1. The Social Stigma
Why is that every single human being that plays DnD is stereotyped as some white male who lives in his mother's basement and obsesses daily over his action figure/comic book collection, seriously people(ones who don't understand DnD), wake up and realize that yes, women play DnD too, perfectly normal people play DnD, it doesn't take up their whole lives, and for God's sake, we're a bunch of random geeks sitting around a table pretending to be magical elves, if we really knew satanic magic, we'd be out enslaving the human race rather than finding out if the king's daughter is safe.
2. DnD bashers with no reason to do so
Seriously, when BADD went down the drain, I was on top of the world, its sad that Pulling died, its sad when anyone dies, but she was one of the most uninformed people who probably helped do the most damage to DnD, I mean, she's Jack Thompson to us DnDers. But probably the worst offender is that cartoonist fellow (Jack somethingorother, I can't remember the name) who wrote a series of blatantly idiotic cartoons that portrayed DnD as a cult, one person killed herself because her character died in the game, and the one girl who could have joined the "evil cult" decided to talk to her preacher and the series ended with the burning of several DnD materials, sounds more like Farenheit 451 to me, but what do the fanatics care, by their logic, I should barely have time to write this post in-between human sacrifices and necromantic rituals, better get those robes of mine dry cleaned.
4. Because some people had trouble in their games they threw a tantrum, and WOTC changed the rules to sate them. (I'm talking about 3E here.) Polymorph was never a problem in my group. We use Divine Favor and Righteous Might as written in the PHB without batting an eye. Psionic's Astral Construct never needed "fixing" for us. We like Teleport. If you have an issue with something, House Rule it. Don't project your issue onto the rest of us who don't need something corrected.
5. The way that there are some things that can't be done with simple rules. How do you choke someone? There's no simple rule I can think of that's fair for that. Tying a rope around someone via lasso in 4th Edition? No rules for that, can't imagine what you'd use (maybe Acrobatics or a raw Dexterity check, but the DCs...). Sometimes, it annoys me to have to contemplate solutions to these things. Even in 3.5, I found stuff that wasn't whole.
6. I have a beef with society more than D&D. Just that how society has bended to the point that D&D is now a very esoteric concept to most people. Usually with a bad connotation. It's just playing pretend, people. Doesn't everyone play pretend when they're kids? Not that crazy. It bugs me that I'll have players or friends who I figure would enjoy the game whom don't seem to understand D&D's essence. Which is not the numbers and the rules.
That's all I've got. I'm mostly bug-free.
4. Because some people had trouble in their games they threw a tantrum, and WOTC changed the rules to sate them. (I'm talking about 3E here.) Polymorph was never a problem in my group. We use Divine Favor and Righteous Might as written in the PHB without batting an eye. Psionic's Astral Construct never needed "fixing" for us. We like Teleport. If you have an issue with something, House Rule it. Don't project your issue onto the rest of us who don't need something corrected.
Amen, brother. Titanium Dragon, I'm looking at you.
Except about the 4E thing.
7.) The fact that a level 1 kobold has a 5% shot at getting a decent hit in on a Demigod, and that the Demigod as a 5% chance of missing him. And that a level 1 fighter has a shot at hitting Orcus.
And that a level 1 fighter has a shot at hitting Orcus.
He'll always do damage with Reaping Strike! Take that Orcus!
9) Trying to explain the rules (any edition) to someone who really has no interest in continuing with it, and is only humoring you for the lack of nothing better to do. If you really don't want to play than just say so!
12) People who troll on the forums
13) The RPGA
4. Because some people had trouble in their games they threw a tantrum, and WOTC changed the rules to sate them. (I'm talking about 3E here.) Polymorph was never a problem in my group. We use Divine Favor and Righteous Might as written in the PHB without batting an eye. Psionic's Astral Construct never needed "fixing" for us. We like Teleport. If you have an issue with something, House Rule it. Don't project your issue onto the rest of us who don't need something corrected.
Take your own advice.
Take your own advice.
Uh, yeah, we do. We ignore the changes others "forced" WOTC to make.
Uh, yeah, we do. We ignore the changes others "forced" WOTC to make.
Good for you. That is what errata is for. I do have to say though, you seem to resent the errata a lot more than I would expect for some reason. Obviously some people had a problem with what they perceived as unclear, needlessly complicated, or broken rules and wizards 'fixed' said rules for anyone who was unhappy with them. Whats so wrong with that?
16) DMs that railroad players into doing what they want, even when the roleplaying would take them to another direction.
17) People needing to have eleven books to make a character. Seriously, can we just play a game with consulting the encyclopedia over there?
19) The fact that the Spell Compendium doesn't contain Player's Handbook spells, nor the Magic Item Compendium carrying full descriptions of DMG magic items. When they printed those books they should have included the previous content to minimize the need for players to flip through so many books for those purposes.
14) How disproportional the offensive and defensive abilities of dragons and other high level monsters are.
Good for you. That is what errata is for. I do have to say though, you seem to resent the errata a lot more than I would expect for some reason. Obviously some people had a problem with what they perceived as unclear, needlessly complicated, or broken rules and wizards 'fixed' said rules for anyone who was unhappy with them. Whats so wrong with that?
Because more often than not the "fixes" made perfectly fine game play for me and my group as not so perfectly fine anymore as the "official" rule. It's fine if a rule wasn't clear that needed to become clear; it's quite another to change the rule entirely. Yeah, this even included the switchover from 3.0 to 3.5.
Carl
24) Mid-game character nerfs. I don't like that you can use that every round and are always buffed. Shatter doesn't work on this floor because it's enchanted, all 1,300 square feet, the walls too. And the ceiling. As well as the pillars, and that statue. I don't like that you can fly, you have to be at least 5 feet lower than the ceiling. (3.5 Warlock or Dragonfire Adept)
25) DM Celebration. I can't stand when DMs put my character in an arbirtrary position, like the illogical alignment trap, and then celebrate getting my character in that position. "I love taking away Paladin powers". (3.5)
26) Ret-conning. Oh, the stupidly strong monster killed you? Well, I don't want you to die, so that doesn't happen. He attack's so-and-so instead. I mean look, it's an adventure. If my PC can't die then I don't care, we can go play care-bears ultimate adventure then. I'm sorry that it messes stuff up for you, perhaps you should have thought the encounter out better.
27) Rule-Breaking NPCs. No, I don't want to be ressurected by the evil necromancer. No, my soul refuses to return to my body under those circumstances. What the hell do you mean he forces me back into my body and I 'owe' him.
20) People here picking on the Fighter class.
Amen to that
ACROBATIC [GENERAL]
You have excellent body awareness and coordination.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Jump checks and Tumble
checks.
AGILE [GENERAL]
You are particularly flexible and poised.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Balance checks and Escape
Artist checks.
ALERTNESS [GENERAL]
You have finely tuned senses.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Listen checks and Spot checks.
Special: The master of a familiar (see the Familiars sidebar, page
52) gains the benefit of the Alertness feat whenever the familiar is
within arm’s reach.
ANIMAL AFFINITY [GENERAL]
You are good with animals.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Handle Animal checks and
Ride checks.
31) DMs who use wishes as an excuse to screw over a player character regardless of the reasonableness of the wish, forcing players to make asinine worded wishes trying to overcome every loophole imaginable the DM would use to screw them over.
32) DMs who don't realize there's a list of acceptable, un-screwable wishes in the PHB and you should not mess with them. (Man, am I glad I don't play 3rd anymore ...)
34) DMs who insist on core only, forgetting that the core races are boring (partially remedied in 4th ed, but not by enough).
36) People who thing roleplaying is when you drop dice on the table and do mathmatics to see if you killed somthing.
37) Players who believe it is against the rules to use your brain, instead of your calculator, when engaged in combat.
39) People who think they are superior to others because they don't roll dice, don't use minis, don't play a new edition, etc.
Edit: Three Minutes???
43) Lack of places outside of someone's home to play. I don't mind having everyone over, but sometimes my wife needs the house for the day.
44) Players that, once you've found a place outside of someone's home to play, refuse to play there. Come on, it's a flippin' gaming store, who is going to make fun of your for gaming in a Gaming Store?
46.) Dragonborn Paladin Alignment Nazis roleplaying the game to death
45.) How difficult it is to make new players fully understand their options.
46.) Dragonborn Paladin Alignment Nazis roleplaying the game to death
On 46, my dragonborn pally is unaligned, and the predominantly Lawful Good party is getting obnoxious, though it was fun as hell to ditch my LG cleric for someone who is a little more "flexible".
48: Fighters in 3.5e. Or, for that matter, how much they absolutely fail. And yet people inexplicably prefer them over the superior ToB classes.
49: The apparent insistence (as determined by the "Defender" tag) of Wizards that heavy melee types are meatshields first and foremost, and thus exist to draw attention moreso than wreak havoc upon enemy ranks. Where's the Warblade when you need it?
50: People who demean one as a "poor roleplayer" simply because one decides to not choose suboptimal feats/powers/classes/whatever solely for flavor purposes.
51: People who demean one as a "poor roleplayer" for the express reason that one enjoys combat AND builds a character that is good at it.
