Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Warder]

"Balance" is on the whole pretty unimportant. No one remembers a session for being well balanced. You remember the times you did something amazing, or the times you were thoroughly trounced, but not the times you performed exactly as expected. The whole reason we even talk about it is because its opposite, imbalance, can be disruptive if things swing too far in that direction, but by itself balance brings very little to the table. It gets far more discussion time than it actually deserves.

[dafrca]

"Balance" is on the whole pretty unimportant. No one remembers a session for being well balanced. You remember the times you did something amazing, or the times you were thoroughly trounced, but not the times you performed exactly as expected. The whole reason we even talk about it is because its opposite, imbalance, can be disruptive if things swing too far in that direction, but by itself balance brings very little to the table. It gets far more discussion time than it actually deserves.

Amen

[Eldan]

Attribute bonuses from race in 5E were meaningless from the start and only became more so. If everyone just gets a + they can put anywhere, just give everyone some more point buy points and get over it. It's just increasing the average for no reason.

[Anonymouswizard]

High stats are overrated, low stats are underrated.

[Telok]

Clearly there are some people that think they’re hot, else why would they be spending thousands of dollars on miniatures of 500 year old dragons?

Re: minis
I gifted myself a 3d printer a few years ago. I now have more minis than I use. I have a 2-goblins-in-a-trenchcoat and a walrus space pirate with bad fashion sense. I have glow in the dark ghosts and Godzilla. For $25 in plastic, a few internet searches, cleaning off flash, and a bit of paint or fine tip premanent marker I have another 500 minis. I have no clue why people spend more than $5 for a cheap plastic dinosaur with wings.

On topic: The changes to gnolls are random and useless. What was once a plains nomads/tribal dog-person species with some rp/character race potential is being turned into generic low end demons with fur. If you needed a low end demon with fur just put fur on a lemure, mane, or other weak demon.

It seems like two or three monster races get totally rewritten every edition at random and for no reason. Just wait, someday the dart will hit the board on something like trolls and they'll turn into misunderstood pacifist bioweapons from the last halfling vs elf genocide war.

[Faily]

"Balance" is on the whole pretty unimportant. No one remembers a session for being well balanced. You remember the times you did something amazing, or the times you were thoroughly trounced, but not the times you performed exactly as expected. The whole reason we even talk about it is because its opposite, imbalance, can be disruptive if things swing too far in that direction, but by itself balance brings very little to the table. It gets far more discussion time than it actually deserves.

Seconding the amen!

[Willie the Duck]

Is this really an unpopular opinion?

A huge swath of what has been so far mentioned either isn't unpopular or at least is a common minority opinion.


Anyways, I should put one out as well: --
For as much as we gripe about some of the ways things have evolved in the game over time (5e changed gnolls, kobold becoming dragonkin, wizards used to be squishy, this modern rule has this unfortunate incentivization effect, etc...), huge swaths of stuff that has been around since the beginning or first half decade of the game was equally arbitrary, poorly thought out, or had bizarre incentivization structures. Gnolls were originally going to be gnome-trolls and somehow became hyena-men. Super-squishy magic users with no HP, few total spells per day and few weapons meant one had MUs who spent much of their time lobbing oil from the rear ranks (anyone remember that from iconic pulp fantasy novels? Me neither). The last half of the levels were set up to be a (poorly mechanized) Keep & Rulership game which nearly every group tried once or twice at most.

[Luccan]

Railroading is better than demanding the players railroad themselves.

What does this mean? I can't parse this in a way that makes sense.

Edit: It's mostly that I don't know what "demanding players railroad themselves" is supposed to mean. I can make several guesses, but I've never heard anyone talk about players railroading themselves before and I certainly don't see the meaningful difference with any of my guesses between that and regular railroading

[Mastikator]

D&D is not a good generic RPG. It is actually a very niche RPG. It's just so popular that it's niche is for some reason considered "standard". It's very good in its niche, but doesn't do a good job outside of it. (Evidence: For 95% of fictional settings, D&D is in the bottom 20% or so of systems for ease and fidelity of converting to that setting)

I 100% agree with this. D&D is a power fantasy dungeon crawler. It's a super hero game in a space opera setting with a medieval aesthetic.

