D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Ovinomancer]

No. The alternative to specific mechanic that's unable to work effectively as a mechanic is to suck. In other words the easiest fix to the problems with the mechanic to make it more flexible but also more dissociated. And that's a compromise with the obvious design priorities that the game was written with.

In the context of the 3.5 paradigm of design for martials it's clear that a lot of the mechanical problems can be addressed by stepping outside of the need to keep mechanics associated. That in itself says nothing about whether associated mechanics are good or bad by virture of their being associated - it just says that if you have competing priorities you may have to choose.

If my preference is to have associated mechanics where possible (and I'm not sure it necessarily is) then that's still not a value judgement, it's a preference.

There's a clear bias that an associated mechanic that does a good job is better than a dissociated mechanic that does a good job. It's only when the associated mechanic is bad that a good dissociated mechanic is a reasonable compromise. This is placing a value judgement that ceteris paribus associated mechanics are better than dissociated mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No. The alternative to specific mechanic that's unable to work effectively as a mechanic is to suck. In other words the easiest fix to the problems with the mechanic to make it more flexible but also more dissociated. And that's a compromise with the obvious design priorities that the game was written with.

In the context of the 3.5 paradigm of design for martials it's clear that a lot of the mechanical problems can be addressed by stepping outside of the need to keep mechanics associated. That in itself says nothing about whether associated mechanics are good or bad by virture of their being associated - it just says that if you have competing priorities you may have to choose.

If my preference is to have associated mechanics where possible (and I'm not sure it necessarily is) then that's still not a value judgement, it's a preference.

The problem with this is there's only three possible solutions here:

1. Give martials more fanciful and mythic capabilities so they and casters don't look so far apart.
2. Weaken casters so their strengths don't stand out as much with more mundane martials.
(Caveat: you can combine the two to some extent by pushing the two closer to each other. I'd argue that's what Pathfinder 2e has done).
3. Accept that martials are simply weaker than casters, not only in versatility but probably in outright punch, at the price of martial players who care having to just suck it up.

There doesn't seem to be a fourth option, and #2 tends to get pretty strong pushback. So here we are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yup. I didn't like 4e (for various reasons), but I dislike the alexandrian and his pretentious dribble even more.

Pretty much the same; I respected the design of 4e but it very much didn't suit me. But some of the critique of it was ridiculously over the top, and it tended to get echoed.

 

[Mordhau]

There's a clear bias that an associated mechanic that does a good job is better than a dissociated mechanic that does a good job.

If you place value on associated mechanics then obviously that's true. If you don't then obviously it's not.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with this is there's only three possible solutions here:

1. Give martials more fanciful and mythic capabilities so they and casters don't look so far apart.
2. Weaken casters so their strengths don't stand out as much with more mundane martials.
(Caveat: you can combine the two to some extent by pushing the two closer to each other. I'd argue that's what Pathfinder 2e has done).
3. Accept that martials are simply weaker than casters, not only in versatility but probably in outright punch, at the price of martial players who care having to just suck it up.

There doesn't seem to be a fourth option, and #2 tends to get pretty strong pushback. So here we are.

Option 4: have between 6 and 8 encounters between long rests and look at the averages. Doesn't hurt to accept that DPR isn't the only number that matters. It's always balanced out reasonably well for my groups and I've been playing since 5E was released.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Option 4: have between 6 and 8 encounters between long rests and look at the averages. Doesn't hurt to accept that DPR isn't the only number that matters. It's always balanced out reasonably well for my groups and I've been playing since 5E was released.

Damage isn't the only way to make a martial useful. I spent the last game I was in tripping things more often than not. Even if you flatten the damage differential out, its not going to change the fact that casters are vastly more versatile than a straight martial, and thus useful in many more situations. If anything your need to carefully manage long rests shows quite how strong this effect is, and how that's forcing you to work around it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you place value on associated mechanics then obviously that's true. If you don't then obviously it's not.

Not as a generality, in either case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a clear bias that an associated mechanic that does a good job is better than a dissociated mechanic that does a good job. It's only when the associated mechanic is bad that a good dissociated mechanic is a reasonable compromise. This is placing a value judgement that ceteris paribus associated mechanics are better than dissociated mechanics.

Well, that is certainly how I feel personally, but I wouldn't presume that my feelings in that area are objective.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, that is certainly how I feel personally, but I wouldn't presume that my feelings in that area are objective.

One can at least argue there's a different between the statement "X is better than Y" and "I like X better than Y".

 

[Micah Sweet]

One can at least argue there's a different between the statement "X is better than Y" and "I like X better than Y".

Yup. I like X better than Y, and don't want a D&D where Y is prominent.