52: The downright insistence in 3.5e at times that one apparently NEEDS stat/save-boosting equipment. I like useful and interesting special effects more than I do "oh, look, +2 to Strength".
53: Polymorph, or at least how I've seen it in 3.5e (Alongside Wildshape): Broken, and aesthetically...ugh. There's an obvious difference between "effective" and "lame but effective" that I'll leave to you to figure out.
54: Resurrection penalties. It already costs an assload to get one revived. Why then should I lose a level and essentially fall behind the rest of the party in the process?
55: On that end, Save-or-dies. If I do die, I want it to be due to a tactical blunder on my part, rather than the dice despising my very existence.
56: GMs who love trying to make sure the PCs are weak at every turn, and generally unable to accomplish anything. If I wanted weakness, I'd just put up with real life as usual. I RP to get the hell away from that weakness, not to experience it further.
57: The one-dimensional playstyle of most non-ToB (and every Core) 3.5e weapon-using fighter(And by this, I also include rogues, monks, etc.). I don't care what you say, they fight like Fire Emblem characters. And that is NOT a good thing.
58: Alignment-lawyering, and the assumption of absolute morality. I find it more comfortable to imagine that good can easily enough find itself in conflict with good, and evil with evil.
59: Do clerics REALLY need to have to have their power directly granted by gods? Isn't it reasonable that these things could be taught as part of their training?
60: Overuse of common "enemy" monsters amongst GMs (or at least the GMs I've been under)--Orcs and Undead for lower-end, fiends(often treated as the generic baby-eating RAR I AM EVIL type...) for higher-end. Where can I fight some other humans?
61: GMs who think they should be able to throw a ton of zombies into a D&D game and be able to instantly get a genre-shift to horror out of it. Why. Just...why.
* Players too, but a competitive DM can ruin the game for everyone, while a competitive player can at least be reined in by a good DM.
Correction: The types that ARE costly but make you look like an imbecile for carrying.
13) The RPGA
I couldn't play a game at my local store one day because every game was RPGA and the only one with an opening required a 6-8 lvl RPGA character. Kiss my ass, you bastards! And I really wanted to game that day, too.
65: Players who bash 4th Edition because they can't have their God-like Wizard/Cleric or 4E haters in general. I played it all, kids. Get with the times.
65: Players who bash 4th Edition because they can't have their God-like Wizard/Cleric or 4E haters in general. I played it all, kids. Get with the times.
Amen, brother.
I have played 3.5 for 4 years before 4e, and the most fun I had was with a bunch of noobs. No optimization, character flaws abounding, and strange solutions to problems that optimized players would have Disintegrated or Passwalled.
4e gets rid of a lot of the optimization issues (like CoDzillas), but the most fun for me is taking this fight simulator and building a true adventure around it.
Clerics were always mean to my characters anyways. (I played a half-elf sorcerer post-Scientology Tom Cruise. I deserved it.)
50: People who demean one as a "poor roleplayer" simply because one decides to not choose suboptimal feats/powers/classes/whatever solely for flavor purposes.
51: People who demean one as a "poor roleplayer" for the express reason that one enjoys combat AND builds a character that is good at it.
I agree. I've never equated one's numbers to how well one role-plays. You can hand me a (legitimate) PC with all 18's to start with, magic goodies up the wazoo, and every other imagineable benefit, and as long as it's all within the rules of the table, that's cool. But when it comes time to run the PC, is he more than just the numbers? How well do you roleplay a PC like that? I'd hope that any player with one of these unbelievable PCs wouldn't just make him a two-dimensional pile of stats. (Heck, I'd play him as an egotistical celebrity-type, made all the more annoying by the fact that he really can do what he claims he can do. Then I'd have fun putting him up with a DM who drops something on him that whups his butt big-time.)
(Right after posting this I went to the Character Builder and made a 1st Level great weapon fighter named "Max Stoutman" (Maxxed-Out Man). I'm going to Solitaire him through a simple dungeon and see how it goes!)
66. CE Roleplaying Jackasses
Seriously, it gets ridiculous to see when people seem to think that Chaotic Evil is just an excuse to be a jackass, I'm one of the first people to insist that D&D isn't a competition and is just a game to play for fun, but these people are insufferable. Evil alignments, played well, can be an interesting departure from heroes in shiny armour, they're motivated by their own interests, and they would just as soon overthrow the king than rescue his daughter from hobgoblins (since when do they take prisoners anyway) if the situation allowed. These are the people that make most DMs ban evil alignments from their games, the kind that feel the desire to kill their party members in their sleep: the first time it adds drama, second time it adds a little more drama, and by the third time it starts getting annoying, to the point where the players' animosity drives them to waste sessions killing all the PCs. It got the name "Chaotic Stupid" for a reason people.
67. The Cliche Artists
D&D makes a living off of fantasy cliches, I'm sorry to say that, but it does, fortunately, a large and talented writing staff has done quite a bit in order to ensure that D&D is a unique universe to explore. Though the D&D world still possesses its fair share of cliches (goblins, need I say more?) an expansive and deep world complete with numerous, race-independent deities and locales is doing wonders to cover up the cliches that form it. Yet for some reason, some DnDers stubbornly stick to the old cliches, it seems like every other fight is against a marauding band of orcs, every fighter is a knight in shining armour, and every villain is a dog-kicking SOB in jet black, spiky armour. Seriously, the complaints are self-perpetuating, every time we see another holier-than-thou cleric, we complain about it. This crap is getting as annoying as Edition Wars, it needs to stop.
Hey WotC (and, every other gaming company, while I'm at it), I've got a suggestion for you. If you want the conservative christian crowd to back off you a little bit, you might try discovering that female characters can be impressive and exciting while actually *gasp* WEARING CLOTHING! Seriously, I'm tired of art that would appeal to lonely, adolescent boys! (And yes, I know the video game industry is JUST AS BAD.) If you really prefer drawing women with large swords and no clothes, get a job drawing hentai...
69: No, You Can't Play That Game Anymore!
Hey, if you like 4E, that's fine. But, WotC, I'm getting tired of having my shipments of old 3.5e books canceled b/c, while the books are in stock, I'm not allowed to order them. You know what? Why don't you bother to profit off both systems? You don't have to publish 3.5e anymore, but you could still make money off the older products that have been printed for the people who actually WANT to buy them. Heaven forbid you make money and not kill trees for no apparent reason.
Besides, if 4e is selling THAT well, I doubt selling 3.5e books would really damage your income.
70: DM duties when your not the DM
When I'm not the DM, I don't want to be the DM. If I'm helping everyone level up. If I'm checking for the rules. If I'm bringing the appropriate sourcebooks. If I'm doing all those things, then that means I'm the DM. Please, act like you're the DM for one minute, and let me game. Or, at least have the decency not to sleep while I'm helping the new players level up.
Yeah, I know it's a lot of work to DM, but when I sit behind that screen, I take my job seriously.
71: Heavy Armor = THE SUCK!!!
Anytime, anywhere, any system, the rule is this: Heavy Armor = The Suck! In 3.5, Mithral Chain Shirt was the only armor worth purchasing. In 4e, Scale Mail rules the day. So, maybe, at this rate... in 5e, you'll have a reason to wear Heavy Armor.
Until then, I guess the women will just have to continue running around in their +5 chainmail bikinis... (see rant #68)
My thoughts on previous poster's rants
3.5e Fighter
I've never understood the "suck" of the 3.5e fighter. In my last 3.5e campaign, the Fighter consistently out-damaged the Warmage, using an unoptimized build.
I have NEVER, in any of my 3.5e games, seen a fighter fail to contribute, and contribute well, to the success of an adventuring party.
As for Tome of Battle... yes, the classes are superior to the fighter. But I have to ask WotC one thing: If you offer a player two classes, one clearly mechanically superior to the other, and the player chooses that one, does that automatically mean that the superior class is "the way it's supposed to be done?" Or maybe, is that just one way of doing things?
...just a thought...
Oh, and my final ToB vs. The Fighter thought...
I find it ironic when people complain about how limited they feel (in terms of character & role playing options) when playing a Fighter, but how liberated they feel when playing a character drawn up from Book of Nine Swords. Seems like one of those two should be the one with a limited number of options.
(And sadly, the above rant is probably going to make me sound more anti-ToB than I really am...)
Roll-playing vs. Role Playing
"Are you insulting me because I'm good at math?!?!"
"Are you insulting me because I enjoy acting?!?!"
...are you aware that everybody enjoys different things, and that there is not an innately "superior" way to approach the game? In fact, are you aware that you are currently being nothing but a kill-joy?
D&D Stereotypes
Yeah, I'm sick of D&D players who are outright vehement and degrading towards world religions (and in my case, particularly, Christianity). Did your history teacher ever tell you that the Catholic church did some things other than the Inquisition? Seriously. Look it up. Just so happens that every world religion gained popularity by somehow improving the condition of the society that they were a part of...
...just to give you D&D players a warning... there are a few religious people out there who actually might enjoy playing these games. Of course, we all know how creepy that would be...
OH! I'm sorry... I misinterpreted what stereotypes were being discussed... Sorry, I guess I missed the memo to leave your identity at the door.
