Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 3268007" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Elves and Gnomes.  Damn, they suck.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification