Your posts are very hard to read. That's not meant to be offensive, it's a simple fact.
If they're hard for you to read, that's fine. They aren't to others. No worries, though, I'm not offended. Sometimes it happens to people. Voicing it the way you are is probably not as productive as could be, but hey, whatever.
I think if you took some time to organize your thoughts and write something clear and coherent, you'd find yourself saying what you want to say in half the words, with twice the effect. "I apologize for the length of this letter, I had not the time to write a shorter one" and all that.
I'll take thoroughness as a fault. I'm fine with that assessment. Sorry if it makes it hard for you to read; the upside is you don't need to, if you it's too much trouble to follow.
Anyway, what I think you are saying is that the 5/1/1 character is still capable of roleplaying. But... how?
So you believe in the Stormwind Fallacy?
And again, players like that drag the campaign in a certain direction. That's where they become problems. If the game is naturally tending towards an extended social/exploration pillar play (perhaps leading a revolution or something) then the combat character fades into uselessness. The DM and the players are forced to add combat scenes, or allow the character to fade into irrelevance.
Ah, this seems to be where there is some divergent approaches to play. By making the guidelines clear, and by giving some sound GM advice, then players and GM should be on board about the style of game before the game even begins. If the game is going to be about social/exploration, then as long as everyone knows that, and Player A is okay being mechanically useless most of the time, and his fellow players/GM are okay with that, then yeah, go for it.
By making things explicitly 3/3/3, and by providing clear guidelines for the opt-out, and by giving some sound GM advice about setting expectations prior to play, you can have everyone on the same page before play even begins, and making an informed decision about their character.
The same with the sage. He's not quite the psychological mess our abused gladiator is, but he's still got strong suicidal tendencies. I mean what would you think about an old, arthritic, partially blind librarian who insisted that he should wander around in warzones in Afghanistan escorting the soldiers as they engage in a commando raid? You'd think he was a complete lunatic! And... so he basically is.
I'd honestly probably describe most stereotypical adventurers as suicidal, or at least psychologically damaged. Then again, in the game where the sage is played, maybe it's not about tomb robbing, eh?
The MinMax "roleplaying" breaks down when you stare at it too hard, because the characters who come out of such an exercise are completely inorganic. They are the result of writing a character sheet then trying to come up with a backstory to plausibly fit this ridiculous character sheet you have written.
For your group. My group
starts with concept ("wise non-combat sage") and then works to make the mechanics fit the fiction. It's the opposite of what you describe.
Moreover, it doesn't foster healthy interaction within the group. If everyone can take part in an activity in different ways, the group is healthy. If one person dominates an activity while everyone sits back and watches, it's like 3 or 4 group members are watching a cutscene in a video game. Completely non-interactive.
Some people are happy not participating in certain parts of the game. Some people aren't interested in certain aspects, or accept that as fitting their concept (my group is okay with it because it helps them immerse). I get that you don't like it; play the default 3/3/3 and you're golden.
All characters should be set to 3/3/3. There should be no option for one character to completely dominate all aspects of their narrow specialization while giving up everything else.
I disagree. It should be optional in a 2e or UA sense, though, and not a "feel free to swap these out" sense. It should be a campaign choice, not built into the class directly.
As for what it costs me, it costs me growth. It costs me getting to watch people learn to roleplay. It costs me a game where character sheets encourage new players to grow from "combat monster" or "face of the party" into well rounded, fleshed out characters who can contribute. It costs me a system that makes games that are fun for me to play. It costs me a system that will bring new players into the hobby and show them what roleplaying is about. It costs me D&D Next.
To be fair, it doesn't look like you're much on board with 5e anyways. But regardless, couldn't you stick to 3/3/3 and be happy?
I think it's awfully hypocritical of you to write "play what you like" while arguing that the system should fight against what I like, what makes roleplaying fun and entertaining, what makes things work, as hard as you possibly can.
I explicitly support 3/3/3 as the default, which would make all characters balanced across the three pillars. But, in the spirit of "play what you like" I also support giving a campaign option to shift the focus of PC builds, so that people can change the nature of the very campaign through their characters to something they like. I'd hardly call that hypocritical, since with my method you could play how you want to (3/3/3 default), and I can play how I want to (switching it up as appropriate).
I have offered you a clear and obvious way you can play what you like - build a character using WotC's classes, and then simply don't use aspects on your character sheet that you feel that your character shouldn't have.
So you also believe in the Oberoni Fallacy?
You insisted that everyone who picked up your character sheet should play your character exactly the same as you. Uh... what?
No, what I said was that people would see those mechanics that I was ignoring (already not a good position for the game), and they'd know that the mechanics don't match the fiction. This, too, is a problem. I want the mechanics to match the fiction.
That's not "play what you like," that's "Let me build a character who can only be played one way."
Well, it
is "let me play a character where all the base mechanics match the fiction." It's kinda close to what you said.
Play what you like. Just don't insist that I have to pick up your character sheet, having been told nothing about the character, and realize I have only ONE OPTION in all circumstances. That's... that's really bad MinMaxing. And yes, MinMaxing is a dirty word.