Your opinion; there are a lot of people who utterly despise the artwork, though, and some of them get vocal about it. Part of the problem is more that women are generally shown more revealingly than men (something of a double-standard, though - many of the same people who would be outraged at a chain-mail bikini wouldn't have the same reaction towards a Conan-esque Barbarian [in my experience]).
It maybe didn't have to be, but it is now part of the genre.
Men get their lumps, so to speak, in other fields such as being hit in the crotch in comedy movies or by female martial artists in spy/cop/gun/She-Woman movies.
Also, if a man gets sick or injured in any movie of any type, except perhaps horror where he's going to die anyway, you can be sure his shirt will be torn open while trying to heal him or otherwise be recuperating shirtless. It can even happen in cartoons as I recently noticed in a Justice League episode I rented from Netflix. Women get treated and recuperate without any blouse tearing. I guess for males it is impossible to treat their injuries while wearing a shirt.
Just because someone says:
X: Statement of distaste that could possibly describe you
does not mean you need to post:
X+1: Statement of distaste that you hope describes the poster who made statement X.
With that in mind, I think I'm gonna have to say:
72. Elitists. Your edition isn't superior to mine. Your playstyle isn't superior to mine. Your story isn't superior to mine. The reverse is also true.
Can we try to keep this thread edition-neutral?
There's an amazing amount of passive-aggressiveness in this thread
Just because someone says:
X: Statement of distaste that could possibly describe you
does not mean you need to post:
X+1: Statement of distaste that you hope describes the poster who made statement X.
With that in mind, I think I'm gonna have to say:
72. Elitists. Your edition isn't superior to mine. Your playstyle isn't superior to mine. Your story isn't superior to mine. The reverse is also true.
Can we try to keep this thread edition-neutral?
TeeHee
There's an amazing amount of passive-aggressiveness in this thread
More passive-aggressiveness in-thread hopefully means less passive-aggressiveness in-game.
Can we try to keep this thread edition-neutral?
No. I think AD&D is perfectly fine, don't know why you need a 3rd Edition, let alone a Second, but you won't hear me complaining.
74. people who can only power-game.
75. people who can't understand the fun of power-gaming.
77. My own tendency to accidentally metagame. >_<; frustrating to try and reign in.
78. It's impossible for me to DM a campaign well during the school year. >>;
79. Certain persons trying to convince me to play ... was it second edition? Amuses me, but slightly annoying as well ^^;
80. trying to draw the druid who dresses more simply than a normal person and has a ponytail ... it's just so ... gah
83. A player character does something 'powerful', and the DM thinks "OMG! That's so broken I must nerf it or ban it."
84. Real life interfering causing cancellation of a game day.
85. Campaigns with a predetermined ending at level X, where X is usually 10 or less.
86. Players who use "But I'm just roleplaying my character" as an excuse to be a jerk, and the DMs who let them with the excuse "I have to be neutral" or "Stop whining".
87. Drow.
88. Elves always superior in everything.
89. It's never humans who invented something Great and Useful and Wonderful and Beautiful and Whatever in Ancient Times. It's usually Elves, but other races have their stuff.
90. Players/DMs who assume that evil characters have no depth and can't function as part of adventuring parties, much less a part of society.
91. 3.X hardcores who ***** about 4.0 fans.
92. 4.0 hardcores who make smug yet offhanded comments against 3.X
93. 4.0 Wizards and their lack of OOC utility. I'm not expecting to Gate forth a greater demon to clean my house, but 4e Wizards went too far the other way in my opinion. Sometimes I think WoW Mages(the MMO D&D Wizard counterpart) have more non-combat utility than D&D Wizards do.
94. Players who want to play their super kewl or super hawt vampire PCs. No you aren't ****ing Blade and no you aren't ****ing cool.
95. People who forget about the G in RPG. Yeah, I understand that I'm supposed to immerse myself in the role of my character and be part of some grandiose story, but sometimes I just want to kill **** and steal their money.
96. Elf fan boyz/girlz(and I guess technically Eladrin also in the new addition). We get it. Your Elf is hawt or super awesome and ninja like, but that doesn't make every other race lame or ugly in comparison.
97. People who say D&D 4e is like WoW like its a bad thing. WoW was HEAVILY influenced by D&D. Whether its pick pocketing Rogues, Mages with their magi...errr arcane missiles, or Paladins with their undead turning and hands laying. Its only right that now it has come full circle and D&D has picked up a tanking mechanic, class balance, and fun combat.
88. Elves always superior in everything.
89. It's never humans who invented something Great and Useful and Wonderful and Beautiful and Whatever in Ancient Times. It's usually Elves, but other races have their stuff.
Counter-88: Never met an elf who was any good at mining, not even Drow. Or real carpentry, either - I'm talking a saw, hammer, and nails, not some sissy magic-users (or Druids).
Counter-89: Humans invented sliced bread and iron rations; many people believe dwarves invented the latter, but what it's actually from is the legendary dwarven toughness: people believed they actually *ate* iron, and called dwarven rations (and Dwarf Bread, for that matter) "iron rations," and when humans needed decent rations that could stand some wear-and-tear, they named them "iron rations."
He is described as a "fat, wheezing old rogue . . ." (although this is mentioned to be a deceptive appearance); not only this, he's a really OLD rogue.
Consider this: The published FR campaign for 3e starts midsummer in 1372 DR. Seventy years ago (in 1302 DR), Mirt and Durnan return from Undermountain as rich men. Now, assuming Mirt was a young man (say, 16 years) when he first entered Faerun's most notorious dungeon, then he'd currently be (that's right ;)) 86 years old (at the very least).
I cannot for the life of me imagine this "fat, wheezing, old rogue" (almost certainly 90 years old), doing back-flips like Mary Lou Retton in her prime (that's what an 18 in Dexterity would indicate, I think).
I really hate Forgotten Realms NPCs (as published, at least).
:D
This refers to unbalanced classes, unbalanced powers, unbalanced feats, unbalanced skills, unbalanced weapons, etcetera.
103 4e -philes who rail 3e for suckness. Come on, you played 3e and loved it. I know I did. I'll play 3e again with the right Dm
104 jackass Dms who think that a good Dm has to be a dick. You know the guy who thinks it is his job as Dm to make everything difficult and squash any sense of accomplishment or victory.
105 The all powerful NPC, who must go with the PCs and is always saving thier butts with just the right power or magic item or skill or what ever.
106 People who ask me why I don't play WOW? Because I find that kind of RPGing boring and repedative.
For Music's rule 94, we're probably going to have a ton of munchkins trying to replicate Twilight characters.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Say it ain't so.
I am tired of paying ludicrous amounts for something that I am forced to have in order to get anything done, I know that all the lamination and fancy artwork costs WoTC a pretty penny, but please, these prices are more than enough to make a profit, it wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't all this other stuff that I need to buy just so I can get a game going.
108. RP junkies that feel like talking to every NPC about every stupid little thing and don't want to yield an inch to people who think that a PC with a good build can also be a good character.
109. Dungeon junkies who won't give decent RP a chance.
110. Fickle people who grow weary of their characters as soon as they make them, expect new PCs on a per-session basis, though the more patient ones may do it every 3 or 4.
We all need to be remined occasionally that role-playing games are cooperative enterprises. Sure the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and the keeper of the setting, but it takes everyone working together to tell the story -- a story that no one should really know how it will end, until is does.
113: I umm......... don't like paladins restrictions.
they are are too restrictive. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Whups...wrong forum.
114) DMs that gives a player a "+1,000,000 vorpal, holy, icy, flamey, evil, merciful, etc., etc., blah, blah, weapon of 1001 special abilities that will seriously save your butt" ... and then complains about how overpowered the character is.
115) Players that whine that they havn't got a "+1,000,000 vorpal, holy, icy, flamey, evil, merciful, etc., etc., blah, blah, weapon of 1001 special abilities that will seriously save your butt" ... and that they are already 2nd level.
116) Players that in seriousness try to do stuff their character build clearly wasn't meant to do. Like, I get that you want to find creative solutions to problems the DM presents, but your Eladrin Orb Wizard with 8 Strength probably shouldn't be trying to 2-weapon fight with a couple of scimitars.
117) BBEGs that the DM refuses to allow players to trollop, because they worked so hard to make the guy that they just don't want to see the players destroy it like a steamroller over a kitten. "Surprise bonus HP and immunity to stun! Haha! I R Allz Pow-ur-full DM skillz da bomb!" AND, If the players are doing this all the time...you are doing it wrong.
118) people that complain about this version not being supported any longer or that version lacking X material because it is so new. This is a game about imagination is it not? USE IT.
119) people that bring real-life conflicts to the characters in game.
I once had a player try to save the corpse of a fallen comrad as opposed to healing the tank that was holding off the dragon who had just turned said fallen comrade into an "elf-crisp." Everyone else in the party was dumbfounded why he was so concerned about getting this corpse at -77 hp off the field of battle and not worring about the dragon that was about to kill the fighter and then rampage through the squishies...Just because he didn't like the player.
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap”, a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking.
A smart character could just as easily think "I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap because whoever made the trap would be sure to provide a way to get past it."
123) Predatory party members. On the first session, before I could even introduce myself, one of the other character cast Detect Magic to figure out what they could take from me. I knew I was in for trouble when the players would quickly pass a note to the DM or whisper something to themselves. It would usually mean they've taken something from me.
