Unpopular D&D Opinions

[HumanFighter]

Feel free to share your opinions about any tabletop rpgs you want here. I am just curious to know what people think.
My intention here is to create a relatively safe space to express opinions, not as an excuse for flaming and/or trolling.
Doesn't matter how unpopular or controversial your opinion may be, I am not here to judge you. I simply want to know what people out there think about these games.
Keep in mind this doesn't have to necessarily be about D&D, just any game will do.

I'll start off with a taste of my own unpopular opinions: I don't really like D&D 5th edition. I know it's the most popular one or whatever, but honestly I would rather play 4th edition than this. I feel they did the skills dirty in 5e. I mean it's still playable, but I just don't really enjoy it much.
D&D 3.5e was my first ever tabletop rpg, and so I have a heavy bias in favor of it. Still, even then I can see its flaws. The over-reliance on equipment and magic items, for example. But, it will always be my fav.

Anyways, thanks and I hope you enjoy sharing what your thoughts are on the various D&D editions and other such games.

[OldTrees1]

There should be:

A spellcaster that casts at will (unpopular but not too unpopular).

A mage that does not have spellcasting (unpopular due to rarity rather than disagreement).

[Batcathat]

This opinion probably isn't that unpopular, but still: alignments is a sacred cow that should've been slaughtered and eaten long ago. They have lots of potential downsides and I've yet to see a single upside that can't be attained some other way.

[JNAProductions]

4th edition was good.

Not very D&D-like, but for what it set out to do, it was good. And it was also fun to play, which is more important.

[NichG]

I could do without dice at all.

Binary proficiencies from older editions are more potentially interesting than skill checks.

D&D with rare combat is fine, no need for multiple fights a session.

Balance doesn't matter and balance-focused design often sells out the weird and inspiring soul of a thing in exchange for making stuff quantitatively comparable.

[icefractal]

A mage that does not have spellcasting (unpopular due to rarity rather than disagreement).

What do they have/do instead?

D&D with rare combat is fine, no need for multiple fights a session.

Balance doesn't matter and balance-focused design often sells out the weird and inspiring soul of a thing in exchange for making stuff quantitatively comparable.

Ditto. I mean, I'll gladly take balance when it's "free", but the cost paid for it is often too high.


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

Being a luddite doesn't have to be balanced with using technology and probably shouldn't be.

"Tucker's Kobolds" may get lionized but most players hate that kind of scenario - they want to be the ones punching above their weight class with cleverness, not the ones looking like chumps.

"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)."

Saving the entire world is over-used and either very high-pressure or merely fake danger (depending on whether the GM is willing to actually have the world be destroyed) and fewer campaigns should have it as the goal.

A session where nothing is high-intensity and the characters face no significant risks can still be plenty of fun.

[Lord Raziere]

I agree with batcathat and also think that there should be no evil races. (I don't care if you make them "alien" I just want them to not be evil and to play them). I don't need a reason why other than the fact I don't like them, and don't any projection or resemblance to anything to not want them.

also that separating race into ancestry and culture is a good idea.

DnD can learn a lot from the Spheres of Power system about how to make characters.

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

Dragonlance is straight up just not a good setting in general, and neither is Forgotten Realms.

The Unexpectables as a campaign while good to watch, has a numerous flaws in it that keeps it from being the best it could be.

I hold no love for gnomes or kobolds and do not see why people like them so much.

I am not particularly fond of the cautious paranoia playstyle and wish more DnD games would loosen up, be more bold and risk-taking rather than being bogged down in constant planning, because I think the tendency towards that mindset has hurt the hobby by encouraging inaction and indecision when you need to act to keep the game moving.

4e Warlord was a good idea that should be brought back.

[Kraynic]

What do they have/do instead?

The first thing that comes to my mind is the "mechanic" mage (if I remember correctly) from Robert Asprin's Myth series. All of their powers come from objects, and they actually have no inherent magical ability at all.

[OldTrees1]

What do they have/do instead?

They have Magic. Spellcasting is a rather niche interpretation of a mage but it dominates the available mechanical options because it is so easy to write.

One interpretation:
A spell less Necromancer would have a cohort of undead, have fortified their own body & soul, be able to drain various types of vitality from their foes, and stave off death for their allies. (If you are familiar with 3E Dread Necromancer, remove their spells and give them even more class features is a start in this direction)

A spell less Pyromancer is surrounded by an every growing amount of flame that they have increasing control over. They can form it into elementals, while they are encased in a sphere of fire, and causing their enemies to ignite.

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.

[Frogreaver]

5e is far from perfect.

[Telok]

D&d 5e is: ad&d 1e mushed against d&d 4e, discard all humor & whimsey, add more hit points to everything, add a very few select ideas from d&d 3.x, homogenize, add more hit points to everything again, paint job with a flashy ad campaign.


WotC shows how much they care about you by releasing ToB errata. (Yes I'm still salty about that. The utter disrespect for their consumers shown by not even admitting any mistake is despicable.)


There are people who need rules and guidelines or they will screw up certain things. Maybe its old habits, maybe a personality trait, maybe ignorance, maybe inexperience. There are some people who need guiderails to play or run a roleplaying game.

[LibraryOgre]

In AD&D, Weapon Specialization was a better implementation of "give fighters extra combat ability above what other classes can achieve" than % strength.

Alignment is a useful shorthand to general actions.

The current take on goblins is pretty much just an unwashed kender who needs a dialect coach.

The current take on tieflings is pretty much the same as the 90s/00s version of the drow.

[dafrca]

A mage that does not have spellcasting (unpopular due to rarity rather than disagreement).

Interesting, my mind now wants to know what makes them a mage then? I know maybe another thread but you do have me curious to see what they could do with it.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

5e was never a perfect system but it started out in the right direction as being a "best of" compilation for all the prior editions. There was a little bit of everything for everyone. The key enjoyment was more on simplistic options and classes. However this was broken when Tasha's and all other books there after where published which broke a solid design mold.

The Artificer should have never been a stand alone class. It should have been a Wizard subclass. Additional subclasses could have been added to the other classes for the Eberron setting book such has the Battle Smite going to the Ranger for instance.

On the whole there was nothing wrong with the Ranger that was first printed in the PHB. It was a nicely done class that played to being a wilderness person relying on skills as much as magic and combat to take on foes. The revisions made to the class as a whole took away from that and made it more video game like.

Forgotten Realms is not a good setting but could be if more was done with it. Every adventure module for 5e in this setting has been set in or around the Sword Coast. They have ignored more interesting regions like Kara-Tu or Maztica.

Some sacred cows like alignment restrictions and also druids cannot use metal need to die. On the druid, I find it hard to believe they would be against using natural occurring metals that are in the ground like iron or copper. More so, the whole fey connection needs to be dialed down. Some options that have a more shaman feel or "spirit of the earth" vibe (think Native Americans) are just as viable for a druid to be.
On alignment, it makes only sense for those that need to follow some code where opposite actions have consequences like for paladins or clerics violating the doctrines of their god.

Paladins should not be just limited to the "Knight In Shinning Armor" troupe. A Paladin is a holy warrior to a god no matter if they are good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral of some type.

The sneak attack feature of the Rogue needs to go away. All it has done is pigeon-hold the Rogue into very limited play style.

Dragonlance was boring.

The Psychic Energy die of the Soulknife and Psi-Warrior is a dumb mechanic. Done only so as a gimmick just to say they did something different to represent psionics.

[MrZJunior]

Skill systems are lame. I want people to describe how they overcome challenges. What do you say to the guard to convince him to let you through? How do you disable the trap? That is much more interesting than rolling some dice.

[YoungestGruff]

Druids should be a kind of Cleric, whose Channel Divinity merges with Wildshape.

Warlocks and Sorcerers should be merged thematically and thus mechanically. Magic Sugar Daddy vs Magic Daddy just steps all over each other. Let Sorcerers and Wizards make bad deals for power without obligating a class.

Rangers should have a more specific role (not controversial). That role should be support and single target ranged attacks; like a sniper and wilderness guide (more controversial).

Bards should be half-casters, not full. Arcane Paladins, if you will.

DEX shouldn't govern Initiative. It shouldn't be tied to a stat at all.

WOTC is getting satisfied with dominating the market. They no longer have to try that hard anymore, plus they have a vested interest in failing to innovate. 5e is suffering for it, now.

