D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

So? There are many brands of toothpaste but just one Crest. There's no reason for them to rename something, products rarely do that. After a certain point it may be a Ship of Theseus, but it still fulfills the same target niche even if other products do as well.

They made a series of different games, that play differently and appeal to different audiences, but are keeping the name the same for reasons of $$$. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't help with respecting them creatively.

 

[Minigiant]

If D&D isn't doing what you want in such a fundamental way, why would you stick with it?

Because most of the community is favored D&D. But not the right flavor.

It's easier to tweak D&D 5e or 4e than invent a new game.

 

[Scribe]

Or, I don't know, play a fighter and take a level or two of bard. You gain the specialization without sacrificing much fighting ability.

Yep.

The relevant points in the DMG are pretty simple. If multiple PCs participate in a conversation, the players decide who makes the charisma check. It encourages things like insight during the conversation to figure out what the NPC is thinking. Adding to the conversation grants advantage to the person that makes the check. It specifically states "Create situations where characters who might not otherwise be engaged with a social interaction have to do at least some of the talking." Along with "If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others." A conversation may involve multiple rolls, etc..

If you follow the chart on reactions, during a conversation the worst thing is that you get is "The creature opposes the adventurers’ actions and might take risks to do so." if you get a result of less than 10 with a creature that was already hostile at the start of the social encounter. Last, but not least, bards are less capable in combat because they are supposed to be the skill monkey outside of combat. That doesn't mean the balance is perfect, but if you follow what is actually written in the DMG you still include everyone in social encounters on a regular basis. If one person is dominating every social encounter, the DM is not following the advice in the DMG.


Could the DMG be better? Absolutely. Are people that have 1 person dominate the social aspects of the game while everyone else is mute following the guidance we do have? Absolutely not.

Exactly. So is it REALLY an issue with Fighters? I just dont see it.

This is not me saying there is no gap between mundane/martial and casters. This is me saying a class designed and intended to hit things, is not naturally going to be a good base for mechanical social encounter resolution.

And WOTC mostly are in their playtest.

Are they dude? Yeah they are throwing some bones here and there, but I'm not really convinced. Granted I dont even care about the social side on my Fighter/Barb characters, so I havent really looked.

I shouldn't have to take barred levels and gain the spell casting that comes with it in order for my barbarian to mimic the archetype of being the chief's son and having some diplomacy powers as well as being a raging brute in battle.

You dont. Noble Background? I dont want to (and would never unless absolutely critical) waste any design time, space, or power, on a Social feature for my class that is from the ground up built to crit things, bigly.

The fight really is between people who want to add new archetypes to D&D and people don't want to add new archetypes to D&D.

Hell, I dont think this is true either. I think its far more likely that any perceived issue is 100% PEBKAC.

I'm pretty sure that near every archetype you like, could be refluffed from an existing class/background/species/feats combination. Especially if we are going to accept things like Aberrant Mind, as a "Psion".

Does that mean a Fighter will be the go to guy for any Social issue that requires a mechanical resolution? Hell no. Should they be that go to in a balanced party that has an established face class? Hell no.

Should a Fighter EVER be better at smooth talking, than a Bard in a purely mechanical/crunch scenario?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because most of the community is favored D&D. But not the right flavor.

It's easier to tweak D&D 5e or 4e than invent a new game.

Plenty of games in the sea sir. I can see making small changes, but if the issue is as big as you say for you, with all due respect maybe WotC 5e D&D isn't the best choice. It wasn't for me.

 

[Minigiant]

Are they dude? Yeah they are throwing some bones here and there, but I'm not really convinced. Granted I dont even care about the social side on my Fighter/Barb characters, so I havent really looked

A Fighter can roll your second wind dice on skill checks.

A Barbarian can substitute Strength for certain skill checks while raging.

 

[Scribe]

A Fighter can roll your second wind dice on skill checks.

A Barbarian can substitute Strength for certain skill checks while raging.

Right. So I'm going to pop a rage, a resource which is critical to my desire to crit bigly, to get to be a Persuasion star, if my buddy playing the Bard is right there?

 

[Minigiant]

Right. So I'm going to pop a rage, a resource which is critical to my desire to crit bigly, to get to be a Persuasion star, if my buddy playing the Bard is right there?

The point is the option is there to pop if you want.

Plenty of games in the sea sir. I can see making small changes, but if the issue is as big as you say for you, with all due respect maybe WotC 5e D&D isn't the best choice. It wasn't for me.

There really isn't.

Like I said most of the RPGs come from the same mental places. I don't remember seeing one adventurer RPG that has fixed the ability score problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point is the option is there to pop if you want.


There really isn't.

Like I said most of the RPGs come from the same mental places. I don't remember seeing one adventurer RPG that has fixed the ability score problem.

I'm sorry you're not getting what you want, but you said you don't want to homebrew, and complaining to us isn't going to get a game designer to do what you want, so I'm not sure what can be done under those conditions.

 

[Scribe]

The point is the option is there to pop if you want.

Exactly!

Its the perception of paying lip service to 'all pillars' that seems to matter more. Effective? Pointless. Efficient? Pointless. Focused design? Pointless.

That anyone would think this 'option' actually matters or solves anything, in a 'team based' game where other players are encouraged to solve various aspects of the challenge and scenarios presented by the DM/Adventure?

No. Just no. The idea that this is an improved design? That its somehow 'better'? No.

 

[Oofta]

...

Like I said most of the RPGs come from the same mental places. I don't remember seeing one adventurer RPG that has fixed the ability score problem.

Then maybe it's a feature, not a bug. I don't need my fighter to be as good as the bard in social situations any more than I expect the bard to be a front line tank that consistently deals out more damage than other classes. Different roles different goals.