Me: "I'll move to the fighter and heal him with my Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds."
DM: "You reach for it and discover it isn't there, erase it from your inventory."
Player at the other end of the table snickers and then comments about the new magical gear he bought.
And the ever inexplicable...
Player: "I cast an empowered fireball over... here."
Me: "Hey! Can't you delay that for a second? I go right after you."
Player: "And lose my spot in the initiative? Besides, how do you know what I'm casting? My wizard shouts 'Keep close to him! I'm sending help your way!'"
The whole session played out like a chess match to see who could knife the other person in the back first, and it was my job to remove the knife, heal the person up, only so they could then knife me for my kindness. Ugh... bad times...
Uh, yeah, we do. We ignore the changes others "forced" WOTC to make.
The designers at WotC were dissatisfied with the way that 3E and 3.5 played. They were expressing that sentiment a year or more before 4E came out. They weren't "forced" to make any of those decisions; forum users in the first place are anything but a consensus, and in the second we don't form a majority (or anywhere near that) of WotC's customer base.
117) BBEGs that the DM refuses to allow players to trollop, because they worked so hard to make the guy that they just don't want to see the players destroy it like a steamroller over a kitten. "Surprise bonus HP and immunity to stun! Haha! I R Allz Pow-ur-full DM skillz da bomb!" AND, If the players are doing this all the time...you are doing it wrong.
Um, I think you mean to trounce, or maybe to tromp. Trollop is a noun, not a verb... and it means harlot, not defeat.
124) Alignment. I hate alignment in pretty much every incarnation it has seen in D&D. I would much rather have my players come up with a convincing personality for their character than worry about sticking to the strictures of a game construct meant to represent a character's moral compass. I've taken alignment out of my game, and since doing so I have yet to have a player ask me, "would my character do X?"
125) Grognards. I've been playing D&D since the Red Box and AD&D -- I'm well versed in the history of the game. I'm not stopping you from playing an older edition of the game; in the same vein, I'm not interested in your complaints about how things have changed.
126) Players who try to derail the game just to do it. It's fine if you have an in-character motivation that you're pursuing: I'm talking about the guy playing the chaotic-stupid character who does stupid/insane stuff because he doesn't like to roleplay (and who's usually only involved in the game as a cooperative endeavor during combat).
Check out theLFG Comic series for an example of where a primarily evil party can get along with its good member(after the first few comics that is).
130. People who don't realize that there are other ways to deal with encounters aside from stabbing/flaming/slicing/dicing it. This popped up in a game just two nights ago, our DM had us kill an orc and later had bugs jump into it, hinting that they might be about to resurrect it. Whenever we tried to attack the corpse (I.E. cut off its arms and legs), it would glow green and stop the attack from going through. The rest of the group immediately got ****** off because they couldn't use their swords to deal with the problem.
124) Alignment. I hate alignment in pretty much every incarnation it has seen in D&D. I would much rather have my players come up with a convincing personality for their character than worry about sticking to the strictures of a game construct meant to represent a character's moral compass. I've taken alignment out of my game, and since doing so I have yet to have a player ask me, "would my character do X?".
I'm split over alignment, I think its annoying to have to focus more on morality than personality, I've noticed that "unaligned" is probably the best for my pally, seeing as he believes in honor and protecting the weak, but can be vengeful when angered.
I'm split over alignment, I think its annoying to have to focus more on morality than personality, I've noticed that "unaligned" is probably the best for my pally, seeing as he believes in honor and protecting the weak, but can be vengeful when angered.
Alignment should always be the realm of the DM, as he controls the setting and all aspects there of, including the definitions of good and evil for its use in spells. (I'd likely put your unaligned pally in the realm of CG or LG, depending on what exactly angers him so)
133: Balance, it has become way too important. You don't need it unless your players are all jack
es. A little bit of role play brings allot more fun than a lot of balance. Combat isn't the whole of the game, and sometimes its still fun to sit back while this one guy who came up with a really awesome character runs the party.But balance is needed for my party.
133: Balance, it has become way too important. You don't need it unless your players are all jack
But balance is needed for my party.
Amen!
133: Balance, it has become way too important. You don't need it unless your players are all jack
But balance is needed for my party.
I've played with enough jackass PKing power gamers to respect the need for balance. I wish the average person I played with was mature enough to not make broken characters and steal the spotlight 80%+ of the game or, at worst, hold the entire party hostage. Alas, I have no group currently and almost solely PVP which requires that there be a fair bit of balance.
16) DMs that railroad players into doing what they want, even when the roleplaying would take them to another direction.
135) Player's that think they can run the show. Seriously people, you aren't the one devoting part of your free time to creating the adventure, ONLY TO HAVE ONE OF THE PLAYERS DECIDE HE DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO THE KING AND
UP THE ENTIRE ADVENTURE YOU SPENT A MONTH MAKING. :headexplo132. People who get angry at DMs who create new monsters. Not even limited to monsters that aren't fair; people who hate new monsters just because they can't have the monster's stats memorized. I could understand if new things are annoying if they're overpowered for the party that they face. But some people hate homebrew monsters outright because they don't know what they do, or what their maximum health is. Sadly, my entire group basically gets annoyed every time one of our DMs runs a campaign, because he constantly uses homebrew (Using the 4e guidelines for doing so) to mix things up and challenge the party.
CHALLENGING THE PARTY?!? WHO THE BLAZES DOES HE THINK HE IS?!?!?!? ;)
My group was rotating DMs when we started out and one of our DMs had a full 5-6 session adventure planned out. We got 2 weeks into it and family obligations pulled him out of the group. Our characters, which had made it to level 9 in this world, got stuck in limbo on their way to thwart the BBEG. We haven't gone back to them, since. That was my first, and still most beloved, character and I may never get to play him again.
137. NPC/encounter creation in 3.5 (since trying it in 4E).
I ran a short stint as a DM during 3.5, then ended up being the first in our group to DM 4E. Life is so much easier without having to figure stats, HP, and challenge ratings for everything. Have you tried creating your own monster, yet? The process is like room temperature butter (not liquid, but smooth and creamy). I would still like to go back and play 3.5 as a player, but if I'm going to DM, I'd rather do it in 4th.
138. 99% of references in the books use female pronouns when refering to players.
This isn't a huge complaint, just something that sort of bugs me. I imagine the idea is to emphasize that it isn't odd to play D&D (if guys do it, it might just be a guy thing, but if girls do it, other girls might be more willing to accept it and guys will go anywhere to find girls). I'm all for including women, but my blind intuition is that most D&D players are male; and normal convention dictates using the male pronouns when discussing something equally likely to be attributed to either gender. Am I alone on this one?
138. 99% of references in the books use female pronouns when refering to players.
This isn't a huge complaint, just something that sort of bugs me. I imagine the idea is to emphasize that it isn't odd to play D&D (if guys do it, it might just be a guy thing, but if girls do it, other girls might be more willing to accept it and guys will go anywhere to find girls). I'm all for including women, but my blind intuition is that most D&D players are male; and normal convention dictates using the male pronouns when discussing something equally likely to be attributed to either gender. Am I alone on this one?
Amen!
138. 99% of references in the books use female pronouns when refering to players.
This isn't a huge complaint, just something that sort of bugs me. I imagine the idea is to emphasize that it isn't odd to play D&D (if guys do it, it might just be a guy thing, but if girls do it, other girls might be more willing to accept it and guys will go anywhere to find girls). I'm all for including women, but my blind intuition is that most D&D players are male; and normal convention dictates using the male pronouns when discussing something equally likely to be attributed to either gender. Am I alone on this one?
Quote. For. Truth.
And I think it was the Stronghold Builder's Guide, actually switched the character gender pronoun every paragraph.
I like posting stuff on my own threads
66. CE Roleplaying Jackasses
Seriously, it gets ridiculous to see when people seem to think that Chaotic Evil is just an excuse to be an annoying jackass, I'm one of the first people to insist that D&D isn't a competition and is just a game to play for fun, but these people are insufferable. Evil alignments, played well, can be an interesting departure from heroes in blindingly shiny armour, they're motivated by their own interests, and they would just as soon overthrow the king than rescue his daughter from hobgoblins (since when do they take prisoners anyway). These are the people that make most DMs ban evil alignments from their games, the kind that feels the obsessive-compulsive desire to kill their party members in their sleep, first time it adds drama, second time it adds a little more drama, and by the third time it starts getting annoying, to the point where the players' animosity drives them to waste sessions killing all the PCs. It got the name "Chaotic Stupid" for a reason people.
For a good example of CE, look at Belkar (although now he's leaning towards CN or TN). Sure, he's a psychotic little
, but he goes around with a group of mostly good aligned adventurers.For a good example of CE, look at Belkar (although now he's leaning towards CN or TN). Sure, he's a psychotic little
If you want to try playing the CE alignment, more power to you, I applaud those who do it well, I just despise the people who feel like CE is an excuse to act like an idiot.
138. 99% of references in the books use female pronouns when refering to players.
