Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Much as I hate to get further into the D&D subtopic, but you *can* disarm and trip with any character.

Take the Martial Adept Feat, and you can pick the Disarming Attack and Trip Attack maneuvers (not that you really need Trip Attack, as Shove pretty much does the same thing, but with less damage).

Maybe D&D needs chess clocks, like 40K now?

Wait too long calculating modifiers, and the character stands there, mouth agape, apparently counting in mental dreamland, while the bugbear puts a halberd through his/her/its guts...

 jeff white wrote:
Maybe D&D needs chess clocks, like 40K now?

Wait too long calculating modifiers, and the character stands there, mouth agape, apparently counting in mental dreamland, while the bugbear puts a halberd through his/her/its guts...

were clearly getting off topic but thats my main gripe with DnD, its painfully slow while everyone does his thing.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.

D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.

Wayniac wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.

D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.

Nice to see the "if you aren't playing the game my way you're having fun the wrong way and should feel bad" attitude works just as well in D&D as it does in 40k, but you're completely missing the point of why I brought up build guides. It's not for min/maxing every possible advantage, it's to cut down the list of options to something an average player is capable of making informed choices about. Even without getting into perfect optimization a build guide will tell you which 3-4 feats out of 500 are relevant to you and warn you that the cool thing you want to do at level 7 requires making specific choices at previous levels to set up the prerequisites.

As much as I love DnD, 5E has made everyone into a special snowflake. Which as a DM is extremely boring. Everyone seems to spend 1-3 minutes describing their character swinging their axe at the baddie like it's a scene from Transformers, or some Bruckheimer flick. Honestly, it's just a d6 sword attack, not a Tolkein Novella. Just tell me your attack roll, and I'll tell you if you get to roll damage.

Things about current DnD that piss me off as a DM:

Everyone is stupidly OP at start and it just gets worse. Ice Knife and spells like it make planing fights lasting more than 2 turns pointless.

Everyone gets a try at the obstacle. I'm sick of saying the guard doesn't believe you when you try to deceive him, or you fail to unlock to door, and suddenly everyone gets a roll. We shouldn't be able to do things we aren't proficient in. The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard. NO. The Goblin with the Theives tools is the only on in the party that gets to TRY to pick the lock. I'm sick of everyone being able to do everything.

Healing is broken. Remember when the magic user could literally die with a bad slip and fall? 4HP. Then it's death saves. I would love for them to institute a permanent wound system, where you can't sprint anymore since that arrow to the knee, or you can't wield two handers, since that shark ate your left hand. MAKE PLAYERS DEAL WITH THEIR DECISIONs.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As much as I love DnD, 5E has made everyone into a special snowflake. Which as a DM is extremely boring. Everyone seems to spend 1-3 minutes describing their character swinging their axe at the baddie like it's a scene from Transformers, or some Bruckheimer flick. Honestly, it's just a d6 sword attack, not a Tolkein Novella. Just tell me your attack roll, and I'll tell you if you get to roll damage.

What does that have to do with 5e? Not getting bogged down in min/maxing dice math optimization doesn't mean spending excessive amounts of time describing mundane things.

Everyone is stupidly OP at start and it just gets worse. Ice Knife and spells like it make planing fights lasting more than 2 turns pointless.

This sounds like a DM problem, not a system problem. If having a spellcaster doing non-negligible damage in combat makes things too easy then add enemies to absorb the alpha strike. If nothing else you can always use NPCs with player character stats, so anything the players can do is fair game for the NPCs.

(Also, ice knife isn't even all that great. You have slightly more damage than magic missile and a situational small AoE but you have to roll to hit with the base damage and the splash damage allows a save to negate entirely. It's worth considering but it's hardly an auto-take and TBH most of the time I'd rather have magic missile for the greater reliability.)

The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard.

Why not? They're incredibly unlikely to succeed and the consequences will be bad, so why not let them make the attempt? Lacking explicit character rules for persuasion doesn't mean your character is literally unable to speak the words "your hot lets do it" and make a crude gesture, it means you aren't very good at doing a thing and the rules represent this.

So let's look at this objectionable scenario.

The barbarian at 6 charisma is rolling 1d20-2 for all social interactions (-2 ability score, no proficiency bonus).

