D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[ReshiIRE]

No I am not. I used it to further emphasize a point in a non-serious, informal internet argument.



Comparing "ascend to godhood" to "pocket sand" in order to try and invalidate the idea behind Improvise Action.

It being an internet argument doesn't disprove that you are calling in an outside source to back up your point, as if it is an expert. Nothing about the seriousness of the argument doesn't mean you aren't using something that has been reliably proven to give false info - and we can't have a good informal internet argument unless we have correct info.

Nor does the argument being non serious doesn't mean there aren't significant issues in using ChatGPT for anything - after all, Stack Exchanged banned it everywhere, including their TTRPG Questions exchange, because the thing is deeply unhelpful and not conductive to conversation.

Also, Chaosmancer, as far as I could tell, never quoted the pocket sand part or argued that the pocket sand example was wrong. His argument was that Improvise Argument isn't a great response to a lack of tools given for martials - from what I understand, anyway.

I'm not sure anyone beyond Hussar responded specirfically to the pocket sand part.

 

[Emberashh]

Words cannot express how little I care to sit and argue over ChatGPT.

Jesus christ.

 

[Incenjucar]

ChatGPT and other LLMs only understand the statistical relationship between words showing up in sentences on the internet, so please please please do not use them as a source of truth. They're neat and useful and sometimes scary but they're less intelligent and knowledgable than an illusion of an animated chair so please let's leave them out of this.

--

I would love to see fighters get more access to abilities related to just being impressive and skilled in general, like being able to perform more complicated forms of intimidation or inspiration, or being generally more sophisticated with the physical world, nudging a bit closer to rogue territory. Like hand a stick to a fighter, and they can do fifty things with it because they can feel the tension, strength, and weight of it, but hand a stick to a wizard and they don't know what use it is unless they have a spell to throw at it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think we can all trust each other to actually read what it said and judge it on its merits rather than assuming its worthless just because its ChatGPT.

Why would anyone bother taking the time to read something spat out of $$FictionBot420$$

 

[Chaosmancer]

Only if the DM deems that appropriate.

Most wouldn't, because of course they wouldn't, and you'd think after trying this fallacious reasoning multiple times that you'd understand there is a massive, massive, MASSIVE gulf between "ascend to godhood" and literally any normal thing a martial might want to pull in a fight.

To use the fact that a DM would, obviously, say no to Godhood in this case as causus belli to say nothing can be done at all with IA is, as said, incredibly falacious.

And I just looked it up. This is called a misleading comparison.

So, you would say there is no rule for ascending to godhood? Because, fun fact, Pg 193 of the PHB is not about any normal thing a martial might want to do. The Improvise Action sidebar is about improvising an action. Any action. I am using this example very specifically to point out the flaw you keep ignoring. Yes, improvise action CAN potentially be used for things martials want to do. It can also be used for using magic in a way that doesn't conform to spells or spell slots. Or to act as a conduit for a dark curse of anti-life. It is literally just a "rule" that says you aren't limited to only the actions they list in the book.

And so if it is a rule for martials doing cool things, then it is a rule for ascending to godhood, it is a rule for acting as a curse conduit, it is a rule for using your divine spells and HD to summon your dead father to fight for you. Because it is simply a statement of "you can take other types of actions, if your DM approves"

And to just really hammer in this, here's ChatGPT explaining exactly what it is you're doing:

Why would I possibly care what a half-baked writing tool thinks?

The fact that I never addressed the thing you said I did.

So did someone hack your account?

If your character has a rope or a really strong kneecap-breaking stick I beg to differ.

Cause here is you addressing the exact thing I'm talking about, and saying that all they need is a rope or a stick. And if you are going to try and say "But I never said Web" Well... yes, you did. Right here where you responded to Hussar saying you "You wouldn't allow my character to improvise an attack that any equivalent level caster could do."

Did I ever say this or are you just assuming what I think in lieu of, idk, asking me?

And yes, I would allow it. See the rope and/or kneecap stick comment.

