What don't you like about D&D?

[Umbran]

Folks,
A couple of you in here are now firmly in the arena of "not wise enough to disengage, so I'm adding to the problem" territory. Please stop.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Back when levels were first introduced, I think they made perfect sense, because characters were one-dimensional: "These 40 peasant levies are 0-level fighting men, led by a man-at-arms who is 2nd-level."

I think levels still make sense with a few broad classes: "Korgoth fights as a 10th-level fighting man and thieves as a 5th-level thief."

Once characters become so complex that class-plus-level no longer suffices to describe them, it's not clear that classes and levels serve their old purpose.

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.

I suspect your issue is specific to how D&D implements levels -- how quickly magical abilities and hit points scale up -- and a lot of that comes of mixing old rules, from when 4th-level was meant to be special, with modern d20 mechanics, where a +4 bonus is nice but less than awesome.

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.

This points to one of the oddest design decisions in D&D, to dramatically increase individual characters' hit points with level, but not to increase their AC at all, and to increase their to-hit bonus slightly, while not increasing their damage at all.

If anything, I'd increase to-hit and AC dramatically, increase damage slightly, and leave hit points static.

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.

I think modern D&D's narrow core classes are an unfortunate side-effect of increasing detail and complexity. Back when every kind of fighting man was simply a fighting man, you could imagine whatever details you wanted. Once every character concept became its own class with a specific list of special abilities, the designers had enough leeway to specify something you didn't want.

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.

I never "got" D&D's magic system as a kid. It didn't resonate with me at all. When I finally read Vance's Dying Earth stories, I enjoyed them quite a bit, but it's an oddly idiosyncratic work to base a game's magic system on.

Elves and Gnomes. [...] 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.

I agree completely.

 

[Gothmog]

And now it's the "Passive Aggressive snide remarks" thread apparently. Thanks, buddy.

I didn't start this thread so I could just get folks to list things, I posted it to have a discussion. That means a back and forth dialogue. Besides, Gothmog and I have been e-pals for years, assuming he recognizes me under this new username, and we have both recognized in each other someone who has a lot of similarities in taste and in what we are hoping to get out of gaming, and we've discussed at length in various threads over a long period of time some of the things that dissatisfy us with D&D and how to deal with them.

Here's a free clue for you: this little side discussion we're having doesn't concern you in the least and if it bothers Gothmog, you don't need to white knight him; he's perfectly capable to telling me so himself.

Haha, I still recognize you J-Dawg. This is just the hip-hop version of Joshua Dyal, right? But no, I don't feel slighted or anything- this kind of discussion is fun to me, and I don't take it personally.

As a side note I'm also getting over surgery from a thoracotomy last week, and the oxycodone makes reading some of the comments in the thread vastly more amusing than they should be!

 

[Desdichado]

I suspect your issue is specific to how D&D implements levels -- how quickly magical abilities and hit points scale up -- and a lot of that comes of mixing old rules, from when 4th-level was meant to be special, with modern d20 mechanics, where a +4 bonus is nice but less than awesome.

Exactly so--it's the implementation of levels rather than levels themselves that get me down. And, although I'm largely very much a fan of d20 D&D vs. older versions of D&D, I think this problem is greatly exascerbated in d20 because of feats and skill points, etc. which make building or running higher level characters a real chore. Also odd little blips--if you want to make a real master craftsman, you can give him a feat or two and maxed ranks, but sooner or later, you probably want to level him up so he can get more skill points--and that means more hit points and more BAB, better saves, etc. I mean, that's an easy enough illogicality to work around, but it still rankles me that it exists at all.

This points to one of the oddest design decisions in D&D, to dramatically increase individual characters' hit points with level, but not to increase their AC at all, and to increase their to-hit bonus slightly, while not increasing their damage at all.

If anything, I'd increase to-hit and AC dramatically, increase damage slightly, and leave hit points static.

Hmm... I've kinda thought that crimping HP advancement is a hallmark of GNG, but I can kinda see your point here even for a non-GNG game.

I suppose that GNG is also relative--most anything is GNG relative to D&D anymore.

I'll have to give it some more thought to see if I think that makes the game TOO tough (which is desirable in some cases, but not others.)

I think modern D&D's narrow core classes are an unfortunate side-effect of increasing detail and complexity. Back when every kind of fighting man was simply a fighting man, you could imagine whatever details you wanted. Once every character concept became its own class with a specific list of special abilities, the designers had enough leeway to specify something you didn't want.

Yes and no. If you imagined your fighting man as a swashbuckler type, ala the Three Musketeers or Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, you'd have had some trouble because there were no rules to support you and in fact several rules that seemed to state that only thieves could do some of the stuff you thought you should be able to.

It all came down to how good (and flexible) your DM was if you could actually pull that off or not.

I never "got" D&D's magic system as a kid. It didn't resonate with me at all. When I finally read Vance's Dying Earth stories, I enjoyed them quite a bit, but it's an oddly idiosyncratic work to base a game's magic system on.

That was always my big thing with it too. I came to D&D flush with excitement after reading Tolkien, Howard, Leiber or hell--even Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp. And to my dismay, D&D didn't really allow me to recreate sitations like what I found in my fantasy books, especially in regards to magic, which was a very bizarre and cumbersome and unfamiliar affair to a 10 year old would-be mage.

Now that I'm about to turn 35, I don't find it any more appealing to be honest with you. I've never liked the D&D magic system much, and I still don't. The addition of spontaneous casters ala the sorcerer make it... well, not exactly palatable, but at least digestable. I'd like to see 4e... eventually... go even farthur down that road, but with the splatbooks in print we're pretty much already there.