If you rule that the guard is merely indifferent, having never seen the barbarian before, it is a DC 20 check to do as asked with a minor risk or sacrifice (with abandoning guard duty being at least a minor risk) and the guard will not accept a significant risk or sacrifice. That's impossible for the barbarian. A DC 10 result will have the guard do as asked as long as no risk is involved, so if we interpret the request as "continue the conversation and become friendly" the barbarian needs a 13+ on the die, with failure at least having the guard tell the barbarian to leave.

If you rule that the guard is actively hostile (as a guard on duty likely is) then it's a 13+ to merely avoid having the guard stay neutral and not take action against the barbarian and rolling "continue the conversation" is not possible. Add in disadvantage (trying to seduce an on-duty guard is obviously absurd) and it gets even worse. The most likely outcome by far is that the barbarian completely fumbles the attempt and would be better off staying silent.

The Goblin with the Theives tools is the only on in the party that gets to TRY to pick the lock. I'm sick of everyone being able to do everything.

Why? It's not like anyone else is going to have a reasonable chance of success and the only penalty for failing is not making progress. Unless the goblin isn't present in the scene (in which case why do you have the party screwing around with a lock they can't get through) there's no reason for anyone else to make the attempt.

Healing is broken. Remember when the magic user could literally die with a bad slip and fall?

3.5e falling damage: 1d6 per 10'.

5e falling damage: 1d6 per 10'.

Technically a wizard has a starting HP of 6 instead of 4 but you didn't die instantly at 0 HP in either system, you were unconscious and it was trivially easy for someone to revive you. Having a character die to a mere fall (other than falling off a cliff, which will kill you in both systems) may have technically happened one time to someone just because of the sheer number of D&D games played but it's an incredibly unlikely event.

I would love for them to institute a permanent wound system, where you can't sprint anymore since that arrow to the knee, or you can't wield two handers, since that shark ate your left hand. MAKE PLAYERS DEAL WITH THEIR DECISIONs.

If that's the kind of game you want then why are you playing D&D, a high-magic system where healing is trivial and even death is a mere GP tax?

Bringing up Warhammer Roleplay is relevant to the currently off topic discussion.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
Asking if you can do something isn't. Spending 15 minutes going back and forth on exactly how to arrange every possible positive modifier on a roll is, and that's what 3.5e encourages. More time and energy spent on roll-playing, less time and energy available for role-playing.

If it takes 15 minutes you're playing with people who haven't read the rules, *and* a GM who isn't willing to just give a fast solution to keep things moving. That's not the rules' fault.

If you're playing 5e with normies they're still going to not understand the rules, and you'll *still* have 15 minute breakdowns while people look things up unless the GM moves it along.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

Invested in the game =/= invested in the specific rules.

Sure, but what I said is still true.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
I would much rather play against someone who spends their time and energy on their character and story ideas than someone who can always calculate the perfect answer to every character optimization question.

I find that in general the kind of people who can answer optimization questions quickly tend to be the kind who put effort into their character and story lines, as they're invested in DnD in general. What I see with the people who are phobic of rules systems like 3.X is a limited view on roleplaying that basically ends at attention-seeking behavior and funny voices, a lack of interest in the settings, and an anti-narrative sense where they don't like making characters grow or have arcs, just be how they are.

Hecaton wrote:
If it takes 15 minutes you're playing with people who haven't read the rules, *and* a GM who isn't willing to just give a fast solution to keep things moving. That's not the rules' fault.

It's the rules' fault when the GM has to step in and say "I know you are still trying to figure out the rules but I'm tired of waiting". Good systems do not have this problem.

If you're playing 5e with normies they're still going to not understand the rules, and you'll *still* have 15 minute breakdowns while people look things up unless the GM moves it along.

Having played both systems with the same group of "normies" this is not true at all. The 3.5e games get bogged down in rule questions at least once per session, the 5e games almost never do. And this is a group where 3.5e is the primary system and the 5e games are the occasional side thing, so if the familiarity factor favors one system it's 3.5e.

But I think it's very informative that you talk about "normies" as if RPGs are still some kind of niche hobby that needs to be gatekept against anyone who isn't a loser nerd. Sorry, but it isn't 1995 anymore.

I find that in general the kind of people who can answer optimization questions quickly tend to be the kind who put effort into their character and story lines, as they're invested in DnD in general. What I see with the people who are phobic of rules systems like 3.X is a limited view on roleplaying that basically ends at attention-seeking behavior and funny voices, a lack of interest in the settings, and an anti-narrative sense where they don't like making characters grow or have arcs, just be how they are.

