D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[ezo]

Then your concept was never realized if it was something that involved becoming the best archer in the world. Let's say you didn't want ranger abilities and wanted to be a fighter.

In BECMI, 1e and 2e, you were ask good at 1st level with a bow as any other level 1 fighter in the world with your dex. At 20th level you weren't any better than any other 20th level fighter, nor were you better with a bow than a dagger(assuming you had dagger proficiency). You never got better with a bow.

Ok, I'll do this once with you, and then I'm done with it.

I could easily play such a concept. How? By making my character a "fighter", maxing out Dex, using a bow, and playing my character that way. If you want mechanical support, then in AD&D you had it. You took specialization in a bow... and you still played your character that way. You want more, splat books in 2E gave you more.

In 3e there were tons of archery related feats to take, that took a bunch of levels to gather together. You improved over time. Then I could move into Order of the Bow Initiate and gain even more bow improvements for the next 10 levels.

I could realize my version of that concept. You had to pretend you got any better at all then all the other fighters out there. Mechanical support allows you to actually realize the concept, not just pretend that you did.

But... the problem is, anyone else could make the exact same type of PC taking the same feats, blah blah blah and guess what: you are not the best archer in the world anymore.

This is why mechanical benefits never cut it. It is how you play your PC that matters IMO. YMMV, of course.

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion. Cheers.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, I'll do this once with you, and then I'm done with it.

I could easily play such a concept. How? By making my character a "fighter", maxing out Dex, using a bow, and playing my character that way. If you want mechanical support, then in AD&D you had it. You took specialization in a bow... and you still played your character that way. You want more, splat books in 2E gave you more.


But... the problem is, anyone else could make the exact same type of PC taking the same feats, blah blah blah and guess what: you are not the best archer in the world anymore.

This is why mechanical benefits never cut it. It is how you play your PC that matters IMO. YMMV, of course.

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion. Cheers.

You don't need to reply, because you are done. This is my end to our discussion.

The odds that some NPC fighter out there with all the feats 3e had and all the prestige classes 3e had took the exact same combination as you, is somewhere close to 0. The odds of an NPC fighter out there with max dex and bow specialization in AD&D was guaranteed to exist in spades.

 

[Remathilis]

They are a thing, because differentiation is necessary. I read the 5e PHB. Was I referring there to the 2014 or 2024 version?

As you said, its a different version. 2024.

 

[pawsplay]

So can the fighter also learn both the evoker and the abjurer subclass features? What about necromancer and diviner as well? After all, people in the world learn those abilities, so you should be able to acquire them, right? What if you're an elf and you live for 600 years -- could you learn all classes and their subclass abilities? After all, people can learn those abilities, right? So logically you should be able to learn them yourself as well, especially if you have several centuries of time.

Yes. Those limitations only exist because of how classes work in 5e, those aren't real limitations of the world at all.

 

[Maxperson]

As you said, its a different version. 2024.

5.5e works equally well and says more about it.

 

[TwoSix]

On ancient elves, dwarves, vampires and the like.

I've come to realize that the older you get, the more you forget. I am fine with a few-hundred year old elf only able (or more likely, willing) to remember the most recent past couple of score years, let alone decades and how I handle it in my homebrew. Sure, they may have gone through all the classes by the time their 1,200 years old - but they may only remember the wizard and fighter class because that's what they're still doing and their skills at the other things have atrophied from non-use.

The RPG 10,000 year old vampire deals with sort of subject as its premise - as you add memories, you forget others.

Or the most likely, they simply had no reason to learn those abilities.

(To be fair, elves in my settings aren’t immortal for pretty much these exact reasons.)

 

[TwoSix]

Yes. Those limitations only exist because of how classes work in 5e, those aren't real limitations of the world at all.

Agreed. I absolutely have NPCs with those kind of combinations of abilities, and would probably let a player do it also if they asked.

Classes, for me, are “ludic” entities. They exist to give the players something to game and structure their character concepts, not to define the fictional space. Point-buy is a much closer equivalence to how I view the clouds-to-boxes working, but classes just have more of a fun texture to them.

 

[pawsplay]

RPG characters and creatures are created. To some extent, your class, feats, special abilities, and so forth represent things you trained, but also things you are naturally good at learning. In real life, we sometimes find we have different strengths and weaknesses, which sometimes align with what we want to be good at, and what we are willing to work towards, and sometimes not. But a character's life and outcomes and powers are always what we pick for them.

Part of the reason heavy multiclassing in unpopular is because it can look, at times, not organic. On the other hand, locking certain traits behind certain class choices or levels can also feel less than organic, if they seem like things that fit the character we have in mind.

 

[Hussar]

Archmange class ability.

Rogues have int and dex as saves.

Knight class ability.

Priest class ability.

I don't see why not? You'd likely have to become a priest, but I'd work with a player who wanted to multiclass into one or start in the priest class.

Same as above.

At the third level of the scout class? Sure.

Where can I find these classes? Oh, right, they aren't actually classes unless you homebrew them to be classes. But, apparently, homebrewing is bad because it makes the game inconsistent and unbelievable. So, why is your homebrewing classes to make these things okay, but, homebrewing abilities for why different monsters have different damage expressions bad?

 

[Maxperson]

Where can I find these classes? Oh, right, they aren't actually classes unless you homebrew them to be classes.

But, apparently, homebrewing is bad because it makes the game inconsistent and unbelievable. So, why is your homebrewing classes to make these things okay, but, homebrewing abilities for why different monsters have different damage expressions bad?

Talk to WotC. They're the ones that seem allergic to giving us new classes. It's undeniable, though, that the current slate of classes aren't the only classes in the world.

I also don't know where you get that homebrewing makes the game inconsistent and unbelievable. That seems like a silly claim(I assume you're saying someone else claimed it) to make.

Ahh, are you conflating not knowing monster math so newbie DMs would create super unbalanced monsters due to no guidelines, with creating a new class or ability? If so, they are not the same. What's more, even if they had guidelines for monsters, the new monsters would STILL be homebrew, but they'd also be better balanced. Not perfect, but better balanced.

If the monster creation rules thread is why you said homebrewing is inconsistent and unbelievable, you are incorrect in your reading of that discussion.