D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Azzy]

No. But it is always an uphill battle to remove a class ability or nerf it.

Adding in extra rules is no mean feat, either.

Like in my Spelljammer Campaign when I said no Clerics and Warlocks at level 1, because of Inworld-Reasons I suddenly had an hour long discussion of how that is unfair and taking away player agency ...

Point them to the DMG.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The label applied has nothing to do with the core archetype assumptions.

When you label things, it is an explicit statement that that is what they are.

If you don't apply that label or anything close to it anywhere..or anywhere adjacent to anywhere... you have not been explicit

Explicit means "clear and unambiguous".
There is nothing in the Battlemaster Manuevers that details clear and unambiguous supernatural origins or mechanics. Hell there isn't anything that hints at it.

Literally your only evidence is your opinion. That's fine at your table. But it doesn't mean much in the context of a broader discussion about the game.

 

[Aldarc]

I have no idea what the developers believe.

You say that you have no idea what the developers believe, and yet you are going to try and insinuate several times in your argument below that the designers didn't believe that these abilities are appropriate for the fighter. But both times you tell us that the designers didn't think that these were appropriate, you also say that you think that these abilities are supernatural, which further insinuates that you believe this to be the reason why. That sort of argument strikes me as double-speak or at least talking out of both sides of your mouth, regardless of whether you intended it that way or not.

Every class has a specific target archetype. The fighter's archetype is a mighty warrior, perhaps at high levels something like Hercules. What they are not is a class, barring subclass, that alters reality through abilities that don't require physical interaction.

You mean apart from the extraordinary abilities in the non-magical Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight subclasses? I know you consider these abilities magical but I don't really care since the game does not consider them magical abilities.

 

[Oofta]

When you label things, it is an explicit statement that that is what they are.

If you don't apply that label or anything close to it anywhere..or anywhere adjacent to anywhere... you have not been explicit

Explicit means "clear and unamechanics.
There is nothing in the Battlemaster Manuevers that details clear and unambiguous supernatural origins or mechanics. Hell there isn't anything that hints at it.

Literally your only evidence is your opinion. That's fine at your table. But it doesn't mean much in the context of a broader discussion about the game.

And your opinion is not your opinion?

 

[Oofta]

You say that you have no idea what the developers believe, and yet you are going to try and insinuate several times in your argument below that the designers didn't believe that these abilities are appropriate for the fighter. But both times you tell us that the designers didn't think that these were appropriate, you also say that you think that these abilities are supernatural, which further insinuates that you believe this to be the reason why. That sort of argument strikes me as double-speak or at least talking out of both sides of your mouth, regardless of whether you intended it that way or not.


You mean apart from the extraordinary abilities in the non-magical Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight subclasses? I know you consider these abilities magical but I don't really care since the game does not consider them magical abilities.

The game does not consider the abilties of battlemaster or purple dragon knight core to the fighter archetype.

People get way too hung up on labels, there is no agreed upon dictionary to discuss this stuff.

 

[Azzy]

It's not not magic no matter how many times you say it. Your point? I'm entitled to my opinion as are you. Not the end of the world if we disagree.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make your opinion remotely reasonable.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I am not opposed to the taunt in principle, I am just not seeing the connection to a good fighter (and even then I do not object to the fighter having the ability)

That's fair-ish. I think it'd work in the same way a really good basketball player may also be really good at taunting to get the other team off their game.

Perhaps it's orthogonal to how well they play, perhaps it's a part of how well they play. I can see it either way.

 

[M_Natas]

Adding in extra rules is no mean feat, either.

Point them to the DMG.

Players will still fight anything that could nerf their characters abilities.

 

[Aldarc]

The game does not consider the abilties of battlemaster or purple dragon knight core to the fighter archetype.

But the game does consider them and their abilities non-magical.

 

[Oofta]

But the game does consider them and their abilities non-magical.

They don't consider them core to the fighter class. Doesn't matter how it's labeled or not labeled.