D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Krachek]

It depends on how you got fun from your game.
if it is important to succeed rolls, dealing more damage than the others, or making more useful action, then every bonus is important, every spells is useful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It depends on how you got fun from your game.
if it is important to succeed rolls, dealing more damage than the others, or making more useful action, then every bonus is important, every spells is useful.

Or, in the alternative, just make sure all the other players' characters are worse. When someone asks you for advice on their character, make sure you given them advice.

Remember- you don't have to run faster than the bear. You just have to make sure that your friend is slower than you are.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

They abandoned modular design early on so even that excuse doesn't make sense.

Quite frankly 5e was not designed for forwards compatibility. Not as bad as 3e but not good at all

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

One problem is that there's a definite ordering of stats. In it the ordering goes

1. Your primary Stat (trumps other considerations)
2. Dex/Con/Wis (important saving throws, Initiative/Hp/Perception, and skills for two of them)
3. Int/Cha (Skills) and Str (Carrying Capacity).

I don't have a problem with everyone being good at their primary stat. I do have a problem with everyone having Dex and Con (and often Wis) of 14+ and dumping two of Str, Int, and Cha rather than more diversity.

 

[payn]

They abandoned modular design early on so even that excuse doesn't make sense.

Quite frankly 5e was not designed for forwards compatibility. Not as bad as 3e but not good at all

Paizo proved that 3E can do forward compatibility very well. 5E could do it just fine, but the strategy was to put the brakes on book of month sales. Seems to have worked out a lot of folks like the pace better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

According (again, I'm sorry) to WotCs own surveys, something like 70% of their fans don't actually play the game.

Source? I suspect that the data doesn’t actually show that.

There are a lot of reasons D&D almost died in the late 90s. 2es mechanics was not one of them. Of the numerous blogs, articles, and books about the demise of TSR, I haven't heard one say the reason D&D almost died was because of THAC0 or Vancian casting.

Yes. Because it was faster. Especially when compared to the edition that replaced it. Any modifiers you had were already factored.

THAC0: "I rolled a 15, so I hit AC 2."
3e: "I rolled a 15, then add +2 for strength. then +1 for the weapon, then +3 for my mastery, then +2 for flanked, etc. etc. etc."

Yeah 3e was annoying to play frankly

didn't say "force"

I didn’t say that you did

 

[Umbran]

D&D attracts people telling them they could be a noble charismatic knight with long flowing hair fighting evil for their lord and people. But the game doesn't mechanically support that The DM has to change the game to support that.

Because D&D lacks mechanics specifically for knighthood? Or for long, flowing hair?

How does, say, a Paladin fail to support this archetype? Sounds like a Paladin of Devotion or Paladin of the Crown, to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Paizo proved that 3E can do forward compatibility very well. 5E could do it just fine, but the strategy was to put the brakes on book of month sales. Seems to have worked out a lot of folks like the pace better.

3e forwards compatibility was often designing a whole new class or race or monster.

You could not, forexample, attached an aspect to a creature or PC as stuff was tied to BAB, Caster level, or HD. So something like Magic Initiate or new pets would require wonky rules.

That's why when Paizo made PF1 &PF2, they purposely put forwards compatibility in mind.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Because D&D lacks mechanics specifically for knighthood? Or for long, flowing hair?

Today I learned that D&D refuses to mechanically support the Fabio Lanzoni archetype.

Obviously, this is due to the extreme hatred Jeremy Crawford has for amazing hair, and is a repudiation of what the community demands. And by community, I mean ... me. L'etat, c'est moi!

 

[Minigiant]

Because D&D lacks mechanics specifically for knighthood? Or for long, flowing hair?

How does, say, a Paladin fail to support this archetype? Sounds like a Paladin of Devotion or Paladin of the Crown, to me.

Most fantasy knight don't have magic.

That's the whole problem.

People wanted a class feature or class archetype to make up for boosting Cha or Int or Wis over Con or Dex for your nonmagical warrior.