Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6030009" data-attributes="member: 6668292">How civil! Always good for discussion.It may not be surprising, but you're misrepresenting my views. Player A may be 3/3/3 and just not use his stuff! I want 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4 for people to fit concepts. Player A doesn't have much of one (and only picks his race for his bonus... how interesting!).However, add some concept to him. Maybe Player A wants to play a character who was raised in a fighting pit. He was born there, and raised to fight. Think the "Unleashed" movie. Fighting is all he knows. That might warrant a 5/1/1 or a 4/2/2. And we haven't even added some events yet to flesh him out.Or, maybe someone wants to play a sage. He's been in the library most of his adult life, and hasn't been in a fight in his life. He might be a 2/2/4 or a 1/3/4. And we haven't even added some events yet to flesh him out.Or, maybe someone wants to play a hermit. They were raised by their parents, who died when they were nearly a teenager. They've gotten along in the wild alone since then. They might be a 3/1/4 or something. And we haven't even added some events yet to flesh him out.I'm talking about character concepts, and the optional shift away from 3/3/3. You don't have to respond to it, but you haven't answered how the optional, clear, supported opt-out would be problematic to your fun.This seems to be the essence of the Stormwind Fallacy: "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." If Player A actually has a concept that would tend to naturally shift his balance away from 3/3/3, and if he accepts the change to the game that the opt-out would entail, and if the GM and other players are on board, then there's no reason to deny the opt-out.The idea that playing an unbalanced character somehow makes you a problem player is very, very wrong. It might for your group; it is far from universal.Of course not. And I've explained why. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Two things, here. One, I'm not going to judge the final product at this point in time based on how early it is. Two, I'm going to call for this stuff to be added whether or not it looks like that's the direction, unless they explicitly comment that they aren't interested in pursuing that direction.I don't think we can make the universal assumption that a "non-combat sage" is going to be meaningless in the bulk of situations. It wouldn't be at my table. But, my table has a lot of support for non-combat endeavors, which is why I've also been calling for more support.I don't want a spellcaster. Give me a mundane non-combat sage. I don't want to hear "if you want your concept to work, use magic" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />... I feel mislead. You, too, are saying "ignore the rules" and that won't satisfy me. It's the Oberoni Fallacy.Just as a side note, I'm not trying to build Gygax's D&D. I don't even play D&D currently, and I have a lot of respect for him. But, I've seen a lot of quotes from him that I'm not interested in adhering to. I don't have an interest in OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, or the like. I don't have much of an interest for a rules-light game, either.It only supports a magical sage, which is an archetype in itself. But it's not the same as the non-magical non-combat sage archetype. Think Song of Ice and Fire, where that archetype is used often enough. As it stands, 5e does indeed fall short of what I want; far short.I'm still waiting to hear how the optional opt-out for a clearly explained, well-supported group of non-combat abilities with 3/3/3 as default is somehow going to ruin the game. Any thoughts on why people think the opt-out will ruin their game? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The last post by you was about 14 months ago, so more like a year old debate <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />But, it was 68.12% "No" to the question "Is D&D About Combat?" Not "Is D&D All About Combat?" And that's why I brought that poll up. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification