Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Lord Torath]

Sorry...

As well you should be!

On topic:

2nd Edition Psionics (Complete Psionics Handbook version with support from Dragon Kings and The Will and the Way) is the best version of Psionics to date.

Ability score checks should be made using the "The Price is Right^TM" method: Roll as high as possible without going over. Highest successful roll in an opposed check wins.

[OldTrees1]

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.

Suggestion accepted. I want the non casting mage to be more of a mage than Magic of Incarnum represents. The theme of Magic of Incarnum was more about hybrid Mage/Warrior classes. It was/is one of my favorite subsystems and helped convince me that non casting mages could be possible. I need to learn more about the Pathfinder Vizier, it looks very promising.

[Telok]

Exhibits A and B:

Hey now, I have a couple hundred mini backlog to paint (on hold due to time & presence required family stuff). I printed & painted an otter with power sword, bolter, & grenade belt for someone else. Minis are cool, but once you have your painting & modding technique down there isn't much to talk about. Show off, maybe, but not much to talk about.

2nd Edition Psionics (Complete Psionics Handbook version with support from Dragon Kings and The Will and the Way) is the best version of Psionics to date.

Ability score checks should be made using the "The Price is Right^TM" method: Roll as high as possible without going over. Highest successful roll in an opposed check wins.

There were issues with 2e psi. Not unfixable, but some definite issues. It would however be a decent base for skill/stat based csasting.

Never going to happen of course. WotC is so married to "d20+mod >= dc" that they're blind to any other dice rolls. I'm waiting for them to rewrite random encounter & loot tables that way.

[Mordar]

The standard reaction to this is that "the game is played by human beings, it's only natural to standardize everything to human level".

There is so much fear of the diverse and the implications of diversity that, rather than learning to accept and value what would be diverse, the default solution is to make every race a reskin of Humans.

Really? Fear is the reason that games written by and for humans use a known quantity as a starting point?

Unpopular opinion 1: New era games are only capable of incremental gains (and not even always that) over the beardy old games. Something about standing on the shoulders of giants.

D&D Combat is really boring. Traps are boring.

Player agency is over-rated. Railroading is a valuable tool when used sparingly and appropriately.

An RPG only needs rules to determine if characters' pass/fail a test. Everything else is window dressing.

People value the strategic choices in D&D more than actually playing the game.

Disagree, agree.

Really really really really agree...*especially* when I am a player. There is a time and place for primary player agency, but not nearly as often as some people think. There is nothing wrong (and much right) with Quantum Ogres and Schrodingers Dungeons.

Not sure I understand.

Some people, definitely.

Unpopular (but maybe not anymore?) opinion 2: Games are best played in their native system, not ported to Savage Worlds, PBTA, GURPS or any other "generic" system.

Have others, but tied to non-fantasy RPGs, so maybe too specific for this thead?

- M

[YoungestGruff]

Spell DCs should scale with Character Level as well. (I like Pathfinder's DCs for class abilities, which is 10 + 1/2 class level + Ability modifier)

I mean, they do. Just via the Proficiency Bonus.

EDIT:

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.

Unrealted, who wants to hear my totally metal rewrite of troll lore?

[Anonymouswizard]

I mean, they do. Just via the Proficiency Bonus.

I think that was meant to be a 'in 3.X', where they scale with spell level. One of the things that makes multiclassing as a caster annoying.

---

Barebones Fantasy does D&D better than D&D did, desire being a significantly smaller book (and therefore cheaper). This is due to both it's simplicity and 'profession as skill' system.

[icefractal]

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.

Not the same opinion, but this made me think of it -

Much of the hate on 4E (especially related to 'characters are too powerful / superhero-like') was because it stopped hiding behind vagueness and tried to define what being higher level meant. A 15th level character isn't just skilled and lucky but basically normal, they're a "Paragon" and can have superhuman abilities. A 25th level character is even less normal and might be a "Demigod".

Which was already the case in 3E, if you went by the mechanics. But it never actually said that. It never directly said "Your 20th level Fighter is not just the ordinary tough guy at the tavern, he's goddamn superhuman."

And it turned out that many people, having not played high-level games (or only low-op ones), had a different head-canon, a head-canon where characters could get to 20th or 100th or 1000th level without ever ceasing to be a normal person who gets nervous when some bandits with crossbows surround them. And they did not appreciate being told that was wrong.