We're on the same page, because I'm not saying that! As always, play what you like
In one of my builds, working from a playtest spell list, you have to take only half or so of the spells you are entitled to for levels gained from 2 to 5. I personally think that that's not too bad, and isn't an instance of the "Oberoni Fallacy" - no PC build or action resolution rules have to be changed - it's in the same ballpark as a PC with armour proficiency nevertheless not wearing armour (like my cleric build).
If a character doesn't wear armor, it's usually because he either can't to any real effect (no proficiency), the trade-offs aren't worth it (check penalty, etc.), or his Dexterity is very high. Not wearing the armor when you can is one thing, since your character might not for some reason. However, pretending you can't cast spells when you can, or not using attack bonus when you have some, etc., are all examples of the Oberoni Fallacy: rules are okay because they can be houseruled. I disagree with that line of thought.
D&D doesn't have an archetype of a non-magic-using sage.
I disagree. D&D doesn't have a
class of a non-magic-using sage. I've seen and used plenty of very knowledgeable sages in my time of playing. And I've seen plenty of it in fiction. I'd like it if the game supported the archetype, which it might even be able to do without a class (though not with any of the current 5e classes being tested, I don't think).
A game which makes scholarly wizards viable as PCs has no design room for a mundane sage - because there is no room to push the scholarly side harder than the wizard builds in question. They are already maximally scholastic!
Then make the dedicated non-magic sages better? Higher bonuses, advantage, rerolls, more Lore skills, etc. (and that's not even touching probably contentious mechanics, like being able to make up your answers, etc.). A lot of sages might have miscellaneous other skills the Wizard may not be as good at, too: social insight, diplomacy, etc.
Needless to say I disagree with your assessment.
I've just given one example - if one of your "3"s is spell-use
That's not what the "3/3/3" is. It's how proficient you are in the three pillars (combat / social / exploration).
then creating an option for a non-spell-using scholar requires watering down the scholarship of spell-using classes.
Again, I disagree with this assessment. You can just buff the sage.
How does the
option hurt you? That's what I said I was waiting to hear, and "you'd need to water down the other classes to make room for it" is not something I think it close to being true.
The same thing applies in relation to combat, too. If you make a player who is building a fighter pay resources to get social abilities, that could instead be spent on making the PC a better fighter, you create needless pressure towards all (or, at least, the best) fighters being asocial desperadoes.
No, you could just leave the dial set at it's 3/3/3 default and not be affected. Problem solved?
Whereas, in my view, D&D is best served both in mechanical smoothness of play and in story terms by having the charismatic and sociable fighter be a norm, who does not need to sacrifice fighting ability to get there (again, this is a reiteratin of GreyICE's point above).
Which ignored the optional aspect of it. Ignore the option, play 3/3/3, and problem solved.
Furthermore, as I said in an earlier post, disparities that preclude meaningful participation in a given scene destabilise party play unless various sorts of "stabilising" mechanics are brought in, such as "carry over" bonuses from scene to scene, augments based on thematic/metagame/narrative considerations rather than simulationist/causal ones, etc. And D&Dnext will not have those sorts of mechanics, given the hosing received by the very modest versions of them present in 4e.
I addressed this, too: some people are okay with disparity. If you aren't, ignore the option, and play 3/3/3. Problem solved.
"Meaningful" is, of course, somewhat amorphous in its content - but even my example sages have enough hit points to have a chance of surviving the first blow from an orc's axe. Plus the warlock can Eldritch Blast. The cleric can Searing Light. And the wizard can Charm Person ("Away put your weapons!"), and/or protect him-/herself using Shield.
Right; not exactly non-combat. I get that people may not want to move away from 3/3/3, but I still haven't seen a convincing argument for having the option there (the only real attempt was your "watering down" argument, and I think that there's room to go up, still). As always, play what you like
Specialisation and hyper-specialisation are cheap in D&D; and to a certain extent, they have been essential for some classes.
My 5/1/1 is 2 less "points" than the 3/3/3 default. 4/2/2 and 4/3/1 are only 1 less "point", so not as bad.
What's also significant is that specialisation had no Point of Diminishing Returns. Going from +1 to +2 was as easy or difficult as going from +19 to +20. Learning the deepest secrets of a craft was as easy as learning the basics. There's nothing to discourage doing so, even when you could instead be learning something to give more breadth to a character.
This is where I like feats coming in. Some of the best things you can craft might only be attainable with a combination of skill + feats (I have an Inventor feat, for example). It might open up a broad section of stuff, but it still requires investment away from that one more +1 bonus.
If +5 to +10 was a reasonably cheap investment, +11 to +15 was something you would get eventually just from experience, +16 to +20 required as much training/effort as it would take to raise two or three skills form +5 to +10, and the last +21 to +25 was even harder; then you'd give people a reason to go for breadth rather than depth.
Right; I'd rather breadth be more affordable than depth. Specialization should come at a cost, and it should be clear. Overall, thank you for replying. You've got interesting views, and I'm glad I got to read them. As always, play what you like
