What are your beefs with the d20 system?

[Sir Whiskers]

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.

Which is exactly the approach taken toward stats with the base point buy system. It's intentionally very expensive to take a very high (17-18) score in one stat, prohibitively so for many players. I find it interesting (and not necessarily wrong ) that the designers created a system for JoAT'ing stats, while strongly encouraging characters to focus on a handful of skills, reaching seemingly superhuman levels in them.

Back on topic, I have agree with those who've posted that the system is complex, with a very steep learning curve. It's a bit of a trade-off, of course. The extensive rules cover most situations and handles them fairly well, but sifting through all of the rules is a bit intimidating, especially when trying to teach newbies.

For opposite reasons, I find that 3E is as difficult to learn as OD&D (the original white box set) was. The latter had too few rules, with too many holes in them, while 3E has so many rules it's hard to remember them all. I strongly believe d20 needs an intro system, or at least DnD does. Surely it's possible to write a minimal ruleset which still covers most game situations cleanly and clearly.

 

[Ace]

My group and I have been talking about OUR beefs with the d20 system in general. Some specific stuff like Whirlwind Attack and Mobility being pretty worthless feats to general stuff like attacks of opportunities being too clunky (in our opinion).

So, what are your beefs?

I have 3 beefs with d20 that I really don't think can be changed without making the game into something else

#1 Monster centric threat scaling.

The way the game and its implied setting(s) work you will be fighting a lot of monsters once you are above 10th level or so.
I really prefer human oriented settings but the DMG demographics make this unlikely to work as well. There are a lot of Neo Oytughs or Dire Axiomatic Wombats but very few high level warriors for some reason

#2 Gear dependance.
I would like to see magic stuff regarded as option not as nigh mandatory. A 10th level character should be assumed to be balanced and funtion normal with normal gear only and not x thousand GPs in treasure.
Any magic stuff should be a power boost not an assumed feature

#3 Threat escalation.
I am used to games where you can fight a lot of human warriors and there will still be a challange.
D&D's power curve is exponential in a way, a 1st level party can take on kobolds -- a 12th level party, small towns.
I am used to systems with a shallower curve say
newbie - 1 mook , experienced 1 veteran , master, another master or a bunch of mooks,
I find it hard to build adventures for a super heroic power level where 10th level guys wipe out villages. Sure its playable but I cut my RPG teeth on games like GURPS and Runequest. We never played any D&D past 8th level (max) so I am not used to the power curve and I would like the worlds most popular RPG to have this sort of option

 

[ciaran00]

My beefs...

1) It's still a Tolkein ripoff
2) Memorisation (hey, what a waste of time)
3) PrCs
4) Attack of Opportunity rules (utter waste of time)
5) Stacking bonuses (another complete waste of time)

ciaran

 

[ciaran00]

#1 Monster centric threat scaling.

That's a DM's responsibility, isn't it? Shouldn't be d20's...

Any magic stuff should be a power boost not an assumed feature

Your call as a DM, again. It is only an assumption when you allow it to be one.

#3 Threat escalation.

This is a design issue. If burning villages occur in a vaccuum, then many villages will be burned by high level characters. If they don't, then you as a DM have a good explanation why (cause and effect) these things don't happen. Also, always scale for level. This is a DM issue. D&D encourages you to scale your encounters by level. If you don't, don't be surprised about destroyed villages.

ciaran

 

[johnsemlak]

My main gripe is the current near dependance of the game on using miniatures or a battle grid or something. I guess the majority of D&D players are fine with that, but I managed just fine in previous editions without one.

 

[Psion]

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

Not in the least bit. I didn't like a flurry of weapon proficiencies in AD&D 1e&2e any more than I liked a flurry of 1/2 and 1 point skills in GURPS.

 

[Staffan]

Any magic stuff should be a power boost not an assumed feature

Your call as a DM, again. It is only an assumption when you allow it to be one.

(I wonder if nested quoting works...)
It is an assumption that's rather thoroughly enmeshed in the rules. The classes are balanced on the assumption of magic items making up for the non-magic classes lack of inherent magic, as well as everyone gaining ability bonuses, skill bonuses, and weapon bonuses from magic. If you lower the amount of magic, the entire CR thing will be thrown out of whack.

 

[Psion]

(I wonder if nested quoting works...)

Guess so.

It is an assumption that's rather thoroughly enmeshed in the rules. The classes are balanced on the assumption of magic items making up for the non-magic classes lack of inherent magic, as well as everyone gaining ability bonuses, skill bonuses, and weapon bonuses from magic. If you lower the amount of magic, the entire CR thing will be thrown out of whack.

True, but I consider this hardly an unnavigable problem. IME, CR is very situation sensitive anyways, and you really couldn't hope for it not to be.

 

[Mercule]

1) Vancian magic. Spell slots are just plain annoying. I could write a 10 page essay on it, though, so I'll stop while I'm ahead. Short form: mechanically fine and easy to balance, comes at a significant flavor cost.

2) Anything else that uses x/day to balance. Lazy and clumsy. Not really worth my time to house rule everywhere or enough to drive me away from the game (d20 is still my favorite system). It is one of the weaknesses of the system. Again, mechanically simple and functional, but comes at a flavor cost that cuts down suspension of disbelief.

3) TWF rangers. WTF? Whoever introduced this concept back in 2E was a goober. I don't have any problem if a ranger or two want to use TWF, but it shouldn't be any more common than TWF rogues or paladins. It certainly shouldn't be, even marginally, tied to the class.

3a) Ranger combat paths. Not that I mind granting bonus feats or anything. They should still have to qualify, though, and the feats shouldn't be conditional. Also, they shouldn't be combat only. What about the ranger/scout archetype who doesn't really master either path, but learns things like Alertness?

4) Clerics as secondary fighters. These guys are priests. If I want a priest of peace, I don't see how armor and a decent BAB fit into that role. Rogues should be the secondary fighters.

4a) Swapping for healing. "I worship a god of Fire and Magic. Therefore, I can channel healing at will." Huh? Nonsensical at limiting in flavor.

Beyond that, I don't see anything major, right now. Sure, I think there are too many new base classes and prestige classes -- many of which are poorly designed or conceived. I just cherry pick the ones that work for me. Stuff like that.

What I do like is that d20 has got to be the easiest system to teach newbies. I really don't understand how anyone could say otherwise. It's got a tight, integrated mechanic (d20 + skill, compare to DC) and is pretty straightforward. *shrug*

 

[tetsujin28]

Classes, levels, funny dice. Steep learning curve.