So, empirically unpopular opinion - they were wrong.

[Quertus]

I'm only in the first page, but this is an awesome read so far!

Should I be concerned that I agree with most of the "unpopular" opinions posited by the first few posters?

I guess my "unpopular" opinions are include…

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs.

"Acting" is what happens when you start with the script, and work backwards towards the classic actor question of "what's my motivation?"; "Role-playing" is what happens when you start at (the foundations for) the motivations, and work your way forward to the other classic actor question, "what's my line?".

4e D&D is not an RPG. And neither are so-called "CRPGs".

"Balance" is not a synonym for "fun".

3e D&D has the best balance I've seen in an RPG; 2e D&D the best character creation.

It's fine if people don't want to engage all parts of the game, if that's what they find fun. It is not fine for them to intentionally "disengage" others.

There is a copy of the game world inside each participant's head. Each participant holds "the truth" for their piece. As the GM holds by far the most pieces, they are uniquely situated, and have the greatest responsibility for clear communication, issue resolution, and ensuring the fidelity of the game world copies inside everyone else's head. And that is the only responsibility unique to their position; anything else can be offloaded. Or, as I usually say it, "the GM is the eyes and ears of the PCs".

The optimal game generally involves "calibration sessions", where players and GMs display their range, before the participants make an informed decision regarding what they want.

Rails form first in the GM's mind. GMs having conflicts of interest between "their plans" and "the group's fun" (or, as I used to word it, "GMs wanting something") is where things start to go wrong.

Angry is the best mind in gaming. And, despite that, he's always wrong.

-----

A few things I'd like to see more about:

Things being "off the RNG" is not inherently a problem and can in fact be desirable.

"Use the environment, not your character sheet" is sometimes just code for "Don't pay attention to that stupid crap you made (the character), pay attention to this awesome stuff I made (the scene description).".

there needs to be more mundane classes than fighter and rogue.

D&D shouldn't be the iconic role-playing game. I don't think it is a good first role-playing game.

Cantrips should scale with class not character.

Warlocks are close to the best designed class after paladin.

(I've tried to limit myself to ones where I don't already have a strong opinion.)

[Tanarii]

3e D&D has the best balance I've seen in an RPG;

This statement made my eyes pop out in disbelief.

[KineticDiplomat]

I've established it pretty well elsewhere, but I really dislike D&D for being an overall mediocre RPG that eats player share, leads to some obnoxious convnetions being copied in designs, and seems to (based on an admittedly not statistically powerful sample of personal observations) attract far more of the man-children than others.

[Shpadoinkle]

Suggestion accepted. I want the non casting mage to be more of a mage than Magic of Incarnum represents.

I don't know what this means. Can you elaborate? What are the incarnate and totemist missing that you think this "non-casting mage" should be able to do?

[icefractal]

A few things I'd like to see more about:

For being off the RNG, take Acrobatics in Pathfinder for example.
"Run at full speed on icy ground" is DC 10. It's pretty easy for a character to have +9 or more, so they don't even have to roll for that. They're off the RNG.

It's also possible for one character to have +29 (run across a 2" wide beam during an earthquake, no roll needed) while another character in the same party has -1 (slowly moving along an 11" wide beam in calm conditions is a coin flip). Anything that's even a little challenging for the former is impossible for the latter.

To some people, that's a big problem. To me, it's not - the characters simply have different abilities. Like if one of them could fly and the other couldn't. Or if one is a high-ranking noble of the kingdom they're in, and another is a wanted criminal there. Or one is a particularly strong Half-Ogre who can lift an elephant and the other is an anemic Gnome. They're not going to face the same challenges.

And some systems I've seen use "the modifiers don't vary that much, but the GM should interpret the results differently based on the character's background" ... which seems like reinventing larger modifiers but less objective and more work on the spot.


For the other one, it's purely a suspicion. But I have noticed that sometimes when people describe what the good/roleplaying solution is, it involves listening very closely to the GM and then invoking elements they mentioned to prove you were listening. Where-as the bad/rollplaying solution involves the use of things that the player, rather than the GM, chose.

TBF, listening to the GM is a good thing, and there are plenty of situations where taking advantage of situational scene elements makes sense as the best idea. It's not an "always" thing.


And to ask about one of yours in turn:

4e D&D is not an RPG. And neither are so-called "CRPGs".