This isn't a huge complaint, just something that sort of bugs me. I imagine the idea is to emphasize that it isn't odd to play D&D (if guys do it, it might just be a guy thing, but if girls do it, other girls might be more willing to accept it and guys will go anywhere to find girls). I'm all for including women, but my blind intuition is that most D&D players are male; and normal convention dictates using the male pronouns when discussing something equally likely to be attributed to either gender. Am I alone on this one?
Grammatically it should be masculine. When you are referencing a mixed group, you use the masculine gender, its been this way since before the founding of Rome. Grrrr....
I'm wondering, can anyone find any other examples of CE? One person in our little group suggested Ronan from SG-Atlantis, but he seems more LN or NG to me.
Elric of Melnibone is Chaotic Evil. TVTropes says Kefka is ... never played it, so I can't comment. Also, the recent Joker.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticEvil
I don't know most of these, so I can't comment on them.
127)Disfunctional Evil. D&D is the only place where it is almost gospel for evil people to be completely disfunctional. If the adventurers are willing to act like the professionals they are, their party should actually work better when there are mixed alignments. The more evil inclined individuals can make the hard choice when it comes to a situation where something questionable needs to be done. The good aligned members give a good image to the party and make them seem like more than just a band of murderers and looters.
One of the biggest benefits of removing alignment from my game is that the guy who prefers to play evil characters is playing a character who is a complete bass tard, but not a psycho. It also frees me up to run villains by motivation rather than just malice, and leaves some gray areas as to which NPCs the players will ally with and which ones will be their enemies.
I'm wondering, can anyone find any other examples of CE? One person in our little group suggested Ronan from SG-Atlantis, but he seems more LN or NG to me.
I would consider Richard from LFG as CE. He pretty much acts as comic relief in the same way that Belkar does in OotS.
Slaughter Your World sung by Richard
I'm wondering, can anyone find any other examples of CE? One person in our little group suggested Ronan from SG-Atlantis, but he seems more LN or NG to me.
Orcs, in most fantasy settings such as LOTR or Forgotten Realms they tend to be this.
Alex from a Clockwork Orange, before the therapy
HK-47, the first character to make the alignment funny in years
The Joker
Bender from Futurama
#X+1: Alignment debates.
x+3 people failing to recognize the shortcomings of a game system
Orcs, in any fantasy setting they tend to be this.
Alex from a Clockwork Orange, before the therapy
HK-47, the first character to make the alignment funny in years
The Joker
Bender from Futurama
I think that Bender is Chaotic neutral, not CE.
Orcs, in any fantasy setting they tend to be this.
Alex from a Clockwork Orange, before the therapy
HK-47, the first character to make the alignment funny in years
The Joker
Bender from Futurama
I have to disagree with the Orcs comment. Look at World of Warcraft, and actually dive into the storyline. The orcs fall somewhere between LG and CG than anything else. If you really read into the Second War and the aftermath (I highly recommend "Of Blood and Honor"), you can see that the humans of Lordaeron are really, really close to being CE.
Even nowadays, look at
Show
the event in Dragonblight, after clearing the Wrathgate, two leaders of the Undercity rebel against the Horde, and while the Orcs try to reclaim it, the humans try to assassinate Thrall
Actually, from what I remember of WC 1 and 2, most of the orcs would likely fall under LE, with a few leaders being CE, and the entirety of the Burning Blade Clan being CE. Not having played the third game or WoW, or read any of the books, I can't really comment on them.
Units in strategy games are always Lawful. I mean, you send them to instant death as a diversion (or because your population is full and you need a different unit) and they go anyways.
They will assault an enemy base all on their own! The one with turrets, or siege tanks, or booby traps, all because you tell them to.
Units in strategy games access a previously unknown alignment type.
Lawful Hardcore
Units in strategy games are always Lawful. I mean, you send them to instant death as a diversion (or because your population is full and you need a different unit) and they go anyways.
They will assault an enemy base all on their own! The one with turrets, or siege tanks, or booby traps, all because you tell them to.
Units in strategy games access a previously unknown alignment type.
Lawful Hardcore
I have to disagree with the Orcs comment. Look at World of Warcraft, and actually dive into the storyline. The orcs fall somewhere between LG and CG than anything else. If you really read into the Second War and the aftermath (I highly recommend "Of Blood and Honor"), you can see that the humans of Lordaeron are really, really close to being CE.
Even nowadays, look atShowthe event in Dragonblight, after clearing the Wrathgate, two leaders of the Undercity rebel against the Horde, and while the Orcs try to reclaim it, the humans try to assassinate Thrall
Actually, from what I remember of WC 1 and 2, most of the orcs would likely fall under LE, with a few leaders being CE, and the entirety of the Burning Blade Clan being CE. Not having played the third game or WoW, or read any of the books, I can't really comment on them.
A lot changed between the end of WC2 and WoW.
I think that Bender is Chaotic neutral, not CE.
I suppose, but the Christmas episode made him CE, at least for that episode, but he does have some moments of sentimentality.
Edit: Sorry about this everyone, I, and everyone else should keep these petty squabbles off this topic.
Quote. For. Truth.
And I think it was the Stronghold Builder's Guide, actually switched the character gender pronoun every paragraph.
Sometimes it switched every sentence within the same paragraph. It got really disorienting... I found myself asking questions I really shouldn't ;). For now, I'm just going to blame the doppelgangers.
People who stretch the rules to ridiculous interpretations, just to get even a small bonus. MAGE HAND CAN'T ATTACK!
Grammatically it should be masculine. When you are referencing a mixed group, you use the masculine gender, its been this way since before the founding of Rome. Grrrr....
The 2nd Ed. AD&D DMG actually takes a paragraph to address this. Roughly, it says "Look, all the pronouns are male. That's correct grammar. Deal with it."
And that's about the extent I want 4th to borrow from 2nd.
-Drillboss
Easily bugged people.
People who stretch the rules to ridiculous interpretations, just to get even a small bonus. MAGE HAND CAN'T ATTACK!
But it can drop a vile of dragon bile on someone :P
But it can drop a vile of dragon bile on someone :P
That's spelled vial :P
This looks more like a list of things that bug us about people that play D&D, instead D&D itself.
But you know, whenever you get a bunch of people to sit around and complain about something, doesn't it always come around to complaining about people?
3. That WOTC fired me as a customer and will not do anything for 3E. Hooray for everyone who loves 4E. I loathe it with a passion.
4. Because some people had trouble in their games they threw a tantrum, and WOTC changed the rules to sate them. (I'm talking about 3E here.) Polymorph was never a problem in my group. We use Divine Favor and Righteous Might as written in the PHB without batting an eye. Psionic's Astral Construct never needed "fixing" for us. We like Teleport. If you have an issue with something, House Rule it. Don't project your issue onto the rest of us who don't need something corrected.
Amen x infinity
Amen x infinity
#95Q7: People who whine about changes in a game. The game designers decide that something is unbalanced and change it in later printings, and these people just throw a tantrum. If you have a problem, house rule it. Or, here's an idea, don't purchase the product. Don't project your issues onto the rest of us.
I'd like to point out that HK-47 is the most awesome character, and one of the reasons I'm not allowed to play droids in starwars games. That and my herd of remore control mouse droids with thermal detonators in their bellies.
I need to play that game again... team droid, all three of them, it's fun to watch them bicker.
(1)People that assume that only geeks play the game. I'm SSG in the USMC, cavilion job- master plumber. I own my own home and my parents and grandmothers homes. Back in the day, I was a jock that played every contact sport I could, I stood up for the "geeks @ nerds". Race and gender mean nothing, The groups I play with are mixxed races and genders.
(2) Too many damb people assume that everyone should do this and that. When the hell did you start playing with my groups? Just becouse you say everyone will do or take something is your oppinion and has nowieght or baring.
(3) NOT EVERYTHING IS BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just becouse the few will abuse everything they can does not mean that ALL WILL! Who are you to tell me that I WILL TAKE THIS AND DO THAT!!!!!!!!
(4) When a person can not understand the use of a simple word in the most basic of descriptions; you, your. You @ your emphisize PERSONAL, NOT Tom, Dick, Hairy ,and George.
(5) If going to assume that this means I can do this becouse this states this and I'm going to exclude that this is based off of that. This way I can justify what I want it to be, and everyone has to agree. So when a person points out you excluded the base of the thing and the error, you state give a reference and then ignore it.
(6) Person gives quote, states book, page and types it out. Later in a thread, a different person asks for the same quote. Can the moron not scroll back through the thread and read it? Nope, to hard to do. Lets start over. Then they become a bother, "give quote". Get a damb life and stop wasting everyones time!!!!!!!!!!
(7) CS,some want to ignore thier clarrifications others use them. When a person puts the REF# in a thread and tries to back away from that aspect of the thread, someone tries to keep bringing it back up with you. Even after you tell them "take it up with them if you don't like it" (them meaning CS). They then ask for a link, do you not know where to go on the WotC web site to get the posted REF? How lazzy can people get? Does everyone have to hold the moorons hand? To top it all off, have to keep dealing with the idiot.
(8) It's broken becouse it's non-choice. HMMMM, oppinion, oppinion is not the definition of broken. This falls back on assumption, and stating I would and there for you should to becouse that is the only way. Agh, **** off ass hole, I'll play my game and you can play yours. Don't tell me what a must, half to do, and have to take and use for mine and everyone elses characters!!!!!!!!
