific house rules used by the game designers, and they are still playind D&D.

IMHO, the OP would still be playing D&D, too.

What I am responding to is more like this:

Poster 1: "Piña Colada sucks! It's got alcohol in it, and as a teetotaller, I abhor that. Plus, I really hate coconut. Yuck! Oh, and I don't like drinks with ice. I prefer them to be room temperature. So why don't they get rid of the ice, the rum, and the coconut stuff? It would make for a better drink."
Poster 2: "Hey, PC's is what we do. Either drink PCs or find another bar."
Poster 3: "How lame. Why couldn't he make his drink the way he wants? D&D is the bar, not the PC."


RC
 

FWIW, on the Cardinals-Padres baseball game, one of the announcers made a comment about how Barry Bonds was "wrapped up like a Roman soldier", in reference to all the body armor/protection he wears while batting.
 

Remove ads

Top