Which of the following would you consider RPGs?
* Hero (I'm not going to call it HERO, it's not an acronym )
* Fate
* PbtA (let's say Masks, if the specific one matters)
* D&D 5E
* Exalted 3E

[Cluedrew]

Should I be concerned that I agree with most of the "unpopular" opinions posited by the first few posters?

No, not really. I've seen enough different opinions on many matters that I am pretty sure that the popular opinion has crept in several times. Perhaps a better thread title for how the thread has gone might have been "Controversial or Unusual RPG Opinions" (reading the first post, that might have even been the intent). I was actually expecting to see something about your extreme in-character views but that didn't come up.

But generally speaking whether something is the popular opinion, an unpopular opinion, a trivially true fact someone thinks needs more attention or a factually incorrect statement that- well, yes, I think a few factually incorrect statements have appeared. But digging into them in the depth required would probably derail the thread so I shall let them pass.

On the other hand:

A few things I'd like to see more about:

Is D&D shouldn't be the iconic role-playing game. I don't think it is a good first role-playing game.

Pretty simple, it came from some comment about how if D&D lost its place as the iconic system then another would take its place. I mean considering every other entertainment medium, I'm not sure that's true (although trading card games is pretty close, Wizards of the Coast is doing a good job at that) but even if it is, could there be a "better" iconic role-playing game system?

I think there could be and picked out some features for it:

• Generic System: Ideally a tool-box system with a solid set of defaults. The defaults are for people picking it up for the first time and then the tool-box (which is to say, it is designed to be easy to modify) allows people to adjust tone or setting. Although focused systems built from the ground up have a place, I don't think the iconic system should be one of them. Basically if all you can find is a game of the iconic system then you can still branch out to different types of campaigns.
• Rules-Light(er): I don't really have a threshold on this other than to explain why I think it needs to be true: The system needs to be approachable*. I have had people refuse role-playing on grounds that they think it is all about these rules-heavy systems. It's too much for some people and that's a problem for the most visible system.

There are other things, like no fixed progression or reducing combat focus, that may or may not help. But those two are the ones I am confident would improve the hobby as a whole. And I don't even like generic systems as much, but I do think they would make a better standard.

* Any to anyone who thinks D&D is "approachable": I would like to point out you are a Giant in the Playground poster.

[Telok]

This statement made my eyes pop out in disbelief.

Well it depends on what you think "balance" means and what flaws or compromises you're willing to put up with in exchange for that golden moo.

[Pex]

The Tier System of 3E is bunk. It is the author's personal opinion and has no authority to dictate how anyone should the play the game. It is not valid evidence in a debate about any 3E subject.

5E would have been better served if there were example DC tables for skill use.

[zzzzzzzz414]

Not certain whether to file under "unpopular" or just "controversial", but:

Racial Alignment was a massive, massive mistake, not just due to certain unfortunate implications but also from a worldbuilding and character-building perspective, especially in the way it tends to encourage and create flat stereotypes and monocultures. Ideally it would be removed from the game entirely. (Maybe, maybe with exception for certain cosmic beings/outsiders whose forms are literally platonic embodiments of certain ideas of "good" or "evil" or "chaos", but most definitely not for any mortal species.)

I also really question the utility of the Alignment system as a whole but my views on that are a tad softer.

[Talakeal]

Railroading is better than demanding the players railroad themselves.

Hey! Nice to see someone else in my neck of the woods!

I am not quite sure what this means, but if I had to venture I guess, I would say it is something like "I will be running Storm King's Thunder. Please make appropriate characters who are motivated to go along with the module so that I don't have to keep trying to wrangle you back on track."

Not the same opinion, but this made me think of it -

Much of the hate on 4E (especially related to 'characters are too powerful / superhero-like') was because it stopped hiding behind vagueness and tried to define what being higher level meant. A 15th level character isn't just skilled and lucky but basically normal, they're a "Paragon" and can have superhuman abilities. A 25th level character is even less normal and might be a "Demigod".

Which was already the case in 3E, if you went by the mechanics. But it never actually said that. It never directly said "Your 20th level Fighter is not just the ordinary tough guy at the tavern, he's goddamn superhuman."

And it turned out that many people, having not played high-level games (or only low-op ones), had a different head-canon, a head-canon where characters could get to 20th or 100th or 1000th level without ever ceasing to be a normal person who gets nervous when some bandits with crossbows surround them. And they did not appreciate being told that was wrong.

