Things that Irk Me about DnD (Somewhat long, kinda ranty)

[Merlion]

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love DnD. And I’m not just looking for another game, because I like more stuff about DnD that I dislike. In fact I like most of it, but these things I’m about to discuss make it annoying, having to deal with them to get to the things I do like.

I realize that to some people, some of these things are what makes DnD DnD. I just happen to disagree. To me, DnD is basic fantasy. Especially now since its grown so far beyond a combat-simulation system for 2 people to use in their basement.
I see it as a means of representing fantasy ideas, concepts, and archtypes. The broader the better.

I already know most of the alternatives…Monte Cook’s Arcana Unearthed (which I do love), the variants from Unearthed Arcana etc. And while those are interesting, many of them fall short.

What I am looking for is just to see other peoples thoughts and opnions on these, the things that irk me about DnD. I’m not looking for alternative games to play, or to simply be told these things shouldn’t be changed…I just want to see if anyway feels the same way about any of them, and why. And to see what people think about why some of these things are in place etc.

Anyway, here they are in rough order of severity


The Arcane/Divine divide: This is probably the biggest thing for me. To me, its something that does not really exist in most fantasy…there’s just magic, and different types of magic are based on things like culture, or particular form of practice (basically, what would be class in DnD terms). There’s rarely two huge monolithic forms of magic and all spellcasters fall into one or the other category.
And where does this whole thing come from of god-magic being linked to healing and defense? I guess from the fact that the Cleric class was based off the Knights Templar and whatnot and certainly the Judeo-Christian God would have a link to healing and whatnot…but in a polytheistic fantasy setting, what about the gods of darkness and death and decay?


Also springing from this is another issue: I personally feel that wizards/sorcerers should be the masters of magic, as a whole. Partially because of all the classes, magic is all that those to get. And partially, because in most fantasy (where generally magic is magic), mages are masters of magic and able to use it to just about any end.But since the magic system is split down the middle, this isn’t possible. And so we have Wizards and Sorcerers barred from things (they aren’t allowed to truly heal at all), and they are rather weak in several areas (defense for instance). In DnD rather than master mages, Wizards and Sorcerers are mainly magical artillery. And yes, I realize they can do other things, but that’s always the primary focus seemingly.

The Cleric class: I dislike the Cleric class for three reasons. 1) its mildly unbalanced in its current form. 2) to me the “Priest” archtype is a very uncommon one. The “White Mage”/defense-healing Mage is more common but 3) the Cleric class doesn’t embody either of these very well. The whole considerable combat ability and religious focus pretty much kills the White Mage aspect, and as for the Priest archtype…the Cleric is to locked in to one thing. Even with Domains, a Cleric is going to have a lot of extra baggage that isn’t going to fit very well with many deities. Just the spell list alone. Why would a god of slaugher grant healing spells? Why would a god of knowledge grant Righteous Might or Divine Power? For that matter why would a priest of a god of knowledge have average BAB, full armor proficiency and a D8 hd?

Magical Sterotyping: I kind of dislike the fact that all spellcasting classes have it spelled out exactly where their magic comes from. Wizards get their magic totally from study. Sorcerers totally from inborn power. Clerics pray to gods or causes. Obviously this is easily ignored, but I’d still like it if there weren’t as much pigeonholing.

Magic Item Dependency: I’d like to at least have a variant were the power of your character and the whole CR system isn’t so strongly based around magic items, making it easy for magic items to be a little less common and a little more special.

Well, there are other things, but this post is plenty long enough as is so I’m just gonna go with this for now

 

[shadow]

I really agree with you Merlion. My biggest complaint about D&D fantasy is the cleric class. I haven't seen much in the way of D&D style clerics (that is adventuring, spell-casting priests) in most mythology. What bothers me the most about the cleric class is that it shoehorns a specific model of mythology into any campaign. That is one where the gods are very active in the world and grant any divine request to a faithful follower. Also it seems to force campaigns to adopt a polytheistic pantheon. This, IMHO, really limits world building. What about campaigns featuring a monotheistic religion? What about dualism? What about animism? What about campaigns that don't focus on any religion?

 

[LostSoul]

I don't really understand the Cleric class. How does killing goblins make you more pious? Why doesn't your God want to give you powerful spells from day 1, instead of waiting until you kill a whole bunch of monsters? Why does your God limit the number of spells per day that you can cast?

I guess it's based on how well you can channel your divine energy, but what does that have to do with killing creatures? Why can't you just sit and meditate for fifty years and cast 9th level spells? To me, something about it just doesn't seem right.

What kind of window dressing do you put on your Clerics to explain the game mechanics of the class?

 

[DragonLancer]

Personally I don't mind the magic split or the way clerics, wizards and sorcerers are presented. I find Clerics balanced but Sorcerers are underpowered. I've played a fair few sorcerers in my time and I find that need access to a few more spells per day than they currently get.

Heres what I don't like about D&D as it stands these days:

Druids. Druids are underpowered, and gnerally even with their shapeshifting they arn't worth playing. They need something give them a bit of boost and need a few more decent spells to make them viable.

Feats: The inclusion of feats although a good thing, has made the game far too dependent on combat almost to the point of overhsadowing everything else.

 

[Severion]

What you don't like you change

I am starting a quazi LotR game soon that has only one spell casting class "wizard" they use the druid list to choose the spells for thier spellbook. If you don't like the current system find one you like, I don't like the Sorcerer class so i replaced it (in my regular game) with Mongoose's "Chaos Mage". My advice is check with your players and drop the cleric, create a specialist mage or feat that allows healing spells or just find a more appropriate cleric type class (i believe the UA has a cloistered cleric).

 

[Halivar]

When I first started playing Dnd (only three years ago, but it feels like a lifetime) I was also confused by the cleric class. A priest in full-plate? Is this guy a fighter or a holy man? I grew to just accept the idea, thinking "Traveling and questing priests would need heavy protection and smiting powers." A priest of a war god would be easy to explain, but for Pelor?

I'm currently running an Arthurian-style homebrew world, and I have had to modify clerics into something more like medieval catholic priests. They do not wear armor, but Shield of Faith is more powerful (as are other specific protection spells). Spells are called miracles. All clerics have the Good domain, and one other depending on thier patron saint. Their domain focus gives each cleric a specific title: Theologian (Law), Missionary (Travel), Templar (War). Holy Fist (Strength) etc.
They do get XP for killing bad guys (especially since the "bad guys" are almost exclusively various types of "profane" monsters or fey), but they also get special extra experience for fulfilling religious quests, converting the lost, or otherwise doing their job well.

So, in short, I didn't like the class as presented, so I made the class work for me.

V

NOTE: This isn't my post. It's my roommate's. He forgot to log in! (for shame! -- Hal)

 

[Zappo]

To me, DnD is basic fantasy. Especially now since its grown so far beyond a combat-simulation system for 2 people to use in their basement.
I see it as a means of representing fantasy ideas, concepts, and archtypes. The broader the better.

This is your basic assumption, but it is wrong. D&D was never supposed to encompass all fantasy, it wasn't designed to do so, and it doesn't do it well when forced to (and this is the source of your complaints). This was true of the first editions and is still true today. The designers have never, ever, wanted to create a universal fantasy game, so complaining that they didn't is kinda pointless.

 

[Camarath]

The Arcane/Divine divide: This is probably the biggest thing for me. To me, its something that does not really exist in most fantasy…there’s just magic, and different types of magic are based on things like culture, or particular form of practice (basically, what would be class in DnD terms).

If you wanted to you could just remove the Cleric class (perhaps the Driud class as well) and merge the spell lists. I think that would be an easy and effective way to create a unified form of magic.

 

[Halivar]

First off, I'm going to kill my roommate for posting with my account (shame on you! You have your own! I know you like my avatar better, but come on! ).

Second off, I agree that the cleric, as represented in D&D is not what we think of as a priest. A priest, if he has any magical powers at all, is best represented by an adept or something similar. Another idea is using the new generic spellcaster class from Unearthed Arcana.

As for clerics, I was always had the understanding that they represented the romantic vision of templars and hospitalers. They were made up of crusading knights who formed religious orders dedicated to protecting religious sites and pilgrims. They wear full-plate because they were primarily a melee class. They are opften described as "warrior monks", though, again, this is a romantic description. They aren't the priests who stay home and present mass. Now, if this vision doesn't fit in your campaign, say priests don't wear full-plate, don't get any weapon proficiency, and don't adventure. Perfectly acceptable rule 0.

Of course, I also think the system is versatile enough to allow a cleric not to wear full-plate, if he so chose. He can get by with a robe and spells. Still perfectly viable, IMHO (as a side note I'll point out the general consensus, among the majority of players anyhow, that clerics are the most powerful class in the game).

 

[Umbran]

The designers have never, ever, wanted to create a universal fantasy game, so complaining that they didn't is kinda pointless.

This is correct. At least this time around, though, they took the pains to make the design a bit more modular, so that it is more easily tweaked into something else (like Arcana Unearthed). The design is not generic, but it is reasonably easy to mold, which is nice.