What are your beefs with the d20 system?

[Varianor Abroad]

So, what are your beefs?

1. Spellcaster multiclassing could be better. As written, it's much better than older editions handled it, but loss of higher level spells isn't fun for a player who wants to run with something other than a straightup wizard or cleric concept.

2. The "why's" behind the rules could be much better explained. 3.5 tries to fix some of this, but doesn't go far enough. The best example of where a lot more detail would have helped is in the area of treasure awards because too much or too little treasure leads to problems.

3. I second several other comments already made, but not as much as the above two, which are my big gripes.

I do want to say that I really enjoy Third Edition. It brought me back to the game after fourteen years away. Great stuff overall.

 

[Psion]

(double post)

 

[Tsyr]

Agree with every point Psion made except 5c, but we have a different view on that

Actually, I *could* agree with him there too, *if* the base classes were flexible enough NOT to need, say, three-five classes just to cover the priestly types (Cleric, Druid, Priest (A non-ass-kicker), Shaman, and Witch (I view them as divine, not arcane)... If the core "Priest" class could handle all of those archtypes, I would agree.

 

[Psion]

Re: What has gone before:
I don't see what this obsession is with insisting that all spellcasters stack. I don't see a problem with the fact that some combinations just might not work well.

That said (the thread seems to be talking about D&D more than just d20, so I'll answer in that light):
1) Some classes need to be more generic and flexible to fit many supposed roles. Cleric is the big offender here. You should be able to pick options that make a priestess of the goddess of priest more different from a priest of a god of war. Other classes that are also too narrow: Bard, Monk.
2) Epic Level rules need a new edition. It was a valiant effort, but more needs done.
3) This is a pipe dream, but I think combat should be a skill instead of fixed.
4) I agree ECLs need work. Still. Most of them discourage other races TOO strongly.
5) I don't like the direction 3.5 is going, vis-a-vis:
5a) Minis. Minis are becoming an end instead of a means. This is not a good thing. This gives us things like square facings and the gutting of the cover and concealment rules.
5b) "Everyone is at their best in the dungeon." I hate this philosophy. This gives us nonsensical changes like the flavor-awful summoning paladins and the nerfed but useful anywhere chain lightning.
5c) 20-level class proliferation. Spitooey. Base classes should be broad and flexible, prestige classes are for specialization.

 

[Tsyr]

Your Kung-Fu is not 1337 Psion

Actually, what is up with the boards this morning? They don't generaly get this bad until evening...

 

[Psion]

Actually, I *could* agree with him there too, *if* the base classes were flexible enough NOT to need, say, three-five classes just to cover the priestly types (Cleric, Druid, Priest (A non-ass-kicker), Shaman, and Witch (I view them as divine, not arcane)... If the core "Priest" class could handle all of those archtypes, I would agree.

Actually, I have no beef with spellcasting classes with a distinct concept that reflects on the cosmology, like the shaman and possibly with.

The thing that drives me batty is all these variant classes in the Mini HB and CW. I can see how they differ from one another mechanically, but their mileu justification is a bit weak, unlike shamans and witches. I guess the litmus test for me is would someone in the game see a difference.

 

[D+1]

Beefs? Just one really, and only one. Advancement is much too fast for my tastes which were developed through all the older editions. The system is not very amenable to adjustments to that aspect of it. As you cut the rate of advancement/XP rewards with the same number of encounters you have issues with appropriate levels of monetary and equipment rewards. The number of encounters, the xp rewards, and the monetary rewards are all tied VERY closely together and making adjustments to one of them has serious repurcussions upon the others.

A lot of the beefs I see here I would actually classify not as a problem with d20, but with inhibitions to using d20 as it should be used. "By The Book", is not the be-all end-all of using the system and that's why it's designed to be able to handle even some very large scale changes. If you want or need to do that to accomodate your preferences - and the system can handle it - then it's a positive for the system, not a beef against it.

I'd offer counter-arguments for a LOT of these but as someone already said I don't think the thread is really intended for that. But, one that I have to comment on anyway is the issue of teaching the system to newbies.

This system is by far the most sensible, the cleanest, the most logical and thus the easiest to teach the basics of to anyone. It has almost no rules exceptions and virtually everything about it has logical, explainable reasoning behind it rather than simply being an arbitrary, "It just IS this way so live with it." Now, after only 3 years experience with it YOU may not be as familiar with it yet as previous versions which have been around for 30, but they are NOT easier to teach or to learn [with perhaps the sole exception of the ORIGINAL edition]. If you take three identical new players, give one a 1E PH, one a 2E PH and one a 3E/3.5 PH - the 3E/3.5 player will be up and running with the basic functions of the game a HELL of a lot faster, and he will be able to master more of the intricacies of the system faster and more likely to be able to handle it on his own as well, without needing to have his hand held.

 

[WizarDru]

My beef is that it doesn't generate more time for me to play it.

Seriously, my biggest beef? The proliferation of dependence on numbers and statistics at high levels.

 

[swrushing]

I think my biggest beef with d20 (as opposed to DnD) is the initiative system.

I do not like how the current system RESOLVES the actions based almost exclusively on WHO is doing the action (the character's initiative) and for the most part ignores the WHAT is being done.

The easiest examples come from having two guys stand across a room from each other. One has a loaded pistol in hand and one has a sheathed knife. Their actions for the round are "shoot the other guy" and "rush across the room and stab him."

D20 uses ACTOR-based resolution. WHO matters more than WHAT. If the gun toter gets a higher initiative, then he gets to take his action first. If the knife wielder does, he goes first. The actions, what they are doing, are irrelevent. With a little better roll, the knife guy will rush across the room, drawing his knife along the way and stab the gun toter before he ever gets to think about shooting.

You can drwam up any number of other possible scenarios where the choices the init and actor based makes things come really screwy in how they are sequenced out.

So what would i do?

One option is to resolve things in half-actions.
Another option is to have an initial declaration phase where everyone declares their actions, work thru the actions in init order but then apply the effects of all results at the end of the round, not incrementally.
A third, kind of a hybrid and probably my favorite, is to have the declaration phase but then lump actions into three categories called immediate (shoot the gun in hand), normal (rush across room and stab), and delayed (see who moves closest and then shoot) and *resolve* them within those categories in initiative order (So all the immediates happen before the normals but within the immediates the initiatives determine who goes first.)

The latter gets, IMO, a good balance between the WHAT and the WHO, between the ACTOR and the ACTION in terms of influencing which action gets resolved first.

 

[I'm A Banana]

* Mutliclassing could be more elegant...and in that respect, a universal 'magical might' measure like BAB would be useful, and also a rule for 'initial level benefits' so that saves don't skyrocket (more of a style issue than a mechnics one, though).
* What is rolled vs. what is set is a bit crazy. I'd like some good rules to be able to switch it around.
* All the griping about things that shouldn't be griped about.