D&D 5E Not Much Ado About Bless

[James Gasik]

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.

No not a direct quote, it was actually, "And still making it way better, see the success of 5e...". But I see variations of this all the time.

 

[Oofta]

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?

Has anyone ever claimed the game is perfect? You're entitled to not like some aspects of the game. I don't like some aspects of the game. But this weird insistence that because the game does some things differently than you would means it lacks quality comes across as quite hubristic. The idea that you, and only you, can tell everyone else that's enjoying the game that what they enjoy is really a burning pile of donkey poo is going to get pushback.

 

[Oofta]

No not a direct quote, it was actually, "And still making it way better, see the success of 5e...". But I see variations of this all the time.

So you're ... what ... upset because some people like the game?

 

[ad_hoc]

No not a direct quote, it was actually, "And still making it way better, see the success of 5e...". But I see variations of this all the time.

Here are a couple examples:

1. Bless is a well designed spell because many people have a lot of fun using it.

2. Bless is overpowered because most people believe it is.

Both are appeals to popularity however only 1 statement is fallacious.

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

I used to play Agricola competitively. Drafting from 2 large decks is a big part of the game.

I saw many mediocre players argue endlessly that some cards were very good even when the best players told them they were bad. There was even a website which tracked the stats of cards and gave them evaluations and the mediocre players still swore up and down that certain cards were great when they just weren't.

This is in a game where there is a mechanic for determining who is correct and people still argued.

No matter how much the best players tried to explain it to them they didn't get it because they played and understood the game differently.

D&D is a cooperative game which is played differently at each table so there is no metric to determine what is strong or over powered.

The only thing we have is argument and people are going to view those arguments through their own lenses. I am in the camp who believes that Slivery Barbs is utterly brokenly overpowered. I think this is because I come from a background where I played some card games at a high competitive level and I'm seeing it through that lens. Ultimately our tables are different and how we play is different so we're going to have different opinions. I will never play with it though.

 

[James Gasik]

Has anyone ever claimed the game is perfect? You're entitled to not like some aspects of the game. I don't like some aspects of the game. But this weird insistence that because the game does some things differently than you would means it lacks quality comes across as quite hubristic. The idea that you, and only you, can tell everyone else that's enjoying the game that what they enjoy is really a burning pile of donkey poo is going to get pushback.

That's an interesting take. So if I look at something and say "this appears to be less than ideal" and someone who likes that thing pushes back and says "it's perfectly fine", who is suffering from hubris again?

It's just a different point of view.

And no, I'm not upset that someone likes the game. I just feel it's weird that I keep getting variations of "the game is good because it's successful". You can say the game is good because of actual reasons why you like it, I can work with that.

But if a hundred people say jumping out of a perfectly good airplane is amazing, I'm still inclined to keep my feet on the ground, thanks. Not because I don't think they had a great time, but because my ancestors passed down to me an innate fear of falling from great heights that I presume served them well at some point.

 

[James Gasik]

I used to play Agricola competitively. Drafting from 2 large decks is a big part of the game.

I saw many mediocre players argue endlessly that some cards were very good even when the best players told them they were bad. There was even a website which tracked the stats of cards and gave them evaluations and the mediocre players still swore up and down that certain cards were great when they just weren't.

This is in a game where there is a mechanic for determining who is correct and people still argued.

No matter how much the best players tried to explain it to them they didn't get it because they played and understood the game differently.

D&D is a cooperative game which is played differently at each table so there is no metric to determine what is strong or over powered.

The only thing we have is argument and people are going to view those arguments through their own lenses. I am in the camp who believes that Slivery Barbs is utterly brokenly overpowered. I think this is because I come from a background where I played some card games at a high competitive level and I'm seeing it through that lens. Ultimately our tables are different and how we play is different so we're going to have different opinions. I will never play with it though.

And maybe it is, but why this thing is a proud nail and that thing which has a very similar effect, is not, is what confuses me. Using two spell slots in the hope I can get a creature with non-legendary saves to fail a saving throw, for example, or to use a spell slot to provide a one-time Dodge effect (two things I saw people gripe about) when you can already use a spell slot to give yourself hard cover until the start of your next turn, sounds like an appropriate effect in a vacuum.

Now if the reasons are "it can do either, so it has versatility that similar spells lack", that still doesn't strike me as overpowered, but merely strong. But is it stronger than casting bane on three enemies when Charisma is usually a weak save?

I need a little more deep analysis to be sure one way or another.

 

[ad_hoc]

That's an interesting take. So if I look at something and say "this appears to be less than ideal" and someone who likes that thing pushes back and says "it's perfectly fine", who is suffering from hubris again?

It's just a different point of view.

And no, I'm not upset that someone likes the game. I just feel it's weird that I keep getting variations of "the game is good because it's successful". You can say the game is good because of actual reasons why you like it, I can work with that.

But if a hundred people say jumping out of a perfectly good airplane is amazing, I'm still inclined to keep my feet on the ground, thanks. Not because I don't think they had a great time, but because my ancestors passed down to me an innate fear of falling from great heights that I presume served them well at some point.

These are not analogous examples. No matter how much you may perceive the game to be flawed I'm not going to die. I'm just going to continue having a good time. When the question is whether someone has fun then that person can be a data point when they do in fact have fun.

You say that people are saying that the 'game is good b/c it's successful.' I mostly just see that as a response to when someone says something or other is broken or poorly designed.

The argument highlights that just because the game does not cater well to one person doesn't mean that it is poorly designed.

Just because your fun is different doesn't make others' fun wrong.

 

[ad_hoc]

And maybe it is, but why this thing is a proud nail and that thing which has a very similar effect, is not, is what confuses me. Using two spell slots in the hope I can get a creature with non-legendary saves to fail a saving throw, for example, or to use a spell slot to provide a one-time Dodge effect (two things I saw people gripe about) when you can already use a spell slot to give yourself hard cover until the start of your next turn, sounds like an appropriate effect in a vacuum.

Now if the reasons are "it can do either, so it has versatility that similar spells lack", that still doesn't strike me as overpowered, but merely strong. But is it stronger than casting bane on three enemies when Charisma is usually a weak save?

I need a little more deep analysis to be sure one way or another.

That thread was huge and I explained at length why it is broken. If you're not convinced, then you're not convinced. Do you understand the strategies that the best poker players use? I don't. They could tell me and I would have no way of knowing whether they were lying and I wouldn't even be able to implement the strategies because I would still not understand them.

Either it won't be a problem at your table in which case great, or it will and then you will have learned something and can change it.

 

[James Gasik]

These are not analogous examples. No matter how much you may perceive the game to be flawed I'm not going to die. I'm just going to continue having a good time. When the question is whether someone has fun then that person can be a data point when they do in fact have fun.

You say that people are saying that the 'game is good b/c it's successful.' I mostly just see that as a response to when someone says something or other is broken or poorly designed.

The argument highlights that just because the game does not cater well to one person doesn't mean that it is poorly designed.

Just because your fun is different doesn't make others' fun wrong.

Yes. However, when I'm told what is fun for me is wrong, I raise an eyebrow. And this thread isn't even about what is fun or what is broken, merely me noting "hey this effect seems strong, why isn't it?".

And people have told me what they think. How this turned into me telling people that I'm right, and they're wrong, or that I'm somehow the fun police, has me baffled.

And when my attempts to debate a point or show my opinion are met with "the game is great because people like it", that's not very useful to me.