What's not fun?

[Grog]

The problem, of course, is that any list you come up with is going to be misleading. The fact that something isn't fun for the particular person who brought it up isn't even remotely the same thing as saying that it's not fun to a majority of players, and thus should be reconsidered.

I also think there's a fair bit of hyperbole in the original post - I can't imagine that anyone who thinks that hit points and damage aren't fun would be playing any D&D at all, let alone enough of it to frequent an online forum about it.

 

[Shallown]

D20 bane

I know it won't happen but I think th emost serious problem with D20 is the D20. A 1-20 range seriously affects how the rules work. Say a 1-10 range is better. Most games get around it by using smaller dice or dice pools/multpiple dice that bring rolls into an average.

Just a random thought.

Thanks

 

[Piratecat]

I know it won't happen but I think th emost serious problem with D20 is the D20. A 1-20 range seriously affects how the rules work. Say a 1-10 range is better. Most games get around it by using smaller dice or dice pools/multpiple dice that bring rolls into an average.

They briefly considered using a different mechanic for skills when creating 3e, but it was quickly rejected by playtesters. The question was "is 1-20 too much randomness?" The answer from the playtesters was no.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I know it won't happen but I think th emost serious problem with D20 is the D20. A 1-20 range seriously affects how the rules work. Say a 1-10 range is better. Most games get around it by using smaller dice or dice pools/multpiple dice that bring rolls into an average.

Huh. Again, I've got to disagree. By the time you reach mid- to high levels, I've found that the D20 is almost too small a degree of chance to matter. This is especially true for people who have one or two aspects of their character utterly maxed out.

 

[Grog]

Huh. Again, I've got to disagree. By the time you reach mid- to high levels, I've found that the D20 is almost too small a degree of chance to matter. This is especially true for people who have one or two aspects of their character utterly maxed out.

But at low levels, you have the opposite problem - the d20 is too random for the small bonuses the PCs have. A 1st level fighter might have a +3 total attack bonus - but that +3 bonus is completely overwhelmed by the randomness of the d20 roll.

I think this is a big part of the reason why 5th-10th level is the "sweet spot" for 3.x D&D. The PCs have enough bonuses to their rolls to make a significant difference, but not so much as to, as you say, remove the randomness from the equation completely (except for that 5% chance of a natural 1).

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hmm...

I actually think the -10 rule is almost too kind. Not quite, but almost. Making it any harder to die would, IMO, damage the experience of the game. It takes out too much of the risk. IME, -10 works fine.

So a 20th level fighter lord should die at the same negative total as a 1st level wizard?

Don't see it.

 

[Cabled]

So a 20th level fighter lord should die at the same negative total as a 1st level wizard?

Don't see it.

Yep! HE has a LOT more positive hit points to play with, but once you're unconscious, 20th level meat and 1st level meat are purty much the same.

 

[Kerrick]

So a 20th level fighter lord should die at the same negative total as a 1st level wizard?

Don't see it.

So if you slit the 20th level fighter lord's throat, he shouldn't die just like the 1st level wizard in the same situation? Dead is dead - the fighter lord is harder to bring to 0 hp in a straight-up fight because he's much tougher and more experienced (as evidenced by his larger hp total), but in the end, everyone should die the same way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Save or die
Energy drain

I'd like to see these go, or at least be modified. Not fun.

Death

Has to stay, though the rules to get there could be modified.

Damage

Say what now?

Vanican magic

If they can come up with a suitable replacement, I'm for it. Though I really don't mind it and wouldn't complain if it stayed.

Running out of resources (spells etc)

Fighters never run out of attacks, so mages being able to always cast some minor spells sounds good to me.

Gnomes

Never been a fan of gnomes, so the rumoured situation of them being excluded from the PHB (and published later) sounds fine to me.

Iterative attacks

High-level combat takes a ridiculous amount of time. Cutting these (or at least limiting them) would do a lot to alleviate that.

Sleeping

Huh? Do you mean they should make 4E so go I will no longer sleep because I'm playing 24 hours a day, I would be in favour of that, I guess.

Hit points

I think the straightforwardness of hit points is well worth the trade-off in simulationism. They should stay.

Failing skill checks
Missing attack rolls
Failing saving throws

Enough already. We get it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yep! HE has a LOT more positive hit points to play with, but once you're unconscious, 20th level meat and 1st level meat are purty much the same.

What he said.