[Faily]

I like Vancian casting.

[kyoryu]

Anyways, I should put one out as well: --
For as much as we gripe about some of the ways things have evolved in the game over time (5e changed gnolls, kobold becoming dragonkin, wizards used to be squishy, this modern rule has this unfortunate incentivization effect, etc...), huge swaths of stuff that has been around since the beginning or first half decade of the game was equally arbitrary, poorly thought out, or had bizarre incentivization structures. Gnolls were originally going to be gnome-trolls and somehow became hyena-men. Super-squishy magic users with no HP, few total spells per day and few weapons meant one had MUs who spent much of their time lobbing oil from the rear ranks (anyone remember that from iconic pulp fantasy novels? Me neither). The last half of the levels were set up to be a (poorly mechanized) Keep & Rulership game which nearly every group tried once or twice at most.

A lot of this stuff worked at least reasonably well if done from an open-table, stable-of-characters view.

Once your high level guys started getting into the domain management stuff, they were, for the most part, retired. The idea wasn't that that became the main mode of play - it was that that's what your high level guys did while you more actively played the others.

I 100% agree with this. D&D is a power fantasy dungeon crawler. It's a super hero game in a space opera setting with a medieval aesthetic.

Not just that, but the high emphasis on combat, zero-to-superhero level of advancement, emphasis on fighters basically being "me hit wid stik", etc.

[Eldan]

I like Vancian casting.

I love Vancian casting, think it's superior to many other magic systems in RPGs and will go on at length when asked about this. For several pages, if necessary.

I also think that D&D never has done Vancian magic that well.

[Eldan]

High stats are overrated, low stats are underrated.

To expand on that, one reason I dislike point buy in most versions of D&D is that they don't allow me (by the book) to make a character with a serious weakness.

[Anonymouswizard]

To expand on that, one reason I dislike point buy in most versions of D&D is that they don't allow me (by the book) to make a character with a serious weakness.

Party of the issue is that dropping most stats below eight rarely matters. Either you'll be avoiding using them anyway, or there's some way around the issues.

How many 5e characters would take a 3 in Strength if allowed? In my experience many, I've only been in one group which tracked encumbrance (and we had to have separate 'dropped pack' values noted because everybody dropped theirs of a fight broke out). Same for Charisma and Intelligence.

On the other hand, adding a note that you can drop any stat you want, but won't get points for it, will fix that.

[DigoDragon]

"You don't need to be dealing lots of damage to be the MVP of a battle."

I've been in groups where the majority thought process is to be optimized in dishing out lots of damage. They never acknowledge those times where I'd save the party from a TPK with defensive abilities and healing powers. There's more to combat than DPS.

The D20 is too swingy

I play a lot of GURPS and I find that 3d6 to be much more agreeable to work with for checks and actions. Might be something to see D&D switch to that in a future edition. ... doubt it'll happen cause of how iconic the d20 is.

[Theoboldi]

- Planescape and Eberron are decent settings, but severely overrated. Both of them are bloated kitchen sinks that get lost in trying to be overly unique at the same time. Dinosaur-riding halflings aren't cool, and the Lady of Pain is the most blatant and obnoxious plot device I've ever seen.

- Psionics are an iconic and fun part of D&D, and they deserve a proper system of their own in every edition. And a base class at launch. The archetype presents at least as many character concepts as the wizard, and hybrid psionic characters work great as subclasses or prestige classes for martial and skill-based types.

These are the only ones of mine I can think of that are actually really unpopular.