Also, none of this actually matters to 90 percent of the people who play this game.

[Cluedrew]

Is this "D&D" (as in the title) or "RPG" (as in the description)? I'm going to stick to the overlap for now. And stick to my most unpopular opinions, so get ready:

• D&D alignment is a reasonable tool applied badly. The alignments themselves aren't the problem.
• D&D 4th was the best designed edition of D&D They were however, designing the wrong game.
• D&D shouldn't be the iconic role-playing game. I don't think it is a good first role-playing game.

[Hytheter]

They have Magic. Spellcasting is a rather niche interpretation of a mage but it dominates the available mechanical options because it is so easy to write.

One interpretation:
A spell less Necromancer would have a cohort of undead, have fortified their own body & soul, be able to drain various types of vitality from their foes, and stave off death for their allies. (If you are familiar with 3E Dread Necromancer, remove their spells and give them even more class features is a start in this direction)

A spell less Pyromancer is surrounded by an every growing amount of flame that they have increasing control over. They can form it into elementals, while they are encased in a sphere of fire, and causing their enemies to ignite.

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.

So, basically you want magic as class features rather than as a list of spells? I don't disagree. It would be a great approach for mages that are supposed to have a tight thematic focus.

[ventoAureo]

HP ARE meat points! It's just that not every point of damage is equal. A Level 1 chump getting a sword swung in their face doesn't have the know-how and experience to move their body at just the right time so that the swing doesn't kill them. So almost any hit is gonna down them.

Whereas a Level 10 hero is going to be able to take on all sorts of punishment because they've faced danger lots of time before and know how to come out from it alive.

EDIT: Oh, here's another one! The mechanic known as "alignment" should be renamed "morality" if it's going to be kept around. Most people use it as this, anyways.

[OldTrees1]

Interesting, my mind now wants to know what makes them a mage then? I know maybe another thread but you do have me curious to see what they could do with it.

I answered a similar question a bit earlier.

Examples

They are a mage because they are still a class that revolves around using magic. The magic is just not in the limited mechanical form we call spells/spellcasting.

Think of it as a mage that uses permanent magic by is still limited to controlling a level appropriate amount of magic at a time. Some would use mental control as the limiting factor (how many minions can you control?). Some would provide benefits to allies but there is a limit to how many wards an ally can handle as each additional ward strains their health/fortitude. Some would be constrained by action economy to use their various ongoing effects. Others would be constrained by how strong they can push their effects (the magnitude of the effect scales with level).

Basically spellcasters are mundane peasants anytime they are not casting a spell. Why is magic so fleeting? Why not a subsystem that expects magic to be continuous (class features representing ongoing effects) rather than fleeting (limited uses of effects with finite durations if not instantaneous).

So, basically you want magic as class features rather than as a list of spells? I don't disagree. It would be a great approach for mages that are supposed to have a tight thematic focus.

Yup. This also gives the opportunity to explore passive magic in more ways than spell could.

[Tanarii]

Every new edition of D&D was superior to the last one. Even if I still get nostalgic for concepts from AD&D and BECMI occasionally.

Roleplaying games are not automatically about storytelling, collaborative or otherwise.

Alignments as presented in 5e (as part of the personality system) are the best thing to happen to D&D alignment to date.

Orcs and Drow are not racist.

Kevin Siembieda is a "RP" elitist.

Player-Character separation is a myth.

Metagaming is an abused term that's been been used to do more harm than good in TTRPGs.

Edit: 2e Kender were awesome, and 3e/4e halflings were greatly improved from their hobbit ancestry as a direct result.

[clash]

Removing attribute points from race was one of the best changes they could have made. Why shouldn't my orc be a good of a wizard as that high elf.

Cantrips should scale with class not character.

Spellcasting slots are stupid and everyone should use mana.

Martials do fine damage without weapon feats.

Warlocks are close to the best designed class after paladin.

Wizard and fighter are the two classes that never needed to exist in 5e. Every other class at least had a theme.

[Ameraaaaaa]

Dnd 5e isn't overrated. It just doesn't appeal to every style of play. The people who like 5e aren't deluded or anything they just like that playstyle which is a 100% valid. I don't personally like 5e but that's also 100% valid as long as i don't treat myself as superior for doing so.