So, empirically unpopular opinion - they were wrong.

I suppose this works if you limit "super-human" to a being really tough, really accurate, and being reasonably good at a couple of skills.

[Lacco]

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.

Same here: D&D 3.5 was my first GM experience of "how the hell do I make this combat interesting...???".

So another unpopular opinion: if you want to play classic fantasy game, avoid DnD 3+. If you want to play a warrior/fighter/mundane and have fun, avoid DnD 3+.

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

Almost missed this jewel... which I absolutely agree with. "It's not better, it's better for you and your group". Thumbs up.

I like Vancian casting.

I like the idea of Vancian casting, but I have not seen it portrayed anywhere. I wanted to like the DnD casting system...

Unpopular (but maybe not anymore?) opinion 2: Games are best played in their native system, not ported to Savage Worlds, PBTA, GURPS or any other "generic" system.

And the other side around: if you like a game, do not port it into DnD. Play the other game.

In addition: When you have a great character that worked in DnD, do not assume it will work in other systems.

---

Overall, I'd like to commend all the commenters on this thread. The level of civility you all are able to keep around this topic is astonishing and inspiring.

[Theoboldi]

Super unpopular opinion: If you like a setting or the basic premise of a game, but aren't hot on the mechanics or don't want to learn a completely different system that may require a completely different playstyle, there is no shame whatsoever in adapting it to your system of choice.

Plain bizarre opinion: D&D does not require Epic Levels above 20th, nor any sort of mechanical advancement beyond that point. Level 10 and upwards already work perfectly fine for those kinds of superpowered games where you're fighting demon lords and house-sized dragons, and have magic powerful enough to teleport across the world and create your own pocket dimensions. The kind of effort that goes into creating post 20th level boons should instead go into properly creating a level 10 to 20 epic experience.

[Anonymouswizard]

This statement made my eyes pop out in disbelief.

Remember that Quertus falls heavily on the side of the magic users, and wants them to be casting magic all the time.

Me? I'm off the opinion that wizards should not be casting many spellz.

Hey! I suppose this works if you limit "super-human" to a being really tough, really accurate, and being reasonably good at a couple of skills.

An average human who teaches 20th level as a Fighter has 115 hp (rounding to the nearest five). A fall from orbit desks 20d6 damage. On average a fully rested 20th level Fighter has a less than 1% chance of dying from it (in fact the chance I do small anydice doesn't give it). If we understand that >90% of PC Fighters will have 14+ CON we can add another 40 hp and have a good chance at surviving it twice. Or surviving if we try to model the heart from sir compression.

I'd call that superhuman.

I'm afb at the moment (kind of got rid of my 3.X years ago), but I'm sure if we run the numbers we'll find their damage lets them cut through adamantine or something.

[Talakeal]

An average human who teaches 20th level as a Fighter has 115 hp (rounding to the nearest five). A fall from orbit desks 20d6 damage. On average a fully rested 20th level Fighter has a less than 1% chance of dying from it (in fact the chance I do small anydice doesn't give it). If we understand that >90% of PC Fighters will have 14+ CON we can add another 40 hp and have a good chance at surviving it twice. Or surviving if we try to model the heart from sir compression.

I'd call that superhuman.

I'm afb at the moment (kind of got rid of my 3.X years ago), but I'm sure if we run the numbers we'll find their damage lets them cut through adamantine or something.

Or just a weird artifact of the super abstract damage system, after all any mundane animal larger than a bear can also reliably survive a fall from orbit.

But no, my point was that high level mundane characters get lots of HP, lots of BaB, and jack else, which makes them the most boring superheroes ever. Even The Tick could do cooler stuff and his whole shtick is walking brick.

[Morgaln]

Or just a weird artifact of the super abstract damage system, after all any mundane animal larger than a bear can also reliably survive a fall from orbit.

But no, my point was that high level mundane characters get lots of HP, lots of BaB, and jack else, which makes them the most boring superheroes ever. Even The Tick could do cooler stuff and his whole shtick is walking brick.

It's not actually a problem of the damage system. The problem is that falling from orbit is handled through the damage system instead of just saying "if you hit the ground from that height, you're dead"

[Anonymouswizard]

Or just a weird artifact of the super abstract damage system, after all any mundane animal larger than a bear can also reliably survive a fall from orbit.

Yeah, in the real world it's the smaller animals that are air droppable multiple times.