Web is a 2nd level spell, that means it is recieved at 3rd level. And the situation I described can be accomplished with Web. So again, you specifically addressed this exact concern, it was very clear. Why do you keep insisting you didn't? Do I need ChatGPT to explain it to you instead?

I assume you don't use battle maps if you have no idea what Im talking about. Though, it is plain english, so frankly I find it hard to believe you don't know what that means.

Typically math and angles isn't "plain english" especially with no context. But hey, insulting my intelligence is always fun. And you didn't even explain it.

All are medium creatures, so yes.

Ah, so all medium creatures are big enough. So a dwarf would be big enough to do this too?

...Height has nothing to do with anything I said and would be an irrelevant bit of tedium to even consider.

You said big enough, that could easily be referring to height and size. I certainly wouldn't have expected it to work with elves after your description, they are smaller than orcs.

...are you...guessing...what direct you are going to choose to attack in?

I don't attack in directions. Whether my sword swing is left to right, right to left, up to down, or down to up isn't something I generally consider mechanically important.

At this point I think all you've ever played is theater of the mind, but even then. I don't know how you can play 5e and think you're not in full control of where your character exists within a battlespace and how they can move and attack within it.

I gave you the target AC to connect the attack, and you would pick the direction you attack from, based where you decide to place yourself, if you can without taking an opportunity attack if you don't want to take one. If they're in Square/Hex A and you put yourself in Square/Hex B immediately next to the target, the resulting blood spray would cover Square/Hexes C, D, E which are perpindicular to A and B.

Heres a picture.

View attachment 287326

Well, this certainly doesn't explain what you meant by 30 degrees, I guess the 45 degrees was you saying it was going to be going the upper left and lower left. Course, if you were using a square grid map that wouldn't make any sense. Because that would be a 90 degree, but also not because it would have to hit three squares? Also, you completely inverted how cones work in DnD, wouldn't have assumed that.

Orc is green, you're Blue, if the attack connects the red arrows show the Hexes that would be hit by the blood spray. At the scale I usually do Hexes there'd be up to 9 medium enemies that could be hit.

Wut.

Not only would that be a much larger spray compared to what you initially said, what do you mean 9 creatures would exist in three hexes?! See, this is the kind of thing I keep trying to explain to you that you dismiss as bad DMing. I would never have assumed that. Ever. 1 creature per space, unless they are a swarm or big enough to take multiple spaces. Knowing that you TRIPLE the size of everything would make a massive difference, and it would also make things that are reasonable at your table completely unreasonable at another table.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Words cannot express how little I care to sit and argue over ChatGPT.

Jesus christ.

Jesus H 'Tap-Dancing' Christ is a senator from Ohio's Fifth District known for his anti-skateboarding stance and ability to store acorns in his mouth for winter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It would be so right for a weapon master to be able to attune to a mundane weapon to be able to use it to perfection based on tiny flaws and traits unique to it.

Yep. That’s the direction I took my Monk rewrite, but you could easily go that way with the fighter instead.

And tbh, choose between a specialization or something more general at level 5, which either turns your fighting style into “scratch out fighter you’re The Archer now”, and I think the fighter goes a long way toward working as it should. From there it’s just level 9+ features to strike too fast to see the movement, deflect spells with thier weapon, etc. and hey we got a warrior that feels like they rise up to the legendary swordmaster status, and hopefully is fun for the people who are so dissatisfied with the 5e fighter, without turning off the people who like it.

 

[TheSword]

Wow. This has gone way down the rabbit hole since I went to sleep!

 

[Emberashh]

Because it is simply a statement of "you can take other types of actions, if your DM approves"

What, precisely, leads you to believe I suggested otherwise?

Could it be possible that just because this conversation has been primarily about martials and what they can do that me focusing on that aspect DOES NOT mean I am saying IA doesnt also apply to a bunch of other things?

Like, I can't even find the words to concisely describe how incredibly unfair that kind of argumentation is. I didn't bother to go into a tangent about something other whan what the conversation was about ergo you're free to just make naughty word up and assert its what I think?