Pbta games are too specific for my wants. Masks seems good but i don't want to play emotionally wrecked teen heroes for example. I'm sure there's some pbta games I'd love but those typically are too obscure to find someone to play with online.

There should be more games where you can play mad scientist with a freeform crafting systems or otherwise flexible enough where i can create a crazy amount of different stuff. Mad scientists are cool and crazy inventions are cooler.

Don't tell me your an expert on obscure games until you've read games such as S.M.A.R.T RPG, the beast of broly, the pulp hack, let’s be grandma's and active exploits. This last one is a joke but the fact i know those games exists says a lotta bout me.

Ps i also stopped collecting extremely obscure rpgs after realising nobody is gonna play them with me.

[Telok]

The weirdness of kobolds turning from lap-dog sized gnolls into chicken walker mini-dragon-wizards is both annoying with its odd semi-fandom and seriously undermines the whole "scrappy underdog" think with Tuckers.

[Mastikator]

There are too many playable races, especially animal/furry races.

The move from human-centric D&D is bad.

Humans shouldn't be the most boring race but they are, that is a game design failure.

D&D 5e is the best D&D version, I agree with @Tanarii that each version is better than the previous.

HP being meat points and plot armor simultaneously is immersion breaking.

Bounded accuracy is a very good thing.

[Batcathat]

Humans shouldn't be the most boring race but they are, that is a game design failure.

I think that's kind of hard to get away from, considering they're the baseline for all the other races from our perspective. If D&D was written from a dog's perspective humans would be this weird race that can't smell worth a damn but have the really overpowered ability to grip things.

Of course, it's possible to give D&D humans abilities beyond real life humans but then I suspect people would complain about humans not being humans anymore.

[Mastikator]

I think that's kind of hard to get away from, considering they're the baseline for all the other races from our perspective. If D&D was written from a dog's perspective humans would be this weird race that can't smell worth a damn but have the really overpowered ability to grip things.

Of course, it's possibly to give D&D humans abilities beyond real life humans but then I suspect people would complain about humans not being humans anymore.

Or just don't give human abilities to all the other races? All the other races are designed as human +. The only answer is to not do this. It doesn't even make sense that the furry animal or scaly races should have even remotely close to human level stamina when they clearly can't sweat with all that fur. (or if they could it would only dehydrate them) Dragonborn and haregons should be exhaustion galore, dwarves with their extremely stout structure and short arms should be terrible with bows and thrown weapons. Not only does it devalue humans or as JC calls it "eat their lunch" it also makes non-humans feel like humans with funny hats. I figured out how to do this in the game I designed and I am just a schmuck, why can't giants like Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins figure it out?

In other words actually give races drawbacks.

[Batcathat]

Or just don't give human abilities to all the other races? All the other races are designed as human +. The only answer is to not do this. It doesn't even make sense that the furry animal or scaly races should have even remotely close to human level stamina when they clearly can't sweat with all that fur. (or if they could it would only dehydrate them) Dragonborn and haregons should be exhaustion galore, dwarves with their extremely stout structure and short arms should be terrible with bows and thrown weapons. Not only does it devalue humans or as JC calls it "eat their lunch" it also makes non-humans feel like humans with funny hats. I figured out how to do this in the game I designed and I am just a schmuck, why can't giants like Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins figure it out?

Yes, I suppose that's true. While I don't really mind humans being boring, I do dislike other creatures being basically almost humans so even if I don't agree with your complaint, I can agree with your proposed solution.

[Anonymouswizard]

Skill systems are lame. I want people to describe how they overcome challenges. What do you say to the guard to convince him to let you through? How do you disable the trap? That is much more interesting than rolling some dice.

I'd really rather not have to get knowledge I don't have just to play a rogue/wizard/floomwoozle (delete as appropriate). Leave such descriptions to Stunting mechanics.


Scaling hp is bad and in practice almost always leads to either padded sumo or rocket tag combat.

Random character generation is not a problem, but I should not be penalised for just choosing.

If I'm throwing fireballs or lightning bolts, or have a duel for everything, then your magic system is boring. Give me thematic magic that does cool things, but it's limited in scope. Like clothing magic, or smoking magic.

[Lacco]

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.