What don't you like about D&D?

[evildmguy]

I've played and own many many different game. And I always come back to D&D. D&D is a good solid game andf playing other games helps one see that.

First, to the OP.

I agree with what you said. I will also add hit points. They get ridiculous at high levels.

My other issues are with the "style" of DND and its rules. The style seems to be almost incompetent characters at low levels, good at mid levels and super heroic at high levels. The style and how the character is played radically changes as those boundaries are crossed. I want heroic fantasy but things change too much. I like the idea of the poster who said that he plays in a certain range and then ends it.

The other big issue is its roots and that the rules are still too close to them. DND is based on wargaming, when things like large hit points or a big AC make sense when dealing with large groups of combatants. It is a great way to simulate a group of fighting men. I still find it unfortunate that Mr. Gygax did such a literal translation because I don't think it works well when applied to an individual. Even the spells become more of a wargaming idea. (Fireball, Meteor Swarm and many others just feel like army blasting spells, not things to use in small group combat.)

As to Crothian's comment, I still have the opposite reaction. Playing in other games always shows how bad DND (d20) handles things to me. First of all, I still cringe at the thought of using d20 for modern or future games. There is no reason why a gun should take five clips to kill a character. (And I hate the retcon of defining HIT points as the character's ability to dodge damage. Then why did they lose HIT points?) Second, classes don't allow the base of skills that modern and future people would have, again without some retcon allowing for it. Third, after playing a skill based game, I find it very tough to go back to classes. In a skill based game, I can write up a character who is good at sneaking, hiding, opening locks AND fighting. I don't have to sacrifice fighting ability to have other skills. Without multiclassing, which still makes some sacrifices, there is no way to do this in DND and even then, it feels like a patch because the character will never be as good as his single classed counterparts.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Desdichado]

I don't mind AoO's at all. If you're going to play a miniatures based tactical combat game, I think they're just fine. In fact, I found them rather intuitive, but then again, I've been playing Third Edition Blood Bowl since it was brand new, so AoO's are just like Tackle Zones to me.

The only problem with AoO's is that they pretty much force the tactical grid and miniatures based combat if you're going to use them even sorta right. To be honest with you, if I'm playing a roleplaying game, I don't want it to be interrupted by a tactical miniatures game. I'd rather just play a separate tactical miniatures game when I'm in the mood for that.

I agree. I find that all of what the OP posted are what make D&D to me. It wouldn't be the same game or have the same feel if they were removed or changed.

I've heard that a few times, and I guess I don't get it. Yeah, that's part of what makes the game D&D. Hence the thread title: what don't you like about D&D.

 

[Henry]

...I still cringe at the thought of using d20 for modern or future games. There is no reason why a gun should take five clips to kill a character.

To be honest, I've never had it happen. I've in fact had in a d20 modern game (with default rules) one character of 7th level get shot and almost bleed out to death from a hunting rifle. (16 damage, massive damage save, rolled a 2, and went to -1 and dying immediately). Dropping the MDT to 10 means even more carnage -- a very fun amount, in fact. However, the "Mook Who Would Not Die" syndrome does pop up in retelling of d20 games from time to time.

 

[evildmguy]

To be honest, I've never had it happen. I've in fact had in a d20 modern game (with default rules) one character of 7th level get shot and almost bleed out to death from a hunting rifle. (16 damage, massive damage save, rolled a 2, and went to -1 and dying immediately). Dropping the MDT to 10 means even more carnage -- a very fun amount, in fact. However, the "Mook Who Would Not Die" syndrome does pop up in retelling of d20 games from time to time.

Cool! Glad to know it can work. I had players who complained, imagine that!, that they had lots o' hit points, so there is no way a single shot should do it. Again, I chalk it up to the system, which influenced me and my players at the time.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Desdichado]

And why is heroic fantasy limited to swords and whatnot? The heroic fantasy archetype where both protagonists and villians seem to shrug off damage like it ain't no thang is extremely common in the world of action movies. Which are largely set in the modern world.

So why not d20 for modern?

 

[DMH]

That a single person can go hand to hand with a dragon 50 feet long and win (that number dropped at lot as I thought about it).

I would never not consider using Torn Asunder or wounds/vitality and even then, it is silly.

 

[evildmguy]

And why is heroic fantasy limited to swords and whatnot? The heroic fantasy archetype where both protagonists and villians seem to shrug off damage like it ain't no thang is extremely common in the world of action movies. Which are largely set in the modern world.

So why not d20 for modern?

Mainly because there is the catch-22 of above. The character have lots of hit points which means that they can be hit by lots and lots of bullets before they go down. And they are at no penalty during that time. That's the point of hit points. Yet now there is a rule that drops them with one hit. If that's the case, why bother with hit points and why give them so many? Why not use the system but lower the number of hit points?

And hey! You started this thread! Why are you attacking me? I am agreeing with you!

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

That a single person can go hand to hand with a dragon 50 feet long and win (that number dropped at lot as I thought about it).

I would never not consider using Torn Asunder or wounds/vitality and even then, it is silly.

YES! That too!

Or that giants are about as easy.

It creates this image that dragons and giants and other big monsters aren't that scary, because the players have learned the numbers. They stop looking at them with awe and reverence. I think looking up at a dragon should always have some fear in it, merely based on size, much less their abilities.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[delericho]

That a single person can go hand to hand with a dragon 50 feet long and win (that number dropped at lot as I thought about it).

So, the story of St. George and the Dragon isn't a suitable source for the game?

 

[VirgilCaine]

-The fact I can't stay away from threads where people talk about rules variants and preferences that aren't like mine. Do whatever you want, just *shudder* keep it away from me.

First of all, I still cringe at the thought of using d20 for modern or future games. There is no reason why a gun should take five clips to kill a character.

God, yes. Give me GURPS for Call of Cthulhu, not D20.