D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I don't know if it's a class-balnace problem or a DM problem, but the PHB walks new players down creating a dwarf fighter who has a Cha 7and no social skills like its a good idea.

Admittedly I think that's a very minor nitpick. That -2 is barely going to have any effect even at a higher level and a -2 cha is much better than a -2 wis, and some people are definitely going to feel iffy about playing a -2 int character.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know if it's a class-balnace problem or a DM problem, but the PHB walks new players down creating a dwarf fighter who has a Cha 7and no social skills like its a good idea.

It is a good idea if that's the PC you want to play. Maybe you don't want to be the face. Perhaps you focus on perception and survival or some other subset. It's not a bad thing for a character to be bad at some things. If everybody is good at persuasion it's just redundant.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't know if it's a class-balnace problem or a DM problem, but the PHB walks new players down creating a dwarf fighter who has a Cha 7and no social skills like its a good
idea.

Which PHB are you referring to?

The 5e PHB (p13) has this:

Building Bruenor, Step 3​

Bob decides to use the standard set of scores (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for Bruenor's abilities. Since he's a fighter, he puts his highest score, 15, in Strength. His next highest, 14, goes in Constitution. Bruenor might be a brash fighter, but Bob decides he wants the dwarf to be older, wiser, and a good leader, so he puts decent scores in Wisdom and Charisma. After applying his racial benefits (increasing Bruenor's Constitution by 2 and his Strength by 2), Bruenor's ability scores and modifiers look like this: Strength 17 (+3), Dexterity 10 (+0), Constitution 16 (+3), Intelligence 8 (-1), Wisdom 13 (+1), Charisma 12 (+1).

 

[Minigiant]

Because it absolutely is a fine idea. It's a party based game as you have pointed out.

It's a personal decision to be shut out an aspect of play not an automatic aspect of play you push onto new players.

Being locked out of a pillar of play is fine if you instruct DM to minimize the other pillars or encourage players to control each other's PCs.

Which PHB are you referring to?

The 5e PHB (p13) has this:

Building Bruenor, Step 3​

Bob decides to use the standard set of scores (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for Bruenor's abilities. Since he's a fighter, he puts his highest score, 15, in Strength. His next highest, 14, goes in Constitution. Bruenor might be a brash fighter, but Bob decides he wants the dwarf to be older, wiser, and a good leader, so he puts decent scores in Wisdom and Charisma. After applying his racial benefits (increasing Bruenor's Constitution by 2 and his Strength by 2), Bruenor's ability scores and modifiers look like this: Strength 17 (+3), Dexterity 10 (+0), Constitution 16 (+3), Intelligence 8 (-1), Wisdom 13 (+1), Charisma 12 (+1).

I meant +1

I was watching football and got distracted and bad speelling.
This season is YIKES all over.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It's a personal decision to be shut out an aspect of play not an automatic aspect of play you push onto new players.

Being locked out of a pillar of play is fine if you instruct DM to minimize the other pillars or encourage players to control each other's PCs.


I meant +1

I was watching football and got distracted and bad speelling.
This season is YIKES all over.

You believe that only having a +1 modifier for Charisma locks you out of the whole social interaction pillar?

 

[Minigiant]

You believe that only having a +1 modifier for Charisma locks you out of the whole social interaction pillar?

in 5e yes.

It's too easy to get a Cha modifer of +2 or more for the other 3 classic classes without hurting combat ability.
Wizards need only Int as a little Dex
Clerics need only Wis as a little Str
Rogues only needs Dex and have 2 bonus skill proficiency.

Then you have THREE Cha classes and a druid who can ignore their physical scores completely.

If the party decides to convice a guard, it is unlikely the party will choose the fighter (or barbarian or monk) to talk.

 

[cbwjm]

in 5e yes.

It's too easy to get a Cha modifer of +2 or more for the other 3 classic classes without hurting combat ability.
Wizards need only Int as a little Dex
Clerics need only Wis as a little Str
Rogues only needs Dex and have 2 bonus skill proficiency.

Then you have THREE Cha classes and a druid who can ignore their physical scores completely.

If the party decides to convice a guard, it is unlikely the party will choose the fighter (or barbarian or monk) to talk.

I had a fighter with Charisma 10 who was not locked out of the social pillar, I was trained in intimidation for a mighty +2. I think the issue is that people are thinking that the party can stop, pick someone to speak, and have them be the only one interacting with NPCs. In actual play though, at least in the games I've run and played in, that is rarely the case. Social interaction seems to happen somewhat organically, sometimes the party is split, sometimes I was first through the door or sometimes I'd just speak, quickly throwing something out which ends up being a deception check. Sometimes, I roll high and that +0 doesn't matter, sometimes I don't and then other things (like combat) happen. But I was not locked out of the social pillar at all and while I'm sure there are some groups that only let the bard talk or the wizard investigate, I don't believe that the majority of DnD players play that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

in 5e yes.

It's too easy to get a Cha modifer of +2 or more for the other 3 classic classes without hurting combat ability.
Wizards need only Int as a little Dex
Clerics need only Wis as a little Str
Rogues only needs Dex and have 2 bonus skill proficiency.

Then you have THREE Cha classes and a druid who can ignore their physical scores completely.

If the party decides to convice a guard, it is unlikely the party will choose the fighter (or barbarian or monk) to talk.

And yet if you attack the party with shadows, everyone who dumped Strength starts to complain.

 

[Oofta]

I had a fighter with Charisma 10 who was not locked out of the social pillar, I was trained in intimidation for a mighty +2. I think the issue is that people are thinking that the party can stop, pick someone to speak, and have them be the only one interacting with NPCs. In actual play though, at least in the games I've run and played in, that is rarely the case. Social interaction seems to happen somewhat organically, sometimes the party is split, sometimes I was first through the door or sometimes I'd just speak, quickly throwing something out which ends up being a deception check. Sometimes, I roll high and that +0 doesn't matter, sometimes I don't and then other things (like combat) happen. But I was not locked out of the social pillar at all and while I'm sure there are some groups that only let the bard talk or the wizard investigate, I don't believe that the majority of DnD players play that way.

But that 5% increase to succeed is what separates good from "the game is trash"!

On a more serious note, if I know I'm joining a game where we have a [EDIT]wizard bard[/EDIT] or a sorcerer, there's a decent chance I won't bother with doing social skills. Fortunately, despite what some people seem to believe, persuasion or intimidation skills are not the alpha and omega of out of combat challenges. Insight plays just as much of a roll for example.

But I've been in parties where we didn't happen to have a charisma based character so my PC with 14 charisma and proficiency in persuasion became the party face. You don't have to be the best theoretically possible in order to contribute.

 

[Oofta]

And yet if you attack the party with shadows, everyone who dumped Strength starts to complain.

Or if they need to climb something more difficult than a ladder.