What don't you like about D&D?

[Desdichado]

And what (if anything) do you do to address it?

Maybe this is a bad idea with all the negativity that seems to be floating around at the moment, but at least this negativity is something different from the edition wars angst that seems to be so faddish at the moment. I've got a little list.

• Levels. They strain credibility for me, especially if a character lasts through a long stretch. I prefer a much more granular approach to character augmentation--spend some XP on a skill point here and there, or a feat, etc. However, no d20 system really accomodates my preference very well--perhaps True20 is what I really wish I were playing in some respects. In any case, as a GM, my way around it is to focus campaigns on a certain level band and keep the game in there. My campaigns are perhaps more like "mini-campaigns" compared to what other GMs might run. I've been known to, say, start at 3rd level and stop at 7th, with XP slowed down a bit to keep the game in that band until the campaign arc is over and the characters can be retired. If I want higher level, I usually do a campaign that's higher level from the get-go. Start at 13th and end at 17th, for example. But I don't really like high level D&D anyway--too complex to be enjoyable.
  
  
• AC progression. Basically, the fact that there is none. As you improve your characters, your To Hit rolls improve dramatically, as do those of your opponents. However, the only way to get your AC any better is to pick up magic, or pump up your DEX. Every WotC d20 game except D&D now seems to have a level/class based AC progression, and when I'm running, I houserule that back in.
  
  
• Narrow core classes. I don't mind archetypes. I do mind the game designers telling me exactly how the archetypes must be built and not allowing options. My way around it? Always being on the lookout for other options. I've hardly ever played in a 3.5 game, or even a 3.0 game before that, that didn't allow all kinds of other alternate base classes. I'm almost at the point where I consider the Complete X series to be practically core.
  
  
• Vancian "fire and forget" magic. I'm not sure what to do about it other than avoid playing magic using characters. As a DM, I've been known to completely disallow D&D magic and replace it with psionics, or Midnight campaign setting magic, or Call of Cthulhu magic, etc. but that's pretty extreme. By that point, I'm not sure you can call your game D&D anymore and you may have to use the dreaded "d20 Fantasy" label.
  
  
• Elves and Gnomes. Damn, they suck. For that matter, there's way too much out there anyway. Reading through Dungeon Magazine adventures, it seems that the writers just can't resist stocking their adventures with some obscure humanoid antagonists. I like having the options, but in campaigns I run, most of them will never, ever show up. There's nothing like just using basic classed humans as your BBEGs and only rarely involving monsters to bring back that elusive "sense of wonder" that we love to complain about being missing from the game. Ironically.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm not a fan of the 1 minute combat round.

(And I'm with you on Gnomes. And Kender. Hobbits are okay, though.)

 

[Crothian]

The complaining and negative threads.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Attacks of Opportunity - I only enforce them if it's a really blatant violation, i.e. trying to run past the angry dragon while juggling live fish.

The ever-expanding plethora of feats and prestige classes - Aside from the ones in the core sourcebooks, I only use them if they're tied to a specific setting, so that they have context and meaning.

 

[Psion]

The complaining and negative threads.

Crothian FTW.

 

[thedungeondelver]

And what (if anything) do you do to address it?

Maybe this is a bad idea with all the negativity that seems to be floating around at the moment, but at least this negativity is something different from the edition wars angst that seems to be so faddish at the moment. I've got a little list.

• Levels. They strain credibility for me, especially if a character lasts through a long stretch. I prefer a much more granular approach to character augmentation--spend some XP on a skill point here and there, or a feat, etc. However, no d20 system really accomodates my preference very well--perhaps True20 is what I really wish I were playing in some respects. In any case, as a GM, my way around it is to focus campaigns on a certain level band and keep the game in there. My campaigns are perhaps more like "mini-campaigns" compared to what other GMs might run. I've been known to, say, start at 3rd level and stop at 7th, with XP slowed down a bit to keep the game in that band until the campaign arc is over and the characters can be retired. If I want higher level, I usually do a campaign that's higher level from the get-go. Start at 13th and end at 17th, for example. But I don't really like high level D&D anyway--too complex to be enjoyable.
  
  
• AC progression. Basically, the fact that there is none. As you improve your characters, your To Hit rolls improve dramatically, as do those of your opponents. However, the only way to get your AC any better is to pick up magic, or pump up your DEX. Every WotC d20 game except D&D now seems to have a level/class based AC progression, and when I'm running, I houserule that back in.
  
  
• Narrow core classes. I don't mind archetypes. I do mind the game designers telling me exactly how the archetypes must be built and not allowing options. My way around it? Always being on the lookout for other options. I've hardly ever played in a 3.5 game, or even a 3.0 game before that, that didn't allow all kinds of other alternate base classes. I'm almost at the point where I consider the Complete X series to be practically core.
  
  
• Vancian "fire and forget" magic. I'm not sure what to do about it other than avoid playing magic using characters. As a DM, I've been known to completely disallow D&D magic and replace it with psionics, or Midnight campaign setting magic, or Call of Cthulhu magic, etc. but that's pretty extreme. By that point, I'm not sure you can call your game D&D anymore and you may have to use the dreaded "d20 Fantasy" label.
  
  
• Elves and Gnomes. Damn, they suck. For that matter, there's way too much out there anyway. Reading through Dungeon Magazine adventures, it seems that the writers just can't resist stocking their adventures with some obscure humanoid antagonists. I like having the options, but in campaigns I run, most of them will never, ever show up. There's nothing like just using basic classed humans as your BBEGs and only rarely involving monsters to bring back that elusive "sense of wonder" that we love to complain about being missing from the game. Ironically.

Uh. This is all tongue in cheek, right? I mean, I've been accused of being dense before and will certainly be so again if you're just taking the piss here...but if you're not...

Then, yeah, any other complaints about what "3.5" is or isn't aside, what you describe would not be D&D by any stripe. I don't care who owns the license, a game published like that wouldn't be D&D, all broad comments about a game of checkers aside.

 

[delericho]

The inevitable heart attacks that come from lugging around so many heavy books.

The over-reliance on too many magic items. I would vastly prefer characters to use far fewer but more powerful items. Instead of wearing full plate +5, a shield +5, a ring of protection +5, and an amulet of natural armour +5, I would rather characters wear full plate +10 and a heavy shield +10 (or something to that effect)

In general, the mathematical basis of the game is one of its strengths. However, at times that same mathematical basis can get in the way of fun, and can really suck the wonder out of the game. It gets particularly galling when characters turn down some really interesting magic item in favour of a long sword +5 simply because the latter is of far more general utility.

 

[molonel]

At this point, for me, 3rd Edition is (or has long been) on the road to rules bloat just like 2nd Edition. There are 700-some prestige classes. I have Tome and Blood, the Complete Mage and the Complete Arcane all on the shelf. I'm done buying books. Most of my money is going toward figurines, now. I'm tired of adjudicating the balance of this prestige class or that spell. At this point, I just want to play the damn game.

I've headed toward a game with less prestige classes and more customizable base classes, and lower magic and more emphasis on mechanics through character rather than a metric butt ton of magic items.

 

[diaglo]

i :heart: D&D.

go to the Gamers Seeking Gamers forum here. i'm still looking to add more players to the current campaign.

edit: so my only complaint is not finding enough gamers to play

 

[jollyninja]

Attacks of Opportunity - I only enforce them if it's a really blatant violation, i.e. trying to run past the angry dragon while juggling live fish.

so if they are dead fish it's o.k.? sounds like a fun game