(9) Everyone will choose "Demi God @ Choosen". Again refer to above.
(10) Theiry is fact, and can not be argued. Bull ****!!!!!!!!!! Other wise the thread would die after your statement. Not to mention thiery would not exist and there for nothing but fact would exist.
(11) Base guidelines, they are stated as base to be a starting point. There for can vary.
(12) Its listed there for I can and will get it. IF IT'S AVAILABLE!Just becouse you want it does not mean that you will find it.
(13)person A ; This affects all of you ? based ATKs, so it's broken.
person B ; This affects ATKs too.
Person A ; it only affects these type of ATKs not all.
person B; if PC is this class and choose these ATKs and ATK powers, this does affect all the PCs ATKs.
Person A; No it affects only this ATK.
person B; these ATK and ATK powers are based on this. So it boost them all, and its a lower LVL than that.
Person A; It's not the same, you need to read it again.
person B;quotes book and pages that support this, and restates it does.
person A keeps living in dream land and gets personal. Person B still has proven thier point.
My response?
'Woah, look at this little birdie!'
The same lot told me that longswords were designed for one handed use.
On a similar theme, D&D falchions annoy me. Falchions were never two-handed scimitars, people. Come on now.
You misspelled theory.... But otherwise good rants. Though, for #1, most people who play the game are geeks. Though, to be fair, most people in my group are still in highschool/college and the other half are 'old school' geeks that have been playing since 1st ed.
I also hate spell check, and T9 word for cell phones. I hate people that assume anyone of intelligence is just a "geekor nerd". Hell I started playing in the early 90's while using acid or smoking out. Now I play without the crap, I have enough immagination and life experiences to make up for it. Whats funny, is some of the people I went to various schools with play now. Most of which never knew I played in the past and still do.
(Number): The Spell School system; specifically, Conjuration (Healing) and the placement of some spells - like Power Word: Kill being an Enchantment spell and Astral Projection being Necromancy.
Conjuration (healing) I agree with--a BS decision so your good cleric wouldn't have to use Necromancy. Why don't you like astral projection in Necromancy, though? Necromancy deals with life and death, and astral projection frees your life force from your body to go exploring.
...........
..........
..........
..........
Yeah, right.
PC's who can't remember to bring their character sheet on a week to week basis (same PC as above) I grow sick and tired of him guessing what spells he had left from last week and what items he used and which ones he hadn't
PC's who want to get all pi$$y because I ask to collect character sheets from all players after the session (same PC from the previous two) even though the only reason I'm collecting them is because he can't keep track of his own.
Conjuration (healing) I agree with--a BS decision so your good cleric wouldn't have to use Necromancy. Why don't you like astral projection in Necromancy, though? Necromancy deals with life and death, and astral projection frees your life force from your body to go exploring.
It's not Astral Projection's placement in Necromancy, per se, that bothers me - although considering the School list, I don't see why it couldn't be a Conjuration spell (Summoning or Teleportation are the most obvious; Calling seems doable, though probably not RAW) instead of pure Necromancy. My issue is more that it looks like some of the spells were put into Schools because they needed to balance the Schools out - PW: Kill is a good example, I think. It's an "Enchantment (Compulsion) [Death, Mind-Affecting]" spell. "You die because I tell you to" is more of a Necromantic ability, though - I mean, the spell 'convinces' the person to die, according to the school listing. I'd like to find a list of Spells by School (can't find one in the SRD) to see if my guess holds weight - that PW: Kill is Enchantment and not Necromancy because there aren't any really strong spells in Enchantment and Necromancy was looking a little overpowered. It also seems like AP was made into a Necromancy spell so that someone who specialized in Necromancy and dropped Conjuration could still get around the Planes on his own.
Drizz't Clones- are there any more evil drow left in Faerun!?
Elves with a superiority complex- had a player that did this a couple of times, so now all supremecist elves are banned from the realms
Too many deities- why does the Forgotten Realms need more than five greater deities and more than 15 deities total?
Comprehend languages and Tongues- understanding a dead language that no one has spoken aloud for thousands of years and existed only in a land halfway around the world has never been more frustrating for a DM that is running a campaign based on uncovering the secrets of ancient civilizations
Paladin haters- some people want to play a paladin, so it's quite frustrating when either the DM or another player thinks it is his mission to make the paladin inadvertantly fall from grace. The same goes for exalted characters, like saints.
X+2Y: Any player who isn't out to play WITH the group. If you aren't here to play along, go play somewhere else.
X+3Y: Fear of house rules
X+4Y: Obsession that everything that has been written must be in the game.
X+5Y: Players who create a flying-pig:fighter/mage for sake of being "original" or something, and then plays them just like any other character.. if you can't be creative with a LN human fighter, you need some practice
X+6Y: DMs who follow the rules as if handed from on high. Look, you can change something that doesn't work for you. Just because rule Z says whatever, and it's screwing up the game (for the DM or the players), you are allowed to CHANGE it to improve the game.
Seriously even other friends are like "no way dude? Why?" I don't know because it's fun from time to time, it's not like I do it every day. One to 4 times a month whenever I can. we have lives! Get over yourselves people you aren't cool because you DONT play DnD.
2) The other thing that bothers me is when our group takes forever to figure out what they want to do in the game world. Seriously can we please move it along, I always have to instigate something stupid in order to get the action going, and then they ***** at me for doing something without their consent.
3) I hate when one player takes it upon themselves to direct every party members actions. Don't tell my character what to do, I'm playing him, remember?
4) When people get mad at you because you don't want to raise them from the dead. When did we sign a contract that if you died I would **** my gold away on your dead body? It's not likely that my character would do that so why should I?
X+4Y: Obsession that everything that has been written must be in the game.
+1
Sometimes, it seems like some people on the boards here think that all the content ever published for 3.5 is meant to be in the game
4) When people get mad at you because you don't want to raise them from the dead. When did we sign a contract that if you died I would **** my gold away on your dead body? It's not likely that my character would do that so why should I?
This is understandable. Your party is supposed to be a team, all friends. Not wanting to raise a character means you don't consider him your buddy. If you don't want to raise a party member, that *player* will no longer find you trustworthy.
This is understandable. Your party is supposed to be a team, all friends. Not wanting to raise a character means you don't consider him your buddy. If you don't want to raise a party member, that *player* will no longer find you trustworthy.
Yes they might not trust you anymore, but in the terms of roleplaying my character I am doing what the character would want. Not myself. Of course I wouldn't mind raising them, it's just not likely that my evil character would do it. Considering it will cost him his life savings. However it also depends on the campaign and whether or not the dead character has been of use to my character, in which case he would raise him.
Just don't get mad for role playing the characters the way they were created.Besides, if you die, you die. Many players get upset when they lose a character, and I see it as an opportunity to start something new and different.
As far as them not trusting me after... your right lol. They made a character that didn't like my race and basically did everything in their power to kind of screw my guy over.
Fun timesbut in the terms of roleplaying my character I am doing what the character would want. Not myself.
As long as it's clear that you don't what to bring back the character, but you do want to bring back the player, hopefully the player is mature enough to see the difference. Some characters are more than willing to sacrifice to bring back an ally, others are not. If the PLAYER is being an ass and doesn't want to spend to money, then it's a different issue, but it should take just a few sentences out of character to each other to clear that up.
Yes they might not trust you anymore, but in the terms of roleplaying my character I am doing what the character would want. Not myself. Of course I wouldn't mind raising them, it's just not likely that my evil character would do it. Considering it will cost him his life savings. However it also depends on the campaign and whether or not the dead character has been of use to my character, in which case he would raise him.
Besides, if you die, you die. Many players get upset when they lose a character, and I see it as an opportunity to start something new and different.
As far as them not trusting me after... your right lol. They made a character that didn't like my race and basically did everything in their power to kind of screw my guy over.
I'd have to agree with Blazer. If you die, you die. Your fault for being a target. Yes, that is assanine, but that's how some people/characters are. Just like if you are in the woods making grunting sounds, not my fault if you get pegged in the skull with an arrow.
Ok then.
"DM, I kill their characters on my watch when they're asleep and take all their stuff. I burn their bodies to ashes and mix it in with the mud and dirt."
No complaints, right? After all, I am playing an evil character. I'm only roleplaying what my character would do. It's nothing personal.
....
....
....
...
....
....
....
4th edition
ok not all of 4e just the bulk of it but I also said the same about 3rd edition until a friend got me into it *shrugs*
)How theory seems to be more valued on the boards than actual in game experience... It's nice to say that the druid is going to take out an army himself at 20th level, it's another thing altogether to actualy play it out.
+1
As an add-on to that, it's really irritating the way people say Custserv is horribly unreliable, yet they invest a lot of authority in the CharOp boards.
How simple things are made so complicated, like wrestling someone to the ground. It's like a twelve step manual.
Amen to that.
Oh, by the way- I named the god of trickery in my campaign after you :D
How theory seems to be more valued on the boards than actual in game experience... It's nice to say that the druid is going to take out an army himself at 20th level, it's another thing altogether to actualy play it out.