Then you and I have very different experiences. In my experience the character optimizers are the ones who see D&D as a tabletop ARPG where build optimization and combat strategy matter more than anything else and the roleplaying is an awkward list of cliches stapled together to justify the character optimization choices. And the majority of people I've talked to about the subject have similar experiences.

Wayniac wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.

D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.

Fun fact, but originally the point of D&D was basically to win.

Old School D&D was basically just a game you played via pen and paper around a table, but the GM / DM and the players were very much intended to "win" at the expense of the other party. This is clear not only from the original design of the game and monsters (particularly the absurdly brutal gotcha monsters) but other forms of what was basically 'competitive' D&D. The progression from being a massive-scaled "boardgame" into being a much lighter and more forgiving system meant to facilitate RP has been a fairly natural progression and one which is far from bad, but it's not the "original" intent of the system.

A very similar progression can be seen in MMO video games but also video games at large. Early video games were all in the "game" part, being entertaining by way of being brutally challenging and presenting little to no story or anything else. This, again, gradually shifted away from video games existing purely as a "game" medium and more into one which encouraged creativity and was meant to foster stories (both player made and in the games themselves).

I bring this up because, while you may not like it, min / maxing characters is very much in the original "spirit" of D&D. You're entitled to like what you like, but belitting those who enjoy their min / maxing and power builds is like trash talking anyone who enjoys Darksouls or some of the brutally difficult Mario Maker custom maps. It's ignorant at best and says significantly more about you than it does them.

I don't think that RSL, CS:GO, FIFA or LoL are about the story. Even MMOs are mostly either about farming and making money through boosts and reselling stuff or the main goal is getting top gear and fastest clear times, then everyone else.

I mean some people do RP in MMOs, but those are mostly those sex crazed wierdos.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.

D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.

Fun fact, but originally the point of D&D was basically to win.

Old School D&D was basically just a game you played via pen and paper around a table, but the GM / DM and the players were very much intended to "win" at the expense of the other party. This is clear not only from the original design of the game and monsters (particularly the absurdly brutal gotcha monsters) but other forms of what was basically 'competitive' D&D. The progression from being a massive-scaled "boardgame" into being a much lighter and more forgiving system meant to facilitate RP has been a fairly natural progression and one which is far from bad, but it's not the "original" intent of the system.

A very similar progression can be seen in MMO video games but also video games at large. Early video games were all in the "game" part, being entertaining by way of being brutally challenging and presenting little to no story or anything else. This, again, gradually shifted away from video games existing purely as a "game" medium and more into one which encouraged creativity and was meant to foster stories (both player made and in the games themselves).

I bring this up because, while you may not like it, min / maxing characters is very much in the original "spirit" of D&D. You're entitled to like what you like, but belitting those who enjoy their min / maxing and power builds is like trash talking anyone who enjoys Darksouls or some of the brutally difficult Mario Maker custom maps. It's ignorant at best and says significantly more about you than it does them.

I learned from the old blue basic box about, hummm, 40 years ago. Played for ... until maybe mid 90s. Won RPGA awards. Stopped and moved to GW 40k, Fantasy, BFG, space hulk, necromunda... but I NEVER got the feeling tha the idea was to win except for once, at a convention, when some murderous doosh used the excuse that his character was low Int and a half orc to murder party member and steal their stuff so that, he "won" but only because by the end, he was the only one left alive. Yeah... i did not enjoy that at all, and if it were the object of D&D, i never would have played it twice. So, no. You are wrong about this, maybe it is your experience, but I feel sad for you and wonder why you ever played the game more than once... sounds toxic and jusy nasty. Ick...

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard.

Why not? They're incredibly unlikely to succeed and the consequences will be bad, so why not let them make the attempt?

That's it though- in 5E they aren't a lot less likely to succeed. In the ridiculously over simplified skill rules of 5e, the only difference between someone who is trained to do a skill and someone who isn't is your proficiency bonus, which is negligible, especially at level 1-4.

In 3.5, they were a lot more likely to fail, because they needed to buy ranks in skills, and cross-class skills couldn't be as high as class skills.

But Fez, I wouldn't say 5th makes everyone snowflakes, rather, I'd say it makes everyone "good, but samey." The amount of spells which became concentration significantly reduce the spell abilities of casters, but they are now as good in combat as anyone else. Rogues aren't as skillful as they once were.

Karol wrote:
I don't think that RSL, CS:GO, FIFA or LoL are about the story. Even MMOs are mostly either about farming and making money through boosts and reselling stuff or the main goal is getting top gear and fastest clear times, then everyone else.