But still, that just makes those animals superhuman, even if only in a small way (and highlights a flat with scaling hp and linear fall damage).

But no, my point was that high level mundane characters get lots of HP, lots of BaB, and jack else, which makes them the most boring superheroes ever. Even The Tick could do cooler stuff and his whole shtick is walking brick.

Yes, Fighters are boring and need a few more buttons to push.

To be fair, I suspect a lot of issues with the Fighter would be solved of the porky named Monk was merged into it and high level Fighters become Wuxia heroes. As it is, much of the time if I'm invited to a 5e group I wouldn't look twice at the Fighter (with my top three picks being Artificer, Warlock, and Monk). Yes there's space for a simple class', but I honestly think that the D&D Barbarian does that better than the Fighter.

But on the other hand if I wanted to play a normal dude I'd play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. The fact that so many of the classes are mundane professions is a nice touch, even if it means you're going to have to fight very dirty.

In other words, I'd rather be playing WFRP.

[Chronic]

I think the wizard class should go away. It's an awfully unbalanced chassis, period. I think sorcerers makes way more interesting spellcasters at the end of the day, because they have to make choices. Wizard however have an absurd spell list and an absurb number of spell prepared per day.

[Vahnavoi]

5th edition alignment was created by people who hated 3rd edition alignment, for people who hated 3rd edition alignment. It's barely there, mostly for product identity reasons. For understanding what alignment is and how it's supposed to work, a person's better off getting their hands on 1st edition AD&D books. Heck, they are probably better off playing Shin Megami Tensei or Ancient Domains of Mystery and seeing how those non-D&D games do it.

---

We've had computer games that count as proper roleplaying games since early 90s at latest, probably earlier. The idea of tabletop games being all that different comes from repeatedly overselling what human game masters are able and willing to do, while repeatedly underestimating what computers can do. Once you put your boots on the ground and look at what actually happens in human-run tabletop games, you'll find they are limited, and often limited in the exact same ways as computer games.

Related, if majority of your real tabletop playtime, say, hour or two per four hour session, is spent resolving tactical combat that's dominated by algorithmic rules and models just a few minutes of action, yet you still think you're doing it better than a computer... you are fooling yourself.

Also related, if you are decrying some D&D element as "videogamey", there's better than even chance that videogames stole that element from D&D first. You associate those things with videogames because videogames became more succesful and popular than D&D.

---

That D&D has dice doesn't mean dice are vital component for roleplaying - a game doesn't need to include dice at all to be a roleplaying game. If it's the physical action of rolling dice that keeps you invested in a game, you'd be better off playing Yathzee or going to a casino than playing any type of roleplaying game. On a second thought, don't go to a casino, you're tripping flags for the kind of person who'd develop a gambling addiction.

There are games which aren't recognized as roleplaying games by the wider public and aren't marketed as such, yet are. There also games which are recognized as such by the public and marketed to them as such, yet aren't. The simple reason for this is that people use language sloppily and can be wrong about this. Yes, this applies even to people who play roleplaying games. Ask a person who's only played D&D to give you a general definition of a roleplaying game, and more often than not they'll just describe a game of D&D, with all its idiosyncracies.

---

Whoever told you that roleplaying games are about creating stories was wrong. You can tell a story of any activity, and in that sense any activity can be said to create stories, but that doesn't mean all those activities are "about" that. Roleplaying games are about assuming the viewpoint of a character in a staged situation and deciding what to do, how to do it, and why. The people who moan and complain about stories, more often than not, are just upset that roleplaying games do not reliably produce good stories, and want to muck about with a game's rules so that they output stories closer to their ideas of a "good story".

Related, same applies to saying roleplaying games are "about" fun. Fun is one reason out of many to play games, and roleplaying games are one type of thing out of many to have fun. "Fun" is not what defines those things nor delineates between them.

Also related, whoever told you creating a good story equates to having a fun game, didn't know what they're talking about. Doing anything well is "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration". It's work. People who can do that have great capacity for delayed gratification, they can push through the hard and boring parts of the work because they can see the outcome, the promise of something that does not yet exist in their mind's eye. If you can't see it, or worse, if you can see the outcome isn't realistically attainable, learn to play games in a way that's fun in the moment. That way, you'll be happy even if you never complete a story or if the story turns out to be kind of bad.