 

[Shadeydm]

I really hate the prep time required to run 3.xE as a DM.

 

[Desdichado]

Haha, I still recognize you J-Dawg. This is just the hip-hop version of Joshua Dyal, right? But no, I don't feel slighted or anything- this kind of discussion is fun to me, and I don't take it personally.

Right you are. I've been enjoying it too--indeed, finding someone who's views you can respect but which disagree from your own and hashing out the differences is the very life of good internet discussion, so of course I had no intention of causing anyone (especially you) any offense, and I didn't anticipate that you'd taken any. And part of the reason that I jumped in and "told you you were wrong" but had not done so really to anyone else is because I knew a fruitful and fun discussion could still be had on the merits of various ways of modifying the system to get the results we both tend to want from them.

Not that I'm saying that in any way switching to an entirely different system is the "wrong" choice. In fact, it's a choice that has an awful lot of attraction for me lately as well, but for various reasons (inertia in the gaming group, availability of compatible material, etc.) I've decided to stick with d20 and make of it what I can.

I think since the last time we've hashed out LM/GNG (now there's a dead horse that could use another sound flogging) I've actually made some slight progress in getting what I want from d20 with a minimum of house rules, and I've also changed somewhat in terms of what I'm willing to live with.

As a side note I'm also getting over surgery from a thoracotomy last week, and the oxycodone makes reading some of the comments in the thread vastly more amusing than they should be!

I always try to please. I should note that I expect most of my posts are better if read under the influence.

 

[Urbannen]

I agree with the point that D&D does not do a good job simulating essentially any fantasy setting. I understand. It's its own genre - I just wish it weren't advertised as a generic system!

My beefs with the D&D game as composed, per se, are:

1. Random hit points - HP end up measuring luck, not combat prowess; makes it too hard to calculate NPCs and monsters.

2. Law/Chaos alignment axis - completely meaningless except for spells and effects or as an add-on to the Good/Evil axis. I mean, how do Elves and Orcs share and alignment? Good and Evil are defined as moral choices, Law and Chaos are defined as a disparate group of personality tendancies. I'm not a fan of alignment to begin with, but if this axis is going to be used, it should be universally applicable and defined in terms of concrete actions. Ex.:Chaotic means you think it's okay to steal and lie, Evil means you think it's okay to murder.

3. Not enough skill points. If you play the skill system as written, characters are really limited in the basic adventuring actions they can perform. Too many basic, universally useful skills (Spot, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, any Knowledge, Ride, Hide, Diplomacy, Bluff, Climb), not enough points. Not even rogues can be proficient in all the rogue-ish skills. Add +2 skills per level, already!

4. 10 level prestige classes. If you can take the class at Level 6, there should be 15 levels so you can go to 20 with the class.

 

[molonel]

I really hate the prep time required to run 3.xE as a DM.

Actually, at high (17+) and epic levels, I agree with you.

 

[mmadsen]

Exactly so--it's the implementation of levels rather than levels themselves that get me down. And, although I'm largely very much a fan of d20 D&D vs. older versions of D&D, I think this problem is greatly exacerbated in d20 because of feats and skill points, etc. which make building or running higher level characters a real chore.

To get the best of both worlds (d20 and OD&D), we can use the streamlined mechanics of d20 but without so many layers of rules. E.g. a 4th-level fighter is someone with +4 to-hit, +4 to-dodge, etc.

Also odd little blips--if you want to make a real master craftsman, you can give him a feat or two and maxed ranks, but sooner or later, you probably want to level him up so he can get more skill points--and that means more hit points and more BAB, better saves, etc. I mean, that's an easy enough illogicality to work around, but it still rankles me that it exists at all.

I more than agree. What I dislike about D&D's class-level system isn't that there are classes and levels, but that all sorts of unrelated things are tied together -- namely that hit dice, BAB, and saves are tied to everything else.

If we make those things into skills, we can side-step the problem. E.g. a 4th-level fighter may have +4 toughness, while a 4th-level craftsman has +0 toughness; that's not what a craftsman trains at.

Hmm... I've kinda thought that crimping HP advancement is a hallmark of GNG, but I can kinda see your point here even for a non-GNG game.

A game can have low hit points without being grim-and-gritty, since hit points are just one facet of the combat system.

My preference is to have a system where a great warrior has, say, one-tenth the chance of being hit (compared to an untrained guy), but any hit might be a scratch, a serious wound, or even a killing blow, rather than having the same chance of being hit, but needing 10 hits before getting hurt.

Characters with plot-protection (PCs) would have a handful of Fate Points -- rather than heaps of hit points plus healing magic -- to avoid dying prematurely.

Yes and no. If you imagined your fighting man as a swashbuckler type, ala the Three Musketeers or Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, you'd have had some trouble because there were no rules to support you and in fact several rules that seemed to state that only thieves could do some of the stuff you thought you should be able to.

I think the older game made a mistake in enumerating things like move in shadows and climb walls as thief-only abilities, rather than giving thieves a bonus.

That was always my big thing with it too. I came to D&D flush with excitement after reading Tolkien, Howard, Leiber or hell--even Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp. And to my dismay, D&D didn't really allow me to recreate sitations like what I found in my fantasy books, especially in regards to magic, which was a very bizarre and cumbersome and unfamiliar affair to a 10 year old would-be mage.

When in doubt, the mechanics should err on the side of abtraction. A magic system so specific to one unusual fantasy story is a poor choice, when a vague system using "magic points" (or whatever) could mean whatever the players wanted it to mean.

 

[hong]

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

IIRC, most historical depictions of Georgie+dragon show the dragon as being maybe the size of a large dog, or at most a pony. It's only recently that it's become fashionable to have dragons being the size of city blocks.