Cyber-Dave
Explorer
...eeeks.
Nah.., because "class" in this case is deliberately amorphous. Maybe you are soldier in infantry. Maybe archer. Maybe royal guard.If the fighter came with 3-4 tool proficiencies, would that make sense? Does "tool user" fit the fighter theme in people's perceptions of that class?
That comes down to how you determine whether the outcome is in doubt, which is one area of the rules which is left deliberately vague.I've thought about this some more and I forgot that you only roll when the result is in doubt. So your unskilled warlock might not even get to roll - she auto-fails.
If you change the rules of the game, then you change the reality which those rules reflect. When you open up that optional rule, then suddenly it becomes the case that the fighter is objectively better than the warlock. But optional rules are optional, and can't be assumed. If the fighter class is worthless in the social pillar unless you rely on optional rules, then that is still an issue worth addressing, because not everyone uses those optional rules.Alternatively, remember the scene with Bishop and the dagger and the hand in the mess hall of the Sulaco in Aliens? That's Intimidation using Dex, not Cha. You don't have to use Cha for Intimidation.
I don't mean that you're adding rules to the book. I mean that you're altering the situation under discussion, such that certain rules would now apply where they previously did not. If you change the situation such that it favors one character over another, then that changes how the characters will approach dealing with the situation, but it doesn't address the underlying factors in a generalized environment.By additional rules you mean the rules in the DMG on pg. 244? Last I checked they weren't "additional rules".
Cultures, and how they interact with various social classes, are an aspect of setting. There is no basis for assuming that fighters are the most common occupation, because those details are expected to vary between settings. At most, you might be able to generalize about some published settings; but even then, setting-dependent evaluations are no reflection on class mechanics.Not exactly setting. This would be more related to culture and social class. So unless the setting is a mono culture...Also, fighters are the most common occupation in most D&D cultures.
Okay, but whether or not they should be, the fact of the matter is that (at many tables) they are. You might consider that to be a problem with the basic rules of the game.Here we are in agreement and it is here that the most relevant social interactions should have their basis. A warlock with a hermit background should not be better at social interactions than a fighter with a noble background, regardless of the CHA stat.
The OP's complaint would still be valid if the DM really was "inhabiting" their game world, unless the nature of that world provided a social benefit to fighters. And since we have no way of knowing about any game world they might be using, the setting details are as likely to hinder fighters as it is to help them.It is totally relevant to the extent the fighter class does not offer support for those things in games in which the DM does not inhabit their game world. If every social interaction/skill challenge is solely dependent upon a die roll for its resolution, then the OP's premise is correct.
That is one solution, although it would have significant ramifications on the values of tertiary stats. It's hard enough for a fighter to justify putting anything in Charisma, as it is, even if it fits their concept.IMHO, the way to fix this "problem" is remove the skills Deception/Insight/Intimidation/Persuasion as they have become crutches for real RP.
What I'm getting from this is that you, personally, are very bad at understanding how the world works around you; and you're extending this trait to all PCs. You may be the exception, but the vast majority of other people in the world have a pretty decent sense of how common situations resolve around them. We can look at common objects, weighing 2 lbs and 5 lbs, and tell which one is heavier. When two people are talking about a topic, we can tell if either one sounds like they know what they're talking about, even if we know very little about that topic. We aren't completely blind to our world, as you would suppose we are.Which again is no different from you and I here in the real world. We can't do it here, so absent an explicit rule saying otherwise, there's no reason to think that they are better at it than we are. What you are doing is coming up with a justification for metagaming.
According to the book, the description of HP damage is expected to vary between DMs, so I won't say that your description is wrong; but it is far outside the realm of anything I've ever seen at any table ever. At most tables, a balor will bleed fiery blood when they take 10 damage from an arrow, even if the same damage to a human is described as a fatiguing near-miss. The balor isn't ninja-dodging away from every arrow and every blade, only to die from a tiny pin-prick when it hits zero. Part of the reason why the balor has so many HP is because it's so big and tough, after all.There's no difference between a Balor and a restrained human when it comes to hit points. You want to slit the throat of a Balor? Get rid of its hit points first.
Do your characters have a lot of experience with slitting the throats of harmless peasants? Because the only consistent argument you could possibly be making is that they've seen so many peasants die to slit throats, that they're subconsciously making a connection between slit throats and instant death, without regard for the innate differences between a peasant and a combatant with even a marginal amount of experience.They aren't going to be able to measure hit points by the way. Hit points are a measure of luck, skill, physicality, and more. All the PCs will know is when they cut the throat, the human dies.
A normal human in 5e has 4 hit points. With a dagger doing an automatic crit and the strength bonus, you need to do 8 points of damage to auto kill by slitting the throat.
I would not say that's a reasonable position. I would say that you're going out of your way to justify meta-gaming, by assuming that characters are blind to how their world works around them; but that they aren't blind to how our world works, even though they don't live here.It's the reasonable position to take. There's no rule in D&D that would allow PCs to pick up how good they are at something to that degree of accuracy. The difference between +3 and +5 is miniscule and they have no ability to measure which is better with all the complexity involved.
What I'm getting from this is that you, personally, are very bad at understanding how the world works around you; and you're extending this trait to all PCs. You may be the exception, but the vast majority of other people in the world have a pretty decent sense of how common situations resolve around them. We can look at common objects, weighing 2 lbs and 5 lbs, and tell which one is heavier. When two people are talking about a topic, we can tell if either one sounds like they know what they're talking about, even if we know very little about that topic. We aren't completely blind to our world, as you would suppose we are.
According to the book, the description of HP damage is expected to vary between DMs, so I won't say that your description is wrong; but it is far outside the realm of anything I've ever seen at any table ever. At most tables, a balor will bleed fiery blood when they take 10 damage from an arrow, even if the same damage to a human is described as a fatiguing near-miss. The balor isn't ninja-dodging away from every arrow and every blade, only to die from a tiny pin-prick when it hits zero. Part of the reason why the balor has so many HP is because it's so big and tough, after all.
I would be interested in hearing how, exactly, you manage to fail at slitting the throat of a restrained human. It's not like they can move out of the way. Even an unconscious, bound, and paralyzed creature will survive anything you can possibly do it, until you get through its HP; so what, exactly, is stopping you from slitting their throat?
I would not say that's a reasonable position. I would say that you're going out of your way to justify meta-gaming, by assuming that characters are blind to how their world works around them; but that they aren't blind to how our world works, even though they don't live here.
Saelorn said:When two people are talking about a topic, we can tell if either one sounds like they know what they're talking about, even if we know very little about that topic. We aren't completely blind to our world, as you would suppose we are.
Debatable.
Nobody knows more about player bitching than I do. I know more about linear stories than anybody. Nobody in the history of this hobby has ever known so much about fudging as Sadras. I know the AC. I know the DC. Nobody knows it better than me. I know more about railroading than railroaders do, believe me. I understand things, I comprehend things very well. Ok? Better than, I think, almost anybody. And by the way who knew the other side of mother may I better than me? I knew it. I understand the power of cheating, maybe better than almost anybody. I know more about TPKs than any human being on earth. I know more about player denial than any DM that has ever run a game. I understand about screwing your players better than almost anyone. Who knows more about player loss than I do. I'm the king. I know more about easy encounters and deadly encounters than they will ever understand. Nobody understands it but me, it's called rule 0. I understand withholding treasure better than anybody. I understand the system better than anybody. Nobody knows the game better than me. Who knows the other side better than me? I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody. And I understand the other side. Perhaps I understand it better than anybody else. I know a lot. I know more than I am ever going to post in this thread.