Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6030317" data-attributes="member: 6668292">If they're hard for you to read, that's fine. They aren't to others. No worries, though, I'm not offended. Sometimes it happens to people. Voicing it the way you are is probably not as productive as could be, but hey, whatever.I'll take thoroughness as a fault. I'm fine with that assessment. Sorry if it makes it hard for you to read; the upside is you don't need to, if you it's too much trouble to follow.So you believe in the Stormwind Fallacy?Ah, this seems to be where there is some divergent approaches to play. By making the guidelines clear, and by giving some sound GM advice, then players and GM should be on board about the style of game before the game even begins. If the game is going to be about social/exploration, then as long as everyone knows that, and Player A is okay being mechanically useless most of the time, and his fellow players/GM are okay with that, then yeah, go for it.By making things explicitly 3/3/3, and by providing clear guidelines for the opt-out, and by giving some sound GM advice about setting expectations prior to play, you can have everyone on the same page before play even begins, and making an informed decision about their character.I'd honestly probably describe most stereotypical adventurers as suicidal, or at least psychologically damaged. Then again, in the game where the sage is played, maybe it's not about tomb robbing, eh?For your group. My group starts with concept ("wise non-combat sage") and then works to make the mechanics fit the fiction. It's the opposite of what you describe.Some people are happy not participating in certain parts of the game. Some people aren't interested in certain aspects, or accept that as fitting their concept (my group is okay with it because it helps them immerse). I get that you don't like it; play the default 3/3/3 and you're golden.I disagree. It should be optional in a 2e or UA sense, though, and not a "feel free to swap these out" sense. It should be a campaign choice, not built into the class directly.To be fair, it doesn't look like you're much on board with 5e anyways. But regardless, couldn't you stick to 3/3/3 and be happy?I explicitly support 3/3/3 as the default, which would make all characters balanced across the three pillars. But, in the spirit of "play what you like" I also support giving a campaign option to shift the focus of PC builds, so that people can change the nature of the very campaign through their characters to something they like. I'd hardly call that hypocritical, since with my method you could play how you want to (3/3/3 default), and I can play how I want to (switching it up as appropriate).So you also believe in the Oberoni Fallacy?No, what I said was that people would see those mechanics that I was ignoring (already not a good position for the game), and they'd know that the mechanics don't match the fiction. This, too, is a problem. I want the mechanics to match the fiction.Well, it is "let me play a character where all the base mechanics match the fiction." It's kinda close to what you said. We're on the same page, because I'm not saying that! 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=":)" />If a character doesn't wear armor, it's usually because he either can't to any real effect (no proficiency), the trade-offs aren't worth it (check penalty, etc.), or his Dexterity is very high. Not wearing the armor when you can is one thing, since your character might not for some reason. However, pretending you can't cast spells when you can, or not using attack bonus when you have some, etc., are all examples of the Oberoni Fallacy: rules are okay because they can be houseruled. I disagree with that line of thought.I disagree. D&D doesn't have a class of a non-magic-using sage. I've seen and used plenty of very knowledgeable sages in my time of playing. And I've seen plenty of it in fiction. I'd like it if the game supported the archetype, which it might even be able to do without a class (though not with any of the current 5e classes being tested, I don't think).Then make the dedicated non-magic sages better? Higher bonuses, advantage, rerolls, more Lore skills, etc. (and that's not even touching probably contentious mechanics, like being able to make up your answers, etc.). A lot of sages might have miscellaneous other skills the Wizard may not be as good at, too: social insight, diplomacy, etc.Needless to say I disagree with your assessment.That's not what the "3/3/3" is. It's how proficient you are in the three pillars (combat / social / exploration). Again, I disagree with this assessment. You can just buff the sage.How does the option hurt you? That's what I said I was waiting to hear, and "you'd need to water down the other classes to make room for it" is not something I think it close to being true.No, you could just leave the dial set at it's 3/3/3 default and not be affected. Problem solved?Which ignored the optional aspect of it. Ignore the option, play 3/3/3, and problem solved.I addressed this, too: some people are okay with disparity. If you aren't, ignore the option, and play 3/3/3. Problem solved.Right; not exactly non-combat. I get that people may not want to move away from 3/3/3, but I still haven't seen a convincing argument for having the option there (the only real attempt was your "watering down" argument, and I think that there's room to go up, still). 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=":)" />My 5/1/1 is 2 less "points" than the 3/3/3 default. 4/2/2 and 4/3/1 are only 1 less "point", so not as bad. This is where I like feats coming in. Some of the best things you can craft might only be attainable with a combination of skill + feats (I have an Inventor feat, for example). It might open up a broad section of stuff, but it still requires investment away from that one more +1 bonus.Right; I'd rather breadth be more affordable than depth. Specialization should come at a cost, and it should be clear. Overall, thank you for replying. You've got interesting views, and I'm glad I got to read them. 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