[Ikoma]

I don't like it, and it's current zeitgeist makes me feel like an outsider in the hobby more than 20+ years of gaming before it. I try and stay away from dnd videos and discussions because I know I'll just bring negativity to them, but that means I have very little content to engage with outside of my one personal table. And sometimes that's enough... and sometimes it really isn't.

[Jay R]

The way my group likes to play is fine for us, and the way your group likes to play is fine for your group.

[AvatarVecna]

4e is only despised because it kicked out a lot of golden cows and laid bare that D&D has never been anything more than a wargame with a roleplaying paint job.

[Anonymouswizard]

4e is only despised because it kicked out a lot of golden cows and laid bare that D&D has never been anything more than a wargame with a roleplaying paint job.

Actual question, what was 0e marketed as? I wouldn't be surprised if it was presented as more of a wargame.

Related to this, D&D got a lot worse when it started to shed the wargaming elements. Not the most unpopular opinion out there (see: OSR), but was somewhat who grew up mainly with 3e I can actually see how earlier email might have worked much, much better when played a more of a gamey dungeon crawler where the GM was adversarial but fair.

[gijoemike]

Fighter is an npc class, or at best 1/4 a class that’s missing the rest of its progression. Similar case for a smattering of constrained concept classes.

The D20 is too swingy, and bounded accuracy makes this far worse.

ABSOLUTELY THIS

The Fighter is an NPC class that exists to give NPCs a feat and extra HP. Should NEVER be used by a PC.

The bounded accuracy of 5e is capped far too low. A level 18 master artisan can easily lose to level 1 character with training. Master rolls a 10 with +11 skill, lvl 1 char with +2 prof and +2 Attribute rolls an 18.

5th Ed tosses out 15 years of lessons learned by 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and a dozen other spin off games based on the d20 system and makes Martial fighters into "I swing my sword, Its all I do". This makes them very boring.

Paladins aren't religious. They are the big damn hero archetype. Yes, go read the PHB for 3.X. Paladins didn't have to serve a deity.

Anything akin to warrior for a deity is called a Cleric. That is why they have armor/weapon proficiencies.

[Tvtyrant]

Ever since 3.5, character building is more fun than the actual game.

And for a game that is mainly about combat, D&D offers very unsatisfying combat system.

This is extremely accurate. 3.5 and 5E are fun despite their combat, not because of it. Our current DM sometimes wants big battles and we all seek to avoid them, because the otherwise fun settings get bogged down in 3 hours of blankly fighting ennui.

[gijoemike]

NovenFromTheSun
Railroading is better than demanding the players railroad themselves.

What does this mean? I can't parse this in a way that makes sense.

Edit: It's mostly that I don't know what "demanding players railroad themselves" is supposed to mean. I can make several guesses, but I've never heard anyone talk about players railroading themselves before and I certainly don't see the meaningful difference with any of my guesses between that and regular railroading

I have been in a game that NovenFromTheSun is talking about.

Railroad is, of course, you are on the DM's set story and you cannot escape. Nothing you do matters or really changes the story.

Sandbox is where the players drive the story and the GM fleshes out the ideas. The GM offers a few ideas/plot hooks and the players drive the game forward.

But "demanding the players railroad themselves" is when a GM, frankly doesn't care. The setup the initial town/city setting and check out. There is never a wanted poster, damsel in distress, plea of help from another kingdom. No plot hooks, no rumors, no random bar fight unless a PC starts it. The PC exists but the question of "OK, What can I do?" is never addressed or answered. The players must place themselves onto a story path (Railroad) entirely of their own design and then proceed to push it along. The DM never provides conflict. This type of story is always pitched as a sandbox game but then the DM is physically present but has abandoned the concept of the game.

[Batcathat]

But "demanding the players railroad themselves" is when a GM, frankly doesn't care. The setup the initial town/city setting and check out. There is never a wanted poster, damsel in distress, plea of help from another kingdom. No plot hooks, no rumors, no random bar fight unless a PC starts it. The PC exists but the question of "OK, What can I do?" is never addressed or answered. The players must place themselves onto a story path (Railroad) entirely of their own design and then proceed to push it along. The DM never provides conflict. This type of story is always pitched as a sandbox game but then the DM is physically present but has abandoned the concept of the game.