Then again, most of the time when in-game experience doesn't match up with theory, it's because of houserules and such that in one way or another alter the CharOp assumptions in your game. Prepared casters are one thing--you can't prepare perfectly for a situation unless you have Alacritous Cogitation or other things that let you do exactly that--but things like "A cleric with persistent divine power is better than a fighter because he trades out bonus feats for full divine casting" works out in-game...if you go by the assumed rules at CharOp, like allowing all books and not banning/nerfing different aspects of the game.
I run a game under almost exactly those rules--all books and all rules are fair game, nothing banned or altered, just as long as you get your build OKed first--and I can say that most of the theory works out in practice. They don't guarantee that it will work out in all games, but if you start from the same assumptions you're most likely going to get the same results.
As an add-on to that, it's really irritating the way people say Custserv is horribly unreliable, yet they invest a lot of authority in the CharOp boards.
To be fair, CharOp goes by rules as written, so they're at least correct on the technicalities of the rules, whereas CustServ often contradicts itself and tries to pass off errata as existing rules. CustServ is great to use to get different opinions on an issue, but until and unless they can start citing rules instead of offering opinions, there's really no way you can use it on a forum where house rules and interpretation have to be left by the wayside.
Saying "I agree with CustServ's interpretation" doesn't help if you're debating how a rule works, because then the opposite is just as valid, but "The rules say [whatever] on page XX" is much better supported. You might use an interpretation in your game, but you aren't running your game on the internet.
-------------------------
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Ok then.
"DM, I kill their characters on my watch when they're asleep and take all their stuff. I burn their bodies to ashes and mix it in with the mud and dirt."
No complaints, right? After all, I am playing an evil character. I'm only roleplaying what my character would do. It's nothing personal.
:/ that is an extreme case scenario. Sure they can do that but I am pretty sure the other party member's will not like it one bit and re do the favor then split the loot of 2 players amongst themselves. Who say's evil has to be stupid too, right? At least my group has 2 people on watch at a time so nobody does anything fishy ;)
As far as not wanting to raise someone, an evil character has a legitimate excuse not to do it. A) If they have no money, B) They didn't like the character, or C) They just don't give a damn.
However some evil characters might want him raised and will do so because A) The PC was useful, B) He helped another member and that Character wishes to return the favor, or C) They don't give a damn.
When my character has an excuse not to raise someone, I won't do it. Period. People shouldn't take it to heart. Don't be the kid that cries to mommy, grow up.
*edit*
Oh and if a character killed everybody, chances are the DM would have everybody roll new characters and make a party without the other. Then that character is lost anyway. Kudos to you for wasting everybody's time if you did that lol.
People who complain 4th edition is a 'min-max, wow-lovefest'. Especially since, in my group, these are all the guys who:
1 - Never tried 4th edition.
2 - Play WoW.
3 - Have never built a non-munchkin character. Ever. Like the level 7ish Locate City-nuke, frenzied beserker/summoner combo, or C.o.D.-zilla.
To be fair, CharOp goes by rules as written, so they're at least correct on the technicalities of the rules
You also see a lot of RAIITAYCPIWN on the CharOp boards, which is why it treating it as an authority is strange at best. More to the point, RAW isn't that great of a defense when debating the technicalities of the rules because the RAW has so many problems of its own (ie: by RAW, you can have a 157-armed human, or the jumplomancer, or pun-pun in the game).
You also see a lot of RAIITAYCPIWN on the CharOp boards, which is why it treating it as an authority is strange at best. More to the point, RAW isn't that great of a defense when debating the technicalities of the rules because the RAW has so many problems of its own (ie: by RAW, you can have a 157-armed human, or the jumplomancer, or pun-pun in the game).
RAIITAYCPIWN?
Damn, I thought WYSIWYG was an unnecessarily long acronym but that just blows it out of the water.
RAIITAYCPIWN?
Damn, I thought WYSIWYG was an unnecessarily long acronym but that just blows it out of the water.
Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyah
You also see a lot of RAIITAYCPIWN on the CharOp boards, which is why it treating it as an authority is strange at best. More to the point, RAW isn't that great of a defense when debating the technicalities of the rules because the RAW has so many problems of its own (ie: by RAW, you can have a 157-armed human, or the jumplomancer, or pun-pun in the game).
The RAW may have problems (and they certainly do), but they're a common ground. Saying "This is how things work in my game..." holds absolutely no weight when compared to 37 million other opinions, unless the point of the discussion is specifically directed toward changing RAW in your games...in which case adhering to RAW is self-defeating.
Telling all of your players "You can't get 155 more arms because I don't think you should" is perfectly fine--your game, your house rules. Telling everyone on the internet "You can't get 155 more arms because I don't think you should" will earn you ridicule--yeah, you might think you shouldn't be able to, but that has no bearing on anyone else's games.
Having an opinion is fine. Treating said opinion as fact is ludicrous.
Precisely what I wanted to say, but shorter and clearer. Thank you.
NP.That actualy seems to be the idea that most people have, they just don't say it in so few words. :D
I tend to frequently utilize my excessively extensive vocabulary in circumlocution and displays of loquaciousness, so briefness and concision are not my strong points. ;)
-----------------------
Anyway, some more pet peeves:
1) Taking the fluff as holy writ. "No, you can't be a shugenja, that's Asian, and my setting isn't Asian!" "No, you can't be a psion, psionics is sci-fi!" Fluff is mutable; if I want to play an elementalist or an enchanter, shugenja and psion work just as well mechanically as a wizard, so why not reflavor them until they fit? Thankfully, I DM most of the time and don't have to put up with this too often, but I played in one game where the DM wouldn't deviate one iota from official fluff, and it was painful.
2) "Core is balanced, splatbooks are not!" I won't even get into this here. Core druid vs. Core fighter, enough said.
3) "The fewer books, the better!" Some of my favorite books are Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Expanded Psionics Handbook--i.e., the ones with new systems and new fluff that gets away from the basic Vancian magic and core assumptions.
Healing spells are conjuration (healing)- but it can't possibly be necromancy
Bad economics- adventurers regularly cart in tens of thousands of GP worth of treasure on a weekly basis in game, yet the average campaign world still has medival peasants and medival banking
"Gunpowder will ruin my game!"- I get this so often when i want to play one of my favorite characters (a musket wielding dread commando). If gunpowder doesn't fit in your world, that's fine, but it won't ruin your fantasy world and turn it into D20 Modern.
3. That WOTC fired me as a customer and will not do anything for 3E. Hooray for everyone who loves 4E. I loathe it with a passion.
4. Because some people had trouble in their games they threw a tantrum, and WOTC changed the rules to sate them. (I'm talking about 3E here.) Polymorph was never a problem in my group. We use Divine Favor and Righteous Might as written in the PHB without batting an eye. Psionic's Astral Construct never needed "fixing" for us. We like Teleport. If you have an issue with something, House Rule it. Don't project your issue onto the rest of us who don't need something corrected.
Because with the 100s of source books they and other companies put out, you've managed to go through every single one, completely and have nothing to do. Not even make up your own stuff, in the spirit of the original game.
Course, if you are paying for this, then I can't see how you were fired as a customer.
DRAMA!
*waits for his SW minis to arrive*
Other things that bug me about D&D:
Healing spells are conjuration (healing)- but it can't possibly be necromancy
Only as of 3e; prior to that, they were Necromancy like they should be. That's one of the few changes from 2e to 3e that I really disliked.
The continuing assumption that just because one likes to optimize/min-max/have "powerful" characters that they couldn't possibly be interesting in "roleplaying".
As an extension of this, how so many people seem to have forgotten the Stormwind Fallacy
Only as of 3e; prior to that, they were Necromancy like they should be. That's one of the few changes from 2e to 3e that I really disliked.
So I've heard, and it does make all lot more sense. I know at least one DM who has rewritten all healing spells to be necromancy(healing).
As a side effect, that makes it a lot easier to be a Lawful-Good necromancer.
honestly 4th edition really does bug me, i probably wont play it but i remember some one going on about healing surges and it just seemed dumb to me, but flaming serves no purpose other than to inflate ones ego, the thing that really does bug me about it is that i had a good group of friends give it a try and refuse to go back to 3.5 currently running a 3.5 campaign and things are going exceptionally smooth.... when i asked these people why they didnt want to play 3.5 any more they just scoffed and said that it was old and that 4.0 was the way of the future. i duno maybe if i can get some one competent to expalin 4.0 to me i might find it interesting but as of right now i'll stick to my 3.5 just my 2 cents.
I'm not really an expert on 4e, but from what I have seen, a lot of the mechanics are based on Tome of Battle (ie: fighters have this thing called exploits, which have very similar functions to the maneuvers in ToB, the only difference is the maneuvers are now categorized as at will, encounter, and daily abilities).
I will say, though, what you described must really suck. Honestly, no competent DM deserves to be abandoned in the middle of a perfectly good campaign just because some new material came out.
honestly 4th edition really does bug me, i probably wont play it but i remember some one going on about healing surges and it just seemed dumb to me, but flaming serves no purpose other than to inflate ones ego, the thing that really does bug me about it is that i had a good group of friends give it a try and refuse to go back to 3.5 currently running a 3.5 campaign and things are going exceptionally smooth.... when i asked these people why they didnt want to play 3.5 any more they just scoffed and said that it was old and that 4.0 was the way of the future. i duno maybe if i can get some one competent to expalin 4.0 to me i might find it interesting but as of right now i'll stick to my 3.5 just my 2 cents.