Right here where you responded to Hussar saying you "You wouldn't allow my character to improvise an attack that any equivalent level caster could do."

Lets take a look at the reciepts. This is what I specifically responded to:

There is absolutely no "improvised action" which would allow me to restrain multiple targets.

To which I replied that there is, in fact, such an improvised action. A practically infinite amount in fact, given the IA is only limited on the player side by their imagination. I thought up the rope or the stick in seconds.

If you put any thought into it, Im sure you could think up something that'd be cool as heck to do, and itd be relatively trivial to make a ruling to make it happen, as binding a handful of mooks is not the same thing as asking for godhood, so theres zero reason to deny it to the player.

Typically math and angles isn't "plain english" especially with no context.

Yes in a conversation about DND math is some obscure thing barely related to the discussion at all...

Ah, so all medium creatures are big enough. So a dwarf would be big enough to do this too?

Heres a more pertinent question. You have on multiple occasions in this topic expressed how much you dislike being told no and how much it drags the game down for you.

Why, given that, are you constantly finding any reason to say no?

You said big enough, that could easily be referring to height and size. I certainly wouldn't have expected it to work with elves after your description, they are smaller than orcs.

So again unfair argumentation rears its head. I didn't cover every single possible linguistic avenue for you to undermine me saying you can do the cool thing, naughty word me right?

don't attack in directions.

If you're attacking a target, you are attacking in the direction of that target...

Well, this certainly doesn't explain what you meant by 30 degrees, I guess the 45 degrees was you saying it was going to be going the upper left and lower left.

The fun part about this is that you're basically saying you don't play DND.

Cone of Cold, for instance, is a particularly classic spell in DND and its 5e iteration uses the following text:

*Each Creature in a 60 foot Cone..."

So when I, in turn, say that a 30 foot cone represents the area of effect of a jugular vein veinf sliced open, I find it very hard to believe you don't know what I mean.

And the 90* offset (yes I misspoke and should have said 90, naughty word me right? Whole argument is invalid now, right) how the Cone would be oriented relative to the Orc; it's left, your right.

what do you mean 9 creatures would exist in three hexes?!

I utilize large maps in my games. The hexes are bigger than one medium sized entity, approximately 10ft hexes to be precise, hence why 3 can fit in one hex. (And you can miss me with 5es obnoxious sizing guidelines that puts a proverbial mile between every entity)

I would never have assumed that.

Considering I am playing as the would be DM in this case, you could have just asked for clarity, like you're supposed to. Nevermind that you wouldn't be in the dark on these things if you were actually in one of my games, but seriously, you could have just asked.

But no, can't do that. No sir, no talking to each other allowed in this game thats literally all talking to each other.

Knowing that you TRIPLE the size of everything would make a massive difference

Only the hexes are bigger, not the entities. Medium is still medium.

it would also make things that are reasonable at your table completely unreasonable at another table.

Do I need to point out the multiple times I agreed that IA needs to be better integrated to avoid this exact problem?

Shall I point out that you haven't once acknowledged that I've done so?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I will be completely honest with you, I'm fine with verisimilitude taking the rest of the decade off if it means samurai shouting down doors, towns build on walking mountains and skyships taking passengers to floating sky-isles

I'm confident it's not really the point you care about, but I think this usage of 'verisimilitude' illustrates the problem with how it has the term is often used, at least on this board.

It seems that here as elsewhere, 'verisimilitude' seems intended to refer to plausibility by reference to earth standards.

That isn't how the term is typically intended to be used. Typically, it is intended to reflect the plausibility of things within their setting context. Verisimilitude is about internal consistency. As long as everyone in the setting is following the same rules for doing cool stuff, verisimilitude is maintained.

And nothing you mentioned is inherently implausible within a fantasy context. Certainly some settings are more fantastic (by reference to the real world) than others. But any or all of these things could be plausible within the proper context.

I understand that your overall point is that you're willing to sacrifice verisimilitude to get cool stuff added to the game.

I find it frustrating though that people have so badly misused or misunderstood the concept that there is a sense that this is a necessary tradeoff.

It isn't.