While I could see why that would be a problem, calling it railroading themselves seems misleading. The point of railroading is that the players can't control where they're going (literally or metaphorically), in this scenario they're the only ones who control that and can presumably change direction at any time. So rather than "railroading" it's like... driving around in the forest without any roads at all, I guess? Is there a word for that?

[Easy e]

While I could see why that would be a problem, calling it railroading themselves seems misleading. The point of railroading is that the players can't control where they're going (literally or metaphorically), in this scenario they're the only ones who control that and can presumably change direction at any time. So rather than "railroading" it's like... driving around in the forest without any roads at all, I guess? Is there a word for that?

Off-roading?

[Shpadoinkle]

Magic for the spellcaster is a discrete fleeting flash. A spell that lasts for a bit and then is completely gone. Mages don't necessarily need to only exist in that form. Magic could be permanent and continuous. The Mage wields magic and becomes magic. Basically mechanics described by words like passive or continuous rather than described by words like uses or duration. However that is just one interpretation of the mage that is not a spellcaster.

Serious suggestion here: Have a look at Magic of Incarnum, it's a 3.5e book. Pathfinder 1e has a similar system in akashic magic.

Basically, instead of preparing "one and done" spells like wizards, sorcerers, clerics, etc., these classes form temporary magic items, and can thereafter use their abilities all day. For instance, in MoI there's an ability called Dissolving Spittle, which lets you spit acid. You can do this all day and you never 'run out' of uses. Other abilities grant you bonuses to various skills, a couple let you fly, one even lets you teleport short distances, some grant you bonus HP or bonuses on your attack or damage rolls or saving throws, and lots of other things.

Sorta unrelated, but in the game I'm currently running I've reflavored the incarnate and totemist classes as various (Eastern-style) monastic traditions, to create ki-user classes that I honestly think do it way better than the PHB monk.

[Luccan]

I have been in a game that NovenFromTheSun is talking about.

Railroad is, of course, you are on the DM's set story and you cannot escape. Nothing you do matters or really changes the story.

Sandbox is where the players drive the story and the GM fleshes out the ideas. The GM offers a few ideas/plot hooks and the players drive the game forward.

But "demanding the players railroad themselves" is when a GM, frankly doesn't care. The setup the initial town/city setting and check out. There is never a wanted poster, damsel in distress, plea of help from another kingdom. No plot hooks, no rumors, no random bar fight unless a PC starts it. The PC exists but the question of "OK, What can I do?" is never addressed or answered. The players must place themselves onto a story path (Railroad) entirely of their own design and then proceed to push it along. The DM never provides conflict. This type of story is always pitched as a sandbox game but then the DM is physically present but has abandoned the concept of the game.

Oh, ok that's not what I was thinking at all. I think batcathat raises a good point that "railroading" isn't the most accurate term. But I'd agree that's bad in a different way. Idk if it's worse than railroading, both seem to fall under the "no gaming is better than bad gaming" rule. The DM should put in effort and I didn't come hear to listen to the DM tell a story and report die rolls.

[Batcathat]

Off-roading?

Ah, so obvious. Can't believe I didn't think of it myself. Yes, that seems like an excellent term for what gijoemike described.

[Imbalance]

Miniatures are cool.

Is this really an unpopular opinion?

Very few on this forum ever talk about them except to say how expensive they are.

Exhibits A and B:

Clearly there are some people that think they’re hot, else why would they be spending thousands of dollars on miniatures of 500 year old dragons?

I have no clue why people spend more than $5 for a cheap plastic dinosaur with wings.

...imbalance, can be disruptive...

Sorry...

[Warder]

Sorry...

Haha! Hey, the rest of my post was basically a great big condemnation of your mortal enemy, Balance!