D&D needs improvement

[ken-ichi]

I was just annoyed by the complaints about things which are false or contradictory.

* XP system - Arbitrary and needlessly complex. The DM should assign XP as he or she feels, not as the rules dictate.

So he wants a less arbitrary system by replacing any guidelines with a completely arbitrary system that varies by DM?

*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.

What about Musashi's famous two-sword style of fighting. Definitely an offensive style.

*Druid - nature boys are suddenly religious too?

Does the poster actually know anything about the druidic religion?

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

Totally inacurate. Crafted items cost you 1/2 the gold as purchasing one does. It also removes the necessity to be at a location where you can shop for the item you are looking for.

*Full Plate - -6 Armor check penalty? And Full Plate is one size fits all? +1 max dex bonus? Last time I checked, all full plate must be custom made to fit a specific body type, and because the plates work so well together, people can do acrobatics while in full plate.

Full Plate is one size fits all. It must be resized for a different wearer.

Many vague statements and IMO not true assumptions.
A few redeeming things that I actually agree with. Grappling rules for instance.
But, if you are going to rant at least know your facts.
Rating: 2/5 Nice try, but not even close.

 

[ForceUser]

Maybe you should play another rpg.....D&D is what it is.

Yup.

 

[Raven Crowking]

the broad generalization that other opinions are not valid ("you must all agree")

C'mon Umbran, you have to read that quote in context. The OP doesn't say "You must all agree because my opinions are more valid than yours." The OP suggests that there must be a broad basis of agreement on his points because they come up repeatedly, on multiple threads, from multiple posters.

You must all agree with me to some extent, because I consistantly see threads here for "simple combat" or "simple stats" etc.​

You might not agree that these issues come up repeatedly, on multiple threads, from multiple posters, but that is a very different thing than saying that the OP is insulting your ability to come up with your own opinion.

As for the repeated statement that the OP is making nothing more than a list of complaints without suggesting any improvements, it simply isn't so. Easy example: The OP suggests swapping Wisdom for Dexterity when determining Initiative. I see lots of suggestions (and many that I don't agree with) in the OP's original post.

RC

 

[Darkwolf445]

To answer above poster, Endoren (I will never figure out quoting on any freakin' board I am on), Hackmaster, which I do enjoy, was used as an example because it has a complete, complex, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek rules system. Specifically, I was referring to the weapons vs. armor and the extremely detailed critical charts, as well as the arbitrary race/class level limits. Please don't construe that as an attack on Hackmaster, nor Rolemaster for that matter.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Lots of your comments, though in my opinion wrongheaded, are more of a stylistic concern than an actual factual inaccuracy (for example, I find the grappling rules in D&D to be quite easy to use), this, on the other hand, makes me go "huh"?

Roman soldiers were among the most heavily armored troops of their day, rivaled only by the pikemen of the post Alexandrian Macedonian states. In the Republican period, when their armies were made up of citizen volunteers, the triarii and hastatii (the actual line troops) were usually equiped with breastplates or mail hauberks, greaves, and helmets, (although this varied as the troops had to supply their own equipment).

Roman soldiers of the later period (when Rome transitioned to a professional, paid army) wore the lorica segmentata, lorica hamata, or (rarely) lorica squamata (roughly equivalent to banded armor, chain mail, and scale mail, respectively). Helmets and greaves were standard issue. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they wore "little or no armor". I guess one would think they wore less armor than a Greek hoplite, but that's a silly comparison, they wore plenty of armor, and more than almost everyone else they fought.

And this sort of out of left field comment is really all it takes to make everything else you say seem less than compelling.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

That really depends on how far "the game you want" is from "D&D" compared to other games out there. If what you want out of the game is significantly different than D&D, it might be a lot less work to start closer to your goal with a game that fits your goals better.

Yeah, exactly, and this is something I've said myself a number of times. With the literally thousands of RPGs out there, why bother with "fixing" one to the point it isn't recognizable as the original game? Why not just, y'know, shop around and find the game closest to what you want? I'd rather spend my time gaming than tinkering with rules.

 

[ForceUser]

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?

Because reengineering a game from the ground up is time-consuming. It's a lot easier to just pick a system that better suits your personal tastes.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

To answer above poster, Endoren (I will never figure out quoting on any freakin' board I am on),

Find the post you want to quote. Look at the lower right-hand corner of that post. Click on the "quote" button there.

 

[buzz]

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?

Because there comes a point of diminishing returns. Using, e.g., VP/WP insetad of hit points is one thing... fundamentally changing everything on the OP's list requires designing a new game from the ground up. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in laying out ca$h money for a product that does absolutely nothing I want/need it to do. My time and elbow grease is too precious to me.

EDIT: Honestly, I wish more gamers agreed with this. There seems to be a long-standing tradition in RPG'ing to kit-bash the heck out of systems, bulding on an assumption that most games "need work". I'd much rather see gamers spending money on products that are designed to do what they want, instead of on products that seem to consistently not.

On top of this, the system that the OP is describing between the lines already exists. There are multiple, in fact. Ergo, the OP needs to go play one of them instead of composing trollish posts.

 

[Darkwolf445]

Find the post you want to quote. Look at the lower right-hand corner of that post. Click on the "quote" button there.

Thanks.