Neonchameleon
Legend
Yes, because everyone wants spells cast out of slots, THAC0, and more back. There are reasons 2e almost killed D&D for good (it only being saved because Peter Adkinson, CEO of WotC had enjoyed it when young).
D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy
- Thread starter MuhVerisimilitude
- Start date
Neonchameleon
Legend
It was designed as an attempt to appeal a bit to everyone. And seemed to get that.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Disregarding of course the fact that, in the second case, one attack with advantage is almost always worse than two attacks without it. Help is about option 1, and basically has no restrictions other than time.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I liked those things. You don't have to.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure. And now it isn't. Good for us.
I already answered that. You have to be able to achieve the task solo, thieve's tools is just one example. There are many other cases where the DM may decide that a piece of lore is obscure enough that if you don't have history you aren't going to know it.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It's indicative of the fighter's popularity being because of the concept of the fighter, and independent of it's mechanics or effectiveness relative to other classes.
Meaning appealing to the popularity of the fighter to prove that it's balanced doesn't work. Just like appealing to the popularity of the current edition doesn't prove it's not just a particularly fascinating dumpster fire. (that's what the comics call a "call back," it's a joke, folks, don't kill me)
And, like, really, is "not being a Grognard's game" - even if it's true - part of it's appeal? Or is hey, it's that game from the 80s they play on Stranger Things part of it? Decades of past success adds to buzz once it gets started. WotC certainly panicked when grognards hated on the current editions. If it's not a Grognard edition, it's at least studiedly inoffensive to anyone who vennerates D&D's traditions.
TBF, 2e didn't kill TSR, ill-advised forays into publishing, a CCG, and some collectible dice game, overextended them, when they all went badly, TSR was doomed. 2e was still a cash cow as long as they churned out power-creeping supplements and new more bizarre settings.
(I mean, full disclosure, 2e did kill D&D for me, before Complete Book of Elves or Players Option books, I'd given up on it, and just ran my own variants, including bits of 1e & 2e)
Vaalingrade
Legend
Frankly, it feels more and more that D&D is the Crab Bucket. Whenever there's any attempt to improve, it gets pulled back down into the bucket for 'not being D&D'. When people try a different system, they get pulled back into the bucket by not being able to find people willing to play a non-name brand.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
So I am going to both-sides this. I definitely think that martials, especially at higher levels, could use a buff and that casters have some utility spells that are just too powerful and that should be nerfed or simply removed.
However, I'm perfectly fine with most of out-of-combat contribution being via skills and roleplay, even though "anyone can do it." Like so what if anyone can do it? Everyone is still contributing and the bizarre notion of "being shut down from social or exploration pillar" simply isn't something that happens.
Here is an issue with the skills though. Characters like the dwarfish brewer by @Oofta are fine in the early game, but because the point buy is to stingy, and because how levelling ASIs work it makes it super difficult to maintain your "hobby attributes" at decent levels. That Cha 14 and a proficiency might be fine at early on, but it feels pretty feeble later on when Cha classes have 20 and maybe an expertise. So if the skills are to be the main way you do out-of-combat stuff, there really should be an easier way to keep the related attributes at decent levels even if it wasn't your class' main attribute. Personally I've been more generous with ability points, feats and ASIs, but so that levelling ASIs are always two +1s rather than +2, so you are forced to spread the points around a bit.
In the last session of my campaign, the characters were solving an orcish murder mystery. There was no combat, it was all investigating the environs and a ton of talking to NPCs.
Characters were a human barbarian, a human warlock, an orc rogue and an orc bard. They're at the eighth level.
Spells cast by the warlock: clairvoyance, invisibility, detect magic.
Class features used by the bard: bardic inspiration
Spells cast by the barbarian: speak with animals (this was super useful and gave them an eyewitness testimony that put them instantly on the right tracks.)
Skills used were survival, arcana, a lot of perception, investigation, persuasion and insight. And not always by the character with the best bonus.
I feel all the characters contributed significantly. The rogue has expertise in persuasion and insight, so that obviously was rather helpful, even though they didn't have any spells or other similar tricks they could utilise. And most importantly, everyone made decisions, contributed ideas and participated in in-character discussions. Even if you don't have the best numbers, you can still talk and as questions. So martials being sidelined and just silently waiting for combat to start really isn't something I've seen.
However, I'm perfectly fine with most of out-of-combat contribution being via skills and roleplay, even though "anyone can do it." Like so what if anyone can do it? Everyone is still contributing and the bizarre notion of "being shut down from social or exploration pillar" simply isn't something that happens.
Here is an issue with the skills though. Characters like the dwarfish brewer by @Oofta are fine in the early game, but because the point buy is to stingy, and because how levelling ASIs work it makes it super difficult to maintain your "hobby attributes" at decent levels. That Cha 14 and a proficiency might be fine at early on, but it feels pretty feeble later on when Cha classes have 20 and maybe an expertise. So if the skills are to be the main way you do out-of-combat stuff, there really should be an easier way to keep the related attributes at decent levels even if it wasn't your class' main attribute. Personally I've been more generous with ability points, feats and ASIs, but so that levelling ASIs are always two +1s rather than +2, so you are forced to spread the points around a bit.
In the last session of my campaign, the characters were solving an orcish murder mystery. There was no combat, it was all investigating the environs and a ton of talking to NPCs.
Characters were a human barbarian, a human warlock, an orc rogue and an orc bard. They're at the eighth level.
Spells cast by the warlock: clairvoyance, invisibility, detect magic.
Class features used by the bard: bardic inspiration
Spells cast by the barbarian: speak with animals (this was super useful and gave them an eyewitness testimony that put them instantly on the right tracks.)
Skills used were survival, arcana, a lot of perception, investigation, persuasion and insight. And not always by the character with the best bonus.
I feel all the characters contributed significantly. The rogue has expertise in persuasion and insight, so that obviously was rather helpful, even though they didn't have any spells or other similar tricks they could utilise. And most importantly, everyone made decisions, contributed ideas and participated in in-character discussions. Even if you don't have the best numbers, you can still talk and as questions. So martials being sidelined and just silently waiting for combat to start really isn't something I've seen.
Last edited:
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Similar Threads
