D&D 5E The Fighter and Arcana

[doctorbadwolf]

But I feel neither irritated, confused, nor exasperated. I'm simply enjoying the intersection of gaming, argument, and close reading.

I don't think my analysis is "tripping over anything." I'm simply limiting my assumptions and looking at what the game says about itself, then asking whether the game holds up to that statement.

Most of us are here to discuss things [edit] practically, ie, to share some basic assumptions that are part of the game, take the game as it is, and discuss aspects of it.

What you're doing lately is a potentially interesting philosophical excercise, but it is a bit rude to other posters to involve them in your theoretical exercise without letting them know first that that is what you're doing.

In other words, the rest of us are reading the book, accepting things like "the books rely on our common understanding under plain english to communicate without having to trip over itself with complex addendums and caveats", and arguing from there. If you want to ignore those common understandings and take the books hyper-literally in ways that most people don't, you should be upfront about that, and probably make it a thread topic, rather than insisting on having that argument in threads that aren't about that.

 

[Ashrym]

I don't think I ever argued that arcana wouldn't be useful - but it's not required. Are you saying it is?

Arcana proficiency is required for spell scrolls.

Arcana proficiency is not required for other magic items (herbalism kit proficiency is required for healing potions), but not requiring proficiency is not the same thing as not having checks. The checks are relevant to the quest portion of the process so it's a good idea to have proficiency in arcana if the PC will be crafting.

Just because proficiency is not required does not mean it's a good idea to skip it.

A top chef would be better modeled by expertise and a reasonable stat mod wouldn't he? So something more like +12 or more? I don't know why we'd consider the proficiency mod by itself when that's not really how 5E works.

No, because expertise is the exception, not the rule. A +9 combined bonus is extremely exceptional by 5e standards (go through the MM if you don't believe me) and hits DC 20 (hard) in a single attempt fighting in heavy combat.

Honestly, the +4 at 1st level for that 50/50 to hit creating a gourmet meal (DC 15) in the middle of heavy conbat sounds pretty skilled to me.

The issue is people cling to rolls that don't need to be made when that's only relevant under pressure. A higher bonus can reflect an upper limit but that hits 30 at a +10 bonus.

Don't roll for cooking. Eapecially in a thread that doesn't require a roll for cooking up magic items, keeping on topic.

 

[Fenris-77]

No, because expertise is the exception, not the rule. A +9 combined bonus is extremely exceptional by 5e standards (go through the MM if you don't believe me) and hits DC 20 (hard) in a single attempt fighting in heavy combat.

Honestly, the +4 at 1st level for that 50/50 to hit creating a gourmet meal (DC 15) in the middle of heavy conbat sounds pretty skilled to me.

The issue is people cling to rolls that don't need to be made when that's only relevant under pressure. A higher bonus can reflect an upper limit but that hits 30 at a +10 bonus.

Don't roll for cooking. Eapecially in a thread that doesn't require a roll for cooking up magic items, keeping on topic.

Yes, because we're talking about a gourmet chef, not a first level character, or even a character at all (as in having a level in a class). Expertise fits if you're describing peak human endeavor in a skill roll. Also, this isn't a matter of fact but one of opinion, so starting with 'no' might come across as a little rude. Keep in mind that, at least from my side, this whole discussion about fantasy cookery as been at least somewhat tongue in cheek.

 

[cbwjm]

Unless making an actual character for some reason (pretty sure I saw a homebrew chef class on reddit somewhere), I don't think you'd even need to level up the chef. They could remain "1st level" and just be granted better proficiency. You could go with apprentice (no proficiency), chef (proficiency), master chef (expertise) and add whichever ability bonus you think meets the job. This might only grant final scores of +1, +3, and +5 but do they really need a massive bonus to be a master chef? You don't even really need to roll if the DM doesn't call for it. If it's an NPC anyway, then I might grant further abilities like rolls of 1-9 when cooking are considered a 10 meaning that if a roll is required, that master chef is hitting a minimum 15 DC every time.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes, because we're talking about a gourmet chef, not a first level character, or even a character at all (as in having a level in a class). Expertise fits if you're describing peak human endeavor in a skill roll. Also, this isn't a matter of fact but one of opinion, so starting with 'no' might come across as a little rude. Keep in mind that, at least from my side, this whole discussion about fantasy cookery as been at least somewhat tongue in cheek.

If it came off rude the tone came out wrong. Sorry about that.

Expertise is not a peak ability check. It's a class ability like casting spells or extra attack. Needing expertise for master cheffing is like requiring extra attack to butcher meat.

Ability checks are the ability score plus proficiency.

A master chef does not require peak human potential to be a master chef. They need to be able to do the tasks and that doesn't take a +12 bonus.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A master chef does not require peak human potential to be a master chef. They need to be able to do the tasks and that doesn't take a +12 bonus.

I read stuff like this and think that there is a huge...gigantic...gulf between our conceptions of what a "master chef" does, and is capable of.

On a related note, Howard Gardner is famous for, among other things, his theory of seven types of intelligence. Linguistic, Interpersonal, Bodily-Kinesthetic, etc. I've heard that he has said that sex and cooking are the two things he's found that don't seem to fit into his seven categories.

 

[Fenris-77]

Peak human is expertise plus a full 20 stat though, so not +12. Whether it's a class ability or not, since it isn't actually magical I'm not sure the expertise should be off the table when discussing non-class experts in certain fields. YMMV though. I'm not sure this is the most important thing we'll argue about over the internet today.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I read stuff like this and think that there is a huge...gigantic...gulf between our conceptions of what a "master chef" does, and is capable of.

The discussion seems to have moved from "Professional-grade chef" to "Master chef" however my question still stands:
What sort of total bonus would you regard a character to require in order to be considered a Master chef by those around them? How would that break down?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'd say peak to near-peak proficiency, so +4 or +5, plus a moderate stat as a bare minimum. That still leaves higher stats and expertise for the true culinary rock stars. I think that sounds about right for any master craftsman.

 

[cbwjm]

The only problem with wanting a master chef (or maater any profession) is you'd have to either just give them a higher proficiency score than their CR indicates (unless every chef is a battle chef that has high hit points and can dish out damage as well as fine cuisine) or create an NPC commoner/expert class that has levels allowing them to level up and increase their proficiency that way.

I say go battle chef.