D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes they do. Its the backbone of the "ASI has to be floating" argument.

This isn't true.

 

[Minigiant]

This is false. The doesn't force it, but does allow it.

I didn't say "force"

I said the game does not mechanical support certain archetypes.

plenty of folks love the battlemaster.

The battlemaster is cool. It's not the warlord. That's the point. The 5e designers thought the battlemster would cover the warlord archetype to 4e warlord fans. It did not hence the many warlord fan classes.

Same how 5e doesn't support defenders as 5e lacks marking and defensive moves as a core concept. The protection style doesn't cover it.

Same how necromancers have bad spells.

 

[James Gasik]

I didn't say "force"

I said the game does not mechanical support certain archetypes.


The battlemaster is cool. It's not the warlord. That's the point. The 5e designers thought the battlemster would cover the warlord archetype to 4e warlord fans. It did not hence the many warlord fan classes.

Same how 5e doesn't support defenders as 5e lacks marking and defensive moves as a core concept. The protection style doesn't cover it.

Same how necromancers have bad spells.

Or if a subclass does get a decent defender feature, it comes in at a fairly high level, like the Totem Warrior forcing disadvantage on enemies who decide not to attack you at....14th level.

The Cavalier is a notable exception, but I don't think I've ever seen one played.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"No one says "With a starting 16 and rushing to 20, my character cannot exist."

It's "I'm losing 10% more damage for 10% better Persuasion"

I almost think D&D should go based to larger ranges. Or if Ability modifiers only affected damage, skills, and DC. Accuracy would be class based to match static armor class.

Then going with STR 14 instead of STR 16 isn't such a big huge damage hit.

I'm telling you, flatter attribute bonuses are the way to go, like in the old days. They're too important mechanically now for most folks to resist the temptation, and so everything else is pushed aside.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say "force"

I said the game does not mechanical support certain archetypes.


The battlemaster is cool. It's not the warlord. That's the point. The 5e designers thought the battlemster would cover the warlord archetype to 4e warlord fans. It did not hence the many warlord fan classes.

Same how 5e doesn't support defenders as 5e lacks marking and defensive moves as a core concept. The protection style doesn't cover it.

Same how necromancers have bad spells.

My only real objection to defenders is on verisimilitude grounds. Find a way around that and I'd be good.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or if a subclass does get a decent defender feature, it comes in at a fairly high level, like the Totem Warrior forcing disadvantage on enemies who decide not to attack you at....14th level.

The Cavalier is a notable exception, but I don't think I've ever seen one played.

I think that is a symptom of 5e trying to fold one or more hard coded 3.x PrCs into classes through archetype/subclass instead of them having prerequisites the player could somewhat prioritize elements they felt were the important features of their build.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm telling you, flatter attribute bonuses are the way to go, like in the old days. They're too important mechanically now for most folks to resist the temptation, and so everything else is pushed aside.

Indeed

Especially since the simple mechanics currently let's the Playtest Warlock deal more damage than fighters with a high Charisma, AND a boosted Eldritch Blast if you don't focus on Str.

Oh You don't need to focus on Str.

Then the emo kid behind you deals more damage, has a ranged Cantrips, and is the party face.

The current Playtest is just every class eclipsing the fighter because 5e mechanics are so basic.

Enjoy your "Best at combat" and "don't need to start with 16" now.

Cause we going going back back to Zilla Zilla.

Uhh, when the la-la hits ya lyrics just splits ya
Head so hard, that your hat can't fit you
Either I'm with ya or against ya
Format bent 'cha, back through that maze I sent ya
Talking to the rap inventor

 

[Oofta]

Thats the 'fun' thing with numbers. How they are expressed dramatically influences the impact on the reader. Which of course is the intent of whoever is framing the conversation.

It is still +2 damage, that is not false. Just as it is ALSO 20-30% more damage over a sim.

"But if I dont start with a 16 my character cannot exist!" they say, incorrectly.

I'm reminded of an old commercial there used to be for a type of aspirin(?) that showed a chart that their pain medicine worked 30% faster! Faster relief is better, right? What they didn't show was the scale which meant that it was a difference of less than a minute. If you want to totally focus on combat ability, that's fine. I do sometimes. Other times I want a PC that has a bit of flexibility and no one ever notices the decrease in combat abilities. My last fighter had decent (14) wisdom and charisma because, much like @Scott Christian's bounty hunter above, it fit what I wanted out of the character.

It is true my bonuses would have been less than a bard or a rogue that had specialized in persuasion, but since we had neither of those my PC was the best in the group. This whole concept is based on the assumption that you are only competent if you are maximized simply doesn't hold water with me. Nobody notices the addition +1 or 2 in combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So it is true that you can trade combat power for other capabilities. The issue is that it is really a bad trade. You lose a lot of combat power for a rather small gain in another area. Not saying that you still couldn't and shouldn't do it, I would for some extent. But it also isn't surprising why many people don't.

Perhaps somewhat counterintuitive, I think the main stats of the class should cost more (with floating ASIs it is effectively the opposite.) As a fighter trading two points of strength for two points of charisma, is a rather rough deal. But if those two points of strength netted you, say, four points of charisma and two points of wisdom, then it might sound at least a little bit appealing.

 

[payn]

I didn't say "force"

I said the game does not mechanical support certain archetypes.


The battlemaster is cool. It's not the warlord. That's the point. The 5e designers thought the battlemster would cover the warlord archetype to 4e warlord fans. It did not hence the many warlord fan classes.

Same how 5e doesn't support defenders as 5e lacks marking and defensive moves as a core concept. The protection style doesn't cover it.

Same how necromancers have bad spells.

I believe the idea was to cover these mechanics and concepts with a modular addition to the game. Ended up selling well enough without it. Not saying thats ok, just saying the idea was put behind the woodshed when it wasnt needed by WOTC.