At least for me, it is a lot more fun to play a core 4.0 noncaster than it is to play a core 3.5 noncaster. A lot more options across the board. Also, the best reason for you to play it would be that all your friends in that group play it, so you might as well at least play with them.
I'm not really an expert on 4e, but from what I have seen, a lot of the mechanics are based on Tome of Battle (ie: fighters have this thing called exploits, which have very similar functions to the maneuvers in ToB, the only difference is the maneuvers are now categorized as at will, encounter, and daily abilities).
I will say, though, what you described must really suck. Honestly, no competent DM deserves to be abandoned in the middle of a perfectly good campaign just because some new material came out.
I've said it before and will say it again.
4E took the recipe that was Tome of Battle and burned the boiling water.
138. 99% of references in the books use female pronouns when refering to players.
This isn't a huge complaint, just something that sort of bugs me. I imagine the idea is to emphasize that it isn't odd to play D&D (if guys do it, it might just be a guy thing, but if girls do it, other girls might be more willing to accept it and guys will go anywhere to find girls). I'm all for including women, but my blind intuition is that most D&D players are male; and normal convention dictates using the male pronouns when discussing something equally likely to be attributed to either gender. Am I alone on this one?
As a linguist, I just /had/ to come out of lurking to respond to this.
Personally, I think WOTC (and the rest of the world to be honest) need to get off their prescriptivist high horse and start using 'they' as the singular third person (gender neutral) pronoun like all us proles are doing.
If you disagree (and I'm speaking to everyone, not just lunargamer here (Edit: although reading on further lets me see that DrillbossD and Doomsought come into this category)), then I'll allow you your opinion but remind you that history tells us that these things always change in the end, and also that attempting to add a new pronoun (like 'shim' or 'hir') never works.
Also, I'd recommend having a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_disputed_usage and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frequently_misused_English_words , and seeing how many words you're using 'wrong'.
If the answer is zero, then 'hello!' I didn't know they had working time machines back in the 18th century with access allowed to dictionary writers.
(sorry, I just feel really strongly about this).
COMPLETELY ASIDE BUT BACK ON TOPIC:
Things that bug me about D&D:
1) The people who used to (or still do) read the 3/3.5e books looking for silly things (like cutting 10ft ladders in half to make ten foot poles and selling them, or turning forests into staves in <1 second or buying iron pots and melting them down to sell the iron or etc etc etc (none of these work)).
2) The people who spend so much time trying to discourage people from 1) that these things don't work, especially since they sometimes getting a bit silly in their rationalising (no more than 1) people, though).
but, my favourite fixes for some of them:
10ft Ladders->10 foot poles-> ??? -> Profit!: A ten foot pole is an accurate measuring stick with markings along it, like a really big ruler. Cutting a highly inaccurately measured '10ft' ladder in half would just get you some ~10ft sticks.
Forests->Staves: Based on the description of professions only needing an amount of time equal to the cost in gp x some number, and staves cost 0gp...pity that the minimum time for any one item is given as a week.
Iron pots->: 'pot' metal is not nearly as refined or pure as the sort of metal you'd buy in ingots, and quite likely not even mostly iron if there was a cheaper substitute. Also, there was some precedent for containers (flasks waterskins etc) being given with their weight (the basis for the myth) as the container+a full load of water.
Commoner railgun: Even if the free actions could move something thousands of feet in a second by RAW (and there was something in there about 'free actions limited by the DM's sensibility), there is no damage bonus or any physical effect that moving it would get you...speed and acceleration have no RAW effects. An efficient supply chain, maybe...
Commoner railgun: Even if the free actions could move something thousands of feet in a second by RAW (and there was something in there about 'free actions limited by the DM's sensibility), there is no damage bonus or any physical effect that moving it would get you...speed and acceleration have no RAW effects. An efficient supply chain, maybe...
Nobody gets more annoyed at the muchkins than I do, but...I read the commoner railgun thread (unless there's more than one of them), and I don't think anyone took that discussion seriously. Other than, apparently, you. Players have always made fun of the rules. Try explaining with a straight face why a player in 2nd edition couldn't just reach out and slap the 'magic user' during the minute long rounds to disrupt a spell. And Rich Burlew (Order of the Stick) has made a career out of laughing at the foibles of the DnD rules. The commoner railgun, I thought, was pretty funny and completely harmless.
What bugs me about DnD?
It eats my time, like a voracious predator on free bunny nite at the ball park. And it makes. me. like. it. How evil is that?
MrJake
If the answer is zero, then 'hello!' I didn't know they had working time machines back in the 18th century with access allowed to dictionary writers.
(sorry, I just feel really strongly about this).
Funny, I don't remember using a time machine....I'm a grammar Nazi with linguistic tendencies, so I haven't been misusing any of these either. Just felt like pointing out a tiny flaw in your reasoning. Though a time machine would be cool. :D
COMPLETELY ASIDE BUT BACK ON TOPIC:
^ What he said.
I had one little pet peeve come up today. I'm running a campaign, as per usual, and someone in my dorm offered to run his campaign at the same time so I could play as well. Great, right? Well...he said everyone in the party had to be the same alignment, to make creating plot hooks easier and such. Not the same moral or ethical alignment, but rather all LG, all N, etc. There goes that character idea. Alignment should be a handy shorthand, not a straitjacket.
It bugs me that "This is why I don't like 4E" just isn't enough for some people. They simply MUST turn it into "I hate 4E because those *******s at WotC beat my children, raped my dog and stole my wife!"
I hate it that the my only players only want to play a generic Forgotten Realms campaign. FR sucked in 3E and it sucks worse now.
I hate it when we are clearly playing in FR, but people insist on ignoring the actual FR stuff. Like putting their hometown as Winterhaven in their background or choosing Kord as their deity.
Drow haters. Seriously. I'm no Drizzt clone, I don't play Rangers and I don't care for Salvatore's books. At all. Stop with your pretentious crap. Some of us like Drow, others of us LOVE playing Drow. Your prejudice against a MADE UP RACE OF MAGICAL ELVES is ******* on our good time.
Forests->Staves: Based on the description of professions only needing an amount of time equal to the cost in gp x some number, and staves cost 0gp...pity that the minimum time for any one item is given as a week.
actually, it's a day. if you want to craft on a day-by-day basis, you check VS DC in copper instead of silver. so 7 staffs per week, not one :D
what bugs me about D&D?
[2nd]
-ThAC0s are for hurting, not eating.
-negative AC is good?
-fighter1/thief1/mage1 elf at game start. IE: multi-classing/dual-classing rules.
-oooh... you failed your roll.. you die!
[3.5]
-Fluffy VS Farmer Joe... Fluffy wins?
-oooh... you failed your roll.. you die! AGAIN!
-my class X/Class Y/Class Z/PrC A/PrC B... multiclassing... again.
[4]
-i have to buy extra languages 3 at a time for a feat?
Every edition has its good things and its bad things.
Something else that bugs me about 3e and 4e are that you can't really play them without a battle grid, especially 4e. There's too much focus on tactical movement in combat. You can't just roll initiative and state your action each round. You have to take into account where everybody is and if they're in range and have line of sight and all that nonsense. While I totally understand that most people prefer that, I get bored really quickly by that style of play.
I prefer combats to take 20 minutes at most, with almost no focus on tactical movement. I prefer to just say "I stay back and cast spell X at Y" or "I close in with Y and full attack it every round with my greatsword", rather than having to figure out where to move to, resolving any tumble checks and attacks of opportunity that crop up.
I have the opposite opinion of oxybe concerning 2e multiclassing, though. I always preferred 2e's fixed gestalt multiclassing to 3e's version. 4e is even further removed. I particularly liked half-elf fighter/mage/cleric (max level 14/12/14, at 4,500,000 xp single classed humans with the same xp are 26, 22, or 26th level), mage/cleric (max level 12/14, single classed humans are 16/20 at max xp), and irda ranger/wizard of high sorcery/thief (no level limit; at 3,600,000 xp, it's ranger 12/wizard 13/rogue 16). In the early 90's I got one up to ranger 39/wizard of high sorcery 35/thief 53 from level 1/1/1. BUT he was 62, 50, and 86 levels behind the single classed characters. Luckily in 1e/2e a 139th level thief was not much more powerful than a 53rd level one (both amount to "always succeed thief skill checks"), and a 101st level ranger wasn't much more powerful than a 35th level one (same THAC0 and spells). The 85th level wizard vs a 35th level one is different. I'm not sure what I'd have done with 22 true dweomers per day instead of just six (I never ran out of high level spells anyway).
Ok then.
"DM, I kill their characters on my watch when they're asleep and take all their stuff. I burn their bodies to ashes and mix it in with the mud and dirt."
No complaints, right? After all, I am playing an evil character. I'm only roleplaying what my character would do. It's nothing personal.
My complaint is most people see playing evil as being like this :D
Amen to that.
Oh, by the way- I named the god of trickery in my campaign after you :D
Why thank you!