I mean some people do RP in MMOs, but those are mostly those sex crazed wierdos.

Well LoL is picking up on the lore front with Arcane to be fair.

I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.

Aaaaannnnnndddddd, Bingo was his name-o.

 jeff white wrote:
I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.

agreed with the message but i don't see what's so snowflakey about the players that want every faction to do everything? i feel like you're using the word as a way to describe everyone you disagree with

Karol wrote:
...I mean some people do RP in MMOs, but those are mostly those sex crazed wierdos.

Spend a lot of time hanging around sex-crazed weirdo RP spots in games, do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.

agreed with the message but i don't see what's so snowflakey about the players that want every faction to do everything? i feel like you're using the word as a way to describe everyone you disagree with

I'd also point out that there's complimentary sameyness when everyone who plays a certain faction/character plays it the same way because other builds don't work on some level. Sure, my halfling might not be as good a Barbarian as your dwarf, but I don't see what we lose by allowing halflings to be at least decent as Barbarians (if in slightly different ways to dwarves).

PenitentJake wrote:
That's it though- in 5E they aren't a lot less likely to succeed.

That's simply not true. I gave the math in that post, it is literally impossible for the barbarian to succeed in one shot and unlikely for the barbarian to gradually seduce the guard with a series of easier rolls. The most likely outcome is failure with severe consequences. But again, why does it matter? One of two things is going to happen in this scenario:

1) The party stays together. Even if the barbarian can technically succeed at the seduction attempt he's less likely to succeed than the bard with 16 CHA and proficiency in every social skill. The party only gets one attempt (since failure makes the guard hostile, or at least so suspicious of any further attempt that success is impossible) so it's obviously going to be the character with the best chance of success. The fact that the barbarian could make the roll is irrelevant because he never will.

or

2) The party splits up and the barbarian is on his own. The barbarian, being a melee-focused brawler with little concern for subtle social events, almost certainly has a better way around the obstacle than a seduction attempt. And if circumstances mean that seduction is the only possible solution why is it a problem that he can try? Do you really think the better answer in that specific situation is that success of any kind is literally impossible and the presence of the guard promptly ends that chapter of the story?

In 3.5, they were a lot more likely to fail, because they needed to buy ranks in skills, and cross-class skills couldn't be as high as class skills.

Yes, "impossible to succeed" is certainly a lot more likely to fail. But this is not a good thing! When you have a 20+ point difference in skill bonuses between characters that focus on a skill and characters that don't it makes encounter design a nightmare. Anything that is even a slight challenge for the character focused on that skill is an impossible obstacle for anyone else, and anything that is possible for the rest of the party is effortless for the focused character. Consider something as basic as sneaking:

If you set the perception skill of the NPCs based on the rogue's stealth skill you have a relevant challenge for the rogue but it doesn't matter because the rest of the party will be automatically spotted. The only way for the party to succeed is to split up and play the rogue solo game while everyone else takes a dinner break.

If you set the perception skill of the NPCs based on the rest of the party they have a relevant challenge but it's impossible for an NPC to ever spot the rogue. The rest of the party is technically invited to play, but everyone knows the correct strategy is to split up and send the rogue in alone because that way success is guaranteed.

If you wait to see if the party splits up or stays together before setting the perception skill of the NPCs you remove player agency. Congratulations party, nothing you do matters because the DM will change the numbers to always make you have a 50% chance of success.

5e absolutely made the correct choice by closing the gap between good skills/saves/etc and bad ones.

But Fez, I wouldn't say 5th makes everyone snowflakes, rather, I'd say it makes everyone "good, but samey." The amount of spells which became concentration significantly reduce the spell abilities of casters, but they are now as good in combat as anyone else. Rogues aren't as skillful as they once were.

As opposed to 3.5e, where a full spellcaster is the only viable character build because they can do anything another class can do? At least in 5e other characters have a use, instead of having a party of a wizard, cleric, and druid (or some supplement book variant class that is wizard +1, cleric +1, or druid +1) where the wizard has trap detection/lock picking/etc spells to also be a rogue, the druid has shapeshifting and summon spells to also be the fighter, and the cleric is the paladin but with 90% of a wizard's spellcasting. If you want to see "samey" just play a non-spellcaster in 3.5e and know that whatever your character can do can be done better by the wizard. And then tear up your character sheet and build a wizard/cleric/druid like everyone else.