Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7478253" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Tone can be difficult to evaluate through text. I am genuinely just curious as to your position, because it seems to be internally inconsistent, and I don't know which of us is not understanding.A bonus of +12 doesn't fit into the d20 mechanic, when you're attacking something with AC 35, as level 20 characters are wont to do. Whether you have +0 or +15, that difference can't be represented here, because they give identical results.This is why I think we should be in agreement. We both acknowledge that it's unrealistic to get better at skills, when you don't actually use those skills.If you like any edition of D&D, then you have already accepted that it's okay to get better at skills that you don't use. Every edition makes wizards get better at hitting things with their weapon, even if they never actually use that weapon, so clearly you're okay with making concessions from realism for the sake of gameplay. Otherwise, you would object to wizards getting better with their weapons at all, regardless of the rate. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) If we're in agreement that it's okay to get better at skills that you don't use, then the question is how much? I posit that there's no point in getting any better, if the difference doesn't actually matter when the ability comes into question (e.g. if a level 20 monster has AC 35, then there's no point in tracking the wizard's attack bonus all the way to level 20, if you can only hit on a natural 20 regardless). What do you think is the point of tracking the wizard's attack bonus with their sword, if it's not going to affect the outcome of their sword attack either way?It's a good example, because I think it really gets at the heart of the matter, which is that certain editions of the game (especially 3.5) gives you abilities that you aren't supposed to use. A wizard isn't supposed to go into melee with their sword, in third edition, any more than a fighter with a couple of ranks in Disable Device and average Dexterity is supposed to disarm a trap. Wizards are supposed to cower in the back, and use a crossbow if they're out of spells; while disarming traps is the job for a dedicated specialist.The obvious follow-up question to that is, why do characters have those abilities, if they aren't supposed to use them? Why does an elven wizard have proficiency with swords, if using a sword is a bad decision that they're never supposed to make? Why does a Strength-based fighter have the option of putting ranks into Disable Device, if they'll never succeed with it?The true answer, at least as far as third edition is concerned, is that it's a trap. They're all intended as traps. New players are supposed to make elven wizards who immediately die when they go to swing their sword, and fighters who die when they try to disarm a trap, because that way they would get to feel better about themselves when they later realized how to make characters that were actually useful.  (In typical practice, experienced players would instead get to feel better about themselves by pointing out the traps to new players, and the trap options quickly ended up just being a waste of ink.)That was nearly two decades ago, though. Modern game design has moved on, and it's no longer considered clever to try and trick players in such a fashion. Current design ideals are that, if a player has an ability, then it should at least be nominally useful even if it isn't optimized. That's why wizards in fourth edition were only at -4 to hit with their basic weapon attacks, relative to fighters of the same level; even though it's an ability that they weren't intended to rely on (as evidence by their lack of class-based weapon powers), it's still an ability that they had, and giving them an ability that didn't even work would have been considered malicious design. I'm not sure which part of that you disagree with.</blockquote>

Verification