D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[tetrasodium]

The combat cantrips in 5e are not linking story threads at spellcasters from fiction, they are linking to spellcasters from things like gauntlet

Spoiler: SAVE KEYS TO OPEN DOORS

Totally what we all think of when someone says d&d I'm sure

 

[Scott Christian]

So I built a test PC using point buy. Thinking about someone who wants to be "good outside of combat".

A mountain dwarf is a good start, although I ended up not fully utilizing the +2 to con. In any case after racial mods I have Str: 16, Dex: 8, Con: 15, Charisma 14. Depending on which way I want to go and character concept, I'll have a 14 and 8 in Intelligence or Wisdom. Because I wanted insight and perception I went with 14 wisdom.

I can tank dex because I'm going for heavy armor. In addition, thanks to Tasha's, I can substitute out proficiencies and get a bunch of tools because the weapon and armor proficiencies. I discuss with my DM and ... I'm going to be a bit of a gambler. Dice, dragon chess, three-dragon ante. Oh, and a disguise kit. I make money on the side challenging people to games. I've also taken herbalism kit and alchemist supplies, maybe I can brew some potions depending on DM. I decide on the Guild Artisan background (I come from a family that brews dwarven ale so Brewer tool kit made sense).

I'm trained in Athletics and Perception from my class, Insight and Persuasion from my background. I have Athletics +5, Insight, Perception, Persuasion +4 at first level. At 4th level if I really want to focus on being a support character I take the Chef feat to get a +1 to Con and give people a bit extra healing and tasty snacks for temp HP (I'd probably try to convince the DM that the "treat" could be liquid).

Sounds like a fun character to me, one that's pretty well rounded on social skills. Not a bard of course, but only ... well ... bards are bards.

It does sound like a fun character.

If I may introduce you to my character to prove a point: My character right now is a half-orc champion, level 7. Abilities are as follows: str 16; dex 12; con 14; int 12; wis 12; cha 12. We started with a feat, so I used my level 4 feat to add skills. I now have: athletics, deception, insight, intimidation, investigation, sleight of hand, and stealth. (He is an urban bounty hunter, so I generally make sure the skills match the background and history.) My fighter kicks butt in combat and delivers the second highest damage at our table of five players. Some nights he is at the top. Dual wield, two weapon fighting, a couple magic blades, etc. Savage attack and orcish fury in the mix of improved crit. Pow!

The biggest difference I see in people who have a hard time recognizing this as a great build are ones that need a 20 strength. That one mindset really has a way of boxing people in. For many players, all they would do is look at my character and think, "But you could be doing an extra +2 damage every time you hit something. You could hit more often."

What they inevitably fail to see is that I traded that +2 for other things that they complain about the fighter missing. I have not once noticed a difference during combat. I have not once felt as though, "If I only did two or four more points of damage." That's because I could have a night where I did have that +2 damage, and rolled crappy, and it would have been the same results.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

It does sound like a fun character.

If I may introduce you to my character to prove a point: My character right now is a half-orc champion, level 7. Abilities are as follows: str 16; dex 12; con 14; int 12; wis 12; cha 12. We started with a feat, so I used my level 4 feat to add skills. I now have: athletics, deception, insight, intimidation, investigation, sleight of hand, and stealth. (He is an urban bounty hunter, so I generally make sure the skills match the background and history.) My fighter kicks butt in combat and delivers the second highest damage at our table of five players. Some nights he is at the top. Dual wield, two weapon fighting, a couple magic blades, etc. Savage attack and orcish fury in the mix of improved crit. Pow!

The biggest difference I see in people who have a hard time recognizing this as a great build are ones that need a 20 strength. That one mindset really has a way of boxing people in. For many players, all they would do is look at my character and think, "But you could be doing an extra +2 damage every time you hit something. You could hit more often."

What they inevitably fail to see is that I traded that +2 for other things that they complain about the fighter missing. I have not once noticed a difference during combat. I have not once felt as though, "If I only did two or four more points of damage." That's because I could have a night where I did have that +2 damage, and rolled crappy, and it would have been the same results.

The mistake a lot of people make in 5E is that they notice that there are few possible steps of improvement of ability scores (can't go above +5 mod normally) and assume that means that ability scores are more valuable, and they equate it having value with it being impactful.

Look at PF2 for a system where small numbers matter a lot more.

So yes. I agree with what you're saying. People are chasing these tiny modifiers, but they have very little effect in practice.

 

[Minigiant]

The biggest difference I see in people who have a hard time recognizing this as a great build are ones that need a 20 strength. That one mindset really has a way of boxing people in. For many players, all they would do is look at my character and think, "But you could be doing an extra +2 damage every time you hit something. You could hit more often."

What they inevitably fail to see is that I traded that +2 for other things that they complain about the fighter missing. I have not once noticed a difference during combat. I have not once felt as though, "If I only did two or four more points of damage." That's because I could have a night where I did have that +2 damage, and rolled crappy, and it would have been the same results.

Because isn't not +2 damage.

It is 20-30% more damage.

The thought the monsters your DM used, the more that +2 is.

 

[Scribe]

Because isn't not +2 damage.

It is 20-30% more damage.

Thats the 'fun' thing with numbers. How they are expressed dramatically influences the impact on the reader. Which of course is the intent of whoever is framing the conversation.

It is still +2 damage, that is not false. Just as it is ALSO 20-30% more damage over a sim.

"But if I dont start with a 16 my character cannot exist!" they say, incorrectly.

 

[Umbran]

Hasbro might be though.

And on the flip side, if you really want there to be a villain that is out to get/destroy everything you hold dear, you will always be able to create a narrative in which one exists. It can easily sit just beyond where you can verify information, safely non-falsifiable.

Hasbro suits are a danger, but the larger danger they pose is the basic one of making decisions without understanding the domain. They don't need to be part of a villainous plot to screw up.

 

[Minigiant]

"But if I dont start with a 16 my character cannot exist!" they say, incorrectly.

"No one says "With a starting 16 and rushing to 20, my character cannot exist."

It's "I'm losing 10% more damage for 10% better Persuasion"

I almost think D&D should go based to larger ranges. Or if Ability modifiers only affected damage, skills, and DC. Accuracy would be class based to match static armor class.

Then going with STR 14 instead of STR 16 isn't such a big huge damage hit.

 

[Scribe]

"No one says "With a starting 16 and rushing to 20, my character cannot exist."

Yes they do. Its the backbone of the "ASI has to be floating" argument.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes they do. Its the backbone of the "ASI has to be floating" argument.

No, the argument is "Choosing a race who's ASI doesn't match my class' prime score loses me a lot of damage. This means all characters made for flavor are significantly weaker."

That and the other racism thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

D&D attracts people telling them they could be a noble charismatic knight with long flowing hair fighting evil for their lord and people. But the game doesn't mechanically support that The DM has to change the game to support that.

This is false. The doesn't force it, but does allow it.

But like I said way in the beginning, there wasn''t enough design space in the battlemaster to please anyone.

plenty of folks love the battlemaster.

What I am saying is, you must have SOMETHING that comes from your class that is actually a serious, meaningful contribution.

No, this is not necessary. It is optional.

Now, if you want to say that because 5e uses asymetrical design of this kind, some classes should be harder than they are to optimize for combat, and/or that it's weird that the game seems to only even consider this in two pillars, leaving the exploration pillar to kind of random chance and the hope that a lot of combat stuff will also work when exploring, we could have some kind of common ground to meaningfully and interestingly disagree from.