---

If you have 4 classes and 4 species, you get 4^2=16 different character combinations. If you then have nine different alig... sorry, let's call them "life philosophies", you get 4^2*9=144 different combinations. If you tried playing each combination for one game session lasting for 4 hours, you'd have enough game for 576 hours. At rate of one session per week, you'd be playing for 2 and 3/4 years. If you'd try taking every combination from level 1 to, oh, level 9, at rate of 1 level per session, assuming no setbacks, character deaths or retries, you'd be playing for nearly 25 years. If you played for work, 8 hours per day, 280 days per year, you could squeeze it to 2 and 1/4 years.

If you can look at the above math and understand it, yet still go "D&D is too restrictive because it doesn't allow me to make the one particular and weird character I already have in my head!", maybe the issue isn't with the game lacking options. Maybe the issue is with you never really wanting to play anything the game offers. Or, worse: maybe your fixation on that one particular and weird character only serves to mask that you couldn't, even if you tried, imagine and play all those 144 characters in relevantly different ways.

[OldTrees1]

I don't know what this means. Can you elaborate? What are the incarnate and totemist missing that you think this "non-casting mage" should be able to do?

Incarnate ends up being "I am a fighter equipped with a decent collection of magic items"
Totemist ends up being "I am a mythical beast and I will claw your eyes out"

Neither sounds like a mage/magician/magus/magi/etc to me. If I interpreted the Totemist as a non casting Druid then I would also expect non casting magic that would have continuous passive effects on the land around the Druid. I would expect some continuous controllable effects (cost actions to control) on the weather around the Druid. I would expect a collection of animal friends the Druid maintains a connection with and control over. In the Druid's case I would also expect the Druid to be able to take time to permanently alter sections of the land (create magical groves/glades for example)

[Xervous]

Exhibits A and B:

Sorry...

Re: expensive miniatures. I 3D print my own, or at least I used to when there were prospects of local games.

The quip about the 500yo dragon strays towards banned topics so if you got the joke, great.

[DigoDragon]

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

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.

The fighter class is the best dipping sauce for 3.x builds though. A couple levels and you get two feats and BAB increases. :3

I agree with the paladin part. I've been trying to play my 5e paladin this way. Though the neat thing that has developed is that my character picked up a patron's notice, so it's almost like a warlock's pact going on in the background. It's pretty interesting.

Same here: D&D 3.5 was my first GM experience of "how the hell do I make this combat interesting...???"

My opinion, after decades of trying many different systems, is that no system makes combat interesting. The real work is on the GM and the players to make it interesting.

[Willie the Duck]

Racial Alignment was a massive, massive mistake, not just due to certain unfortunate implications but also from a worldbuilding and character-building perspective, especially in the way it tends to encourage and create flat stereotypes and monocultures. Ideally it would be removed from the game entirely. (Maybe, maybe with exception for certain cosmic beings/outsiders whose forms are literally platonic embodiments of certain ideas of "good" or "evil" or "chaos", but most definitely not for any mortal species.)

Oh, that brings up one of mine!:

D&D's trying desperately to have it both ways as to whether it is a generic fantasy gaming system or it has an implied default setting (not Greyhawk or the Known World or Forgotten Realms, just 'the world implied by the existing races and monsters and social dynamics and such'), has hamstrung it from the very beginning. The unfortunate implications of racial alignment being an obvious example (if they could just say, "in the default world, nearly all orcs the PCs will meet are murderous mercenary goons in the service of the dark lord* Whatevertheirnameis," most of the issue goes away), but there are plenty of dissonant things that could be addressed by this. All the 'let's think through the logical ramifications of the game rules' (such as the Tippyverse for 3e) issues people bring up could have actual answers (ex: "castles in most of the game world are built mostly like real-world castles where defense against massed armies of humanoids are the main threat because giants and dragons and earth elementals are pretty rare except for regions X, Y, and Z, where the castles do have sizable anti-monster defenses"). And, of course, that the books can't describe Elves or Dwarves much except in broad strokes (since you can't fit them into world dynamics of a default setting you don't acknowledge existing) have greatly reinforced the flat stereotypes and monocultures.
*of course, that D&D can't acknowledge that a lot of their material is serial-numbers-filed-off versions of other peoples' IPs is another hamstringing issue.

[Berenger]

Darkvision and Low-Light Vision are overdone and tacking one, the other or both on every single Edgy New Race (tm) was a mistake.