What are your beefs with the d20 system?

I've seen lots of legitimate beefs here.

Rather than repeat what's come before, I'll add one that REALLY annoys me: the necessity of magic to healing.

Non-magical healing stinks in D&D. Without a cleric (or primary divine spellcaster) adventurers simply do not heal fast enough for a typical day's adventuring.

So while adventuring without a cleric (or primary divine caster) is possible, it changes the tenor of the game far more than any other class omission does.

Personally, I'd like to see non-magical healing beefed up, so that the non-divine backed adventuring group requires less effort on the part of GM and players to remain viable.


Patrick Y.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ArthurQ said:
I'm sorry, I disagree. It is not your place as a DM to tell a player his EVERY available option in combat. They must use their imagination for that.

Your job as DM is to tell them the result of their actions and guide the plot and story.

Combat is 1d20 + BAB + Various Bonuses VS. AC

Simple.

The learning curve is steep. I think you missed my point. If the DM must guide the players every step of the way it makes it a difficult game to introduce to newbies. I often run sessions for young people (teenagers) and I really wish there was an official D&D basic to help with the process.

I started playing in grade school with the 3 books and the help of an older cousin. But, I did not make the game my own until the 1st D&D basic set by Dave Arneson hit the shelf.

As far as "hand them the combat chapter" goes - I will honestly say there were many points in that chapter that confused me as a 25+ year gaming vet and attorney and educator.

As others have pointed out - there are a whole lot of numbers flying around.

I'm not bashing the game by any means - I love it. I just think an effort could be made to make it more accessible.
 
Last edited:

1. The core d20+mod mechanic itself. While this works fine at low and mid-levels, at high levels this mechanic completely breaks down. After 10th level the die roll becomes inconsequential, since the mod is often over 20. I'd like to see a system that scales better with level, so that the die toll never becomes insignificant.

2. The CR/EL system for determining XP. Quite frankly, this system blows and is completely subjective. I much preferred the XP system for 1E and 2E, if XP has to be handed out for killing monsters. Honestly, I wish there would be a move towards story-based and RP XP, but I know there is a sizeable fanbase for the "killing things and taking their stuff" approach. Just the CR/EL thing isn't in the least accurate, and is entirely dependent on the individual characters.

3. Classes that are too restrictive as far as skills. I think its rather stupid all fighters have the same skills, all rogues have the same skills, etc. What I think should be done (and I have done in my games), is to have a certain number of class based skills for each character that the character can choose from an available pool. Perhaps give each character four skills when they are 1st level that can come from the list, with certain skills that are "better" than others (ie Move Silently, Hide, Tumbling, etc), worth 2 skill picks. That way characters can have a little more variation without having to multiclass out the wazoo.

4. Too much emphasis in the core rules on multiclassing. I've seen this get to ridiculous levels, esp when 3 or 4 prestige classes get involved. Most prestige classes aren't needed at all, and too much emphasis is placed on playres choosing from 1st level their character development, without any consideration for where the campaign goes. I'd like to see prestige classes become rarer and wth lower entry requirements so a character doesn't have to plan 8 levels in advance for them, but have more RP requirement for them. I know that various designers have said never to use RP requirements for a balance for class abilities, but this is hogwash. Any DM worth his salt can make sure there are in-game responsibilities and drawbacks to prestige classes. As it is, there is too much meta-game emphasis placed on character development (feat selection, skil ranks, etc).

5. At least in D&D, too much reiance on magic items. I REALLY dislike the assumption of x many gp worth of magic items by level. If you don't want to run a high-magic game in D&D, you have to rework the system to make up for lower magic item levels. This isn't a hard fix, but its annoying to have to go back through the books and add in extra feats and skills for all characters and monsters. Plus, the fact that magic trumps skills and abilities makes investing skill ranks and feats in certain areas rather stupid since you can just fork over the gp to get items that do the same thing. Blah, boring. Plus, magic is extremely predictable in its effects, and with certainty of it working.
 

My one major beef is the linearity of skill checks & skill DCs, and the paucity of skill points. These issues are related.

I'd much prefer a "diminishing returns"-type progression, where higher ranks cost more skill points, to represent the idea that specialization is costly.

Implementing a "diminishing returns"-type progression would also enable the classes to get more skill points, since high ranks would be costly enough to prevent imbalances.

Finally, the linearity of skills (and the all-or-nothing-ness of skill-checks) gives high-level some annoying aspects. In order to challenge & reward someone who has focused in a skill, the DM has to make a DC that's simply impossible for most non-focused PCs.

A "diminishing returns" model would enable me to lower the DCs all around, promoting creativity with respect to circumstance modifiers that I've only seen in low-level play.

-- N
 

I'd much prefer a "diminishing returns"-type progression, where higher ranks cost more skill points, to represent the idea that specialization is costly.

AFAIC, this is a feature, not a bug. Games that lean to heavily on these sorts of cost schemes tend to produce characters with a flurry of low level skills, going overboard on preventing specialization, making the PCs into very blurry jack-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none.
 

D20 discourages dice roles.
Some spells are a straight bonus, instead of rolling a die.
That is against the basic tenant of much of gaming.

More later,

Vahktang
 

ArthurQ said:
If they arent intelligent enough to read (well unless they are young, and i mean under 10 or so), then they...bleh i'll stop there, too off topic, i apologize.

That is *very* high handed of you. Ive got a really intelligent player in my group who just happens to be dyslexic. Im supposed to judge his intelligence quotient based on the fact that he doesnt read as well as I? Back to the topic, I find that teaching even the most intelligent newbie the rules of the game can be a somewhat daunting process. A lot of people learn by doing better than by reading about it, so we usually use the OJT method of teaching. It can be confusing at first, but with guidance, we muddled through it.
 

Psion said:
AFAIC, this is a feature, not a bug. Games that lean to heavily on these sorts of cost schemes tend to produce characters with a flurry of low level skills, going overboard on preventing specialization, making the PCs into very blurry jack-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none.

Yeah, like 3rd Edition Fighters are all blurry, since they all start as "Jacks of All Trades", what with their similar proficency with all weapons, and how their BAB goes up in ALL weapons, not just the ones they've specialized in! :rolleyes:

JoAT is a very fine baseline, and as a DM I much prefer systems that allow basic proficency with everything over those that force specialization.

I'd like a system that does for skills what 3.5e did for combat.

-- N
 

Yeah, like 3rd Edition Fighters are all blurry, since they all start as "Jacks of All Trades", what with their similar proficency with all weapons, and how their BAB goes up in ALL weapons, not just the ones they've specialized in!

Snarky total twisting of meaning not appreciated.
 

Psion said:
Snarky total twisting of meaning not appreciated.

Do you mean that you resent me pointing out that, if understood correctly, my point is good?

Or did you previously not understand that 3rd Edition did such a JoaT-job on the Fighter?

-- N, demonstrating what "snarky" actually looks like
 

Remove ads

Top