D&D 5E Not Much Ado About Bless

[Composer99]

If you're raising complaints about bless - or indeed about anything in 5e or indeed about 5e generally - that amount to unsupported assertion, you don't have any grounds to complain about counterpoints raised using an appeal to popularity.

Bald assertion is just opinion with a thin veneer of pretense to factuality. In which case, it's perfectly legitimate to point out that lots and lots and lots of people have a different opinion than you, since you haven't actually established any reason to believe your opinion is authoritative.

In essence, all you're doing is committing the reversed form of the appeal to popularity. Or perhaps committing the argument from fallacy.

 

[James Gasik]

My issues with bounded accuracy come when it feels like they wanted to carefully balance how well you can accrue bonuses, then make things like Archery Fighting Style, Reckless Attack, and yeah, Bless, that effectively give large accuracy boosts.

I know Archery is supposed to be balanced by soft cover, but you do have ample opportunities to fire at foes without cover.

So AC's are low and attack bonuses scale slowly so that enemies remain "viable" longer. But you can have a Barbarian with advantage (I think it's what, roughly +4-5?) on every attack if they want it. An archer with an extra +2, and a Cleric being like "hey guys, these guys look a little tough, have +2.5 to hit!".

And it's not like getting advantage is hard either. There are several ways you can build your party to always have it (well, less one with the Kobold change). And then once you have it, there's bizarre things like Elven Accuracy.

Things like this seem really odd when everyone else is looking at Proficiency bonus +5 without the (supposedly optional) magic weapons. Is accuracy bounded or isn't it?

So sometimes it really feels like "it's bounded accuracy...except when it's not".

 

[Umbran]

At one point, every core mechanic of 1e was 'a core mechanic of the best-selling version of D&D'.

Sales aren't quality.

You not liking one design element isn't lack of quality, either.

 

[Willie the Duck]

My issues with bounded accuracy come when it feels like they wanted to carefully balance how well you can accrue bonuses, then make things like Archery Fighting Style, Reckless Attack, and yeah, Bless, that effectively give large accuracy boosts.

I know Archery is supposed to be balanced by soft cover, but you do have ample opportunities to fire at foes without cover.

So AC's are low and attack bonuses scale slowly so that enemies remain "viable" longer. But you can have a Barbarian with advantage (I think it's what, roughly +4-5?) on every attack if they want it. An archer with an extra +2, and a Cleric being like "hey guys, these guys look a little tough, have +2.5 to hit!".

And it's not like getting advantage is hard either. There are several ways you can build your party to always have it (well, less one with the Kobold change). And then once you have it, there's bizarre things like Elven Accuracy.

Things like this seem really odd when everyone else is looking at Proficiency bonus +5 without the (supposedly optional) magic weapons. Is accuracy bounded or isn't it?

So sometimes it really feels like "it's bounded accuracy...except when it's not".

There are times when something can just be trends or 'tends toward' or 'tries not to overdo.' There are plenty of games that stick strictly to some form of purified strategy for their mechanics. D&D, even no specific edition but just in abstract theory, doesn't seem like it would lend itself to any kind of mechanical purity.

In other words, you're right, it does, but I don't think that's inherently a bad thing, nor do I think the designers intended people to assume they were going to be fastidious about it (and if so, that was a communication issue).

 

[James Gasik]

Of course it isn't. It's just that, as a value judgment, saying "the game is perfectly fine because it's popular" can come off as intending to say "this discussion is over". And there's no reason for that- any system can be improved, and I think it's worth looking at ways it can be, and to find pitfalls that are created if you change the wrong parameters.

So having a discussion about the game and saying "I don't like this/it doesn't feel right to me" in the hopes of discovering whether or not things can be improved or if you really should leave it alone has value, at least to me.

"It's making money people play it, so it's obviously fine" has no value to me. Like, I get that, obviously, or we wouldn't be talking about the game. But why should I just take that as gospel, when I and others can find the truth on our own?

 

[James Gasik]

There are times when something can just be trends or 'tends toward' or 'tries not to overdo.' There are plenty of games that stick strictly to some form of purified strategy for their mechanics. D&D, even no specific edition but just in abstract theory, doesn't seem like it would lend itself to any kind of mechanical purity.

In other words, you're right, it does, but I don't think that's inherently a bad thing, nor do I think the designers intended people to assume they were going to be fastidious about it (and if so, that was a communication issue).

I guess it comes down to not understanding why and when it's ok to break the limits. Which is what this thread is about. I like bless. I like casting bless. I've never cast spirit guardians, not because I don't see it's value- it's a very good spell, and I've seen it destroy encounters. But more that I want to see if there's merit in other spells.

But, when I see arguments about "this or that thing being out of bounds/too powerful", I scratch my head because there are already examples of effects that warp the game's parameters that people don't seem to care about.

The purpose of this thread is not to bash bless, but for me to understand why it's perfectly fine and acceptable when other game elements are not.

 

[billd91]

Yeah I ran into this yesterday, because people keep throwing the "5e is the greatest game ever because so many people play it".

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But every time I come up with an example of something that was popular but not very good, I get told "it's not the same thing" so I decided to just accept that people like what they like and move on before they start saying "maybe if you don't like it, you don't belong here".

Attempts to use argumentum ad populum often run into problems themselves because there's this nagging issue that whatever being argued about, whatever is being chosen by preference, probably isn't easily subject to objective measures. 5e may be the most popular D&D of all time, but whether not it's better, or some also-ran edition is better, isn't determinable by objective measures.

Then you have to consider that the popularity of something may indicate it has broad acceptability, even if it's not everybody's ultimate favorite. This applies to things from blockbuster movies to soft drinks, music, and television shows. Coca Cola is big not just because of a huge brand and lots of advertising - but because people like it well enough to drink it. If Coca Cola changed their formula to a liver-flavored soda, you can be sure it wouldn't sell for long.

 

[billd91]

But, when I see arguments about "this or that thing being out of bounds/too powerful", I scratch my head because there are already examples of effects that warp the game's parameters that people don't seem to care about.

But that's just whataboutism. Sure, there may be spells that push at or are exceptions to boundaries. That doesn't mean that a specific x spell isn't beyond the pale in being too powerful.

 

[ad_hoc]

Yeah I ran into this yesterday, because people keep throwing the "5e is the greatest game ever because so many people play it".

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But every time I come up with an example of something that was popular but not very good, I get told "it's not the same thing" so I decided to just accept that people like what they like and move on before they start saying "maybe if you don't like it, you don't belong here".

Is that actually a direct quote?

Argument from authority is a fallacy too but sometimes it is valid to cite a legitimate authority.

Referencing popularity is not always fallacious.

Part of D&D being a successful game is that people enjoy it so citing that a previously unheard of amount of people do enjoy it very much is evidence against a core mechanic being broken.

 

[James Gasik]

But that's just whataboutism. Sure, there may be spells that push at or are exceptions to boundaries. That doesn't mean that a specific x spell isn't beyond the pale in being too powerful.

What I'm getting at is, I have a hard time seeing why one thing is fine, and another thing is the worst ever. Like silvery barbs a couple months ago. Everyone was up in arms about it and I was like "disadvantage on a single roll for a spell slot and a reaction. The monsters you really want to fail saves have legendary resistance, and shield is already a thing, what gives?"

Also, can liver flavored soda be worse than what they drink in Japan? Or New Coke?