D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

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!

Yes, because the D&D books are filled to the brim with images like this

 

[Oofta]

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.

You want that. I've never seen a huge demand. I know I've never had an issue.

 

[payn]

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.

All of this is incorrect, but not worth discussing further.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, the answer always comes down to 'why don't you play this caster' or 'why don't you add casting to the fighter'.

Which is weird for a game steeped in tradition that started out punishing you for playing a caster until you 'learned' and worships Conan, whose job is basically wizard murderer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah 3e was annoying to play frankly

I enjoyed 3e when it was a computer game running it. I loathed 3e as a ttrpg. Just opening the book and seeing how you had to figure different base attack bonuses for each of your attacks? No thanks. And looking at a 3e statblock for a monster? Yikes. And seeing as how I DM more than play? Good lord no...lol

One of the biggest turn off moments to me in 3e when I toyed with moving over to it (this was after 3.5 came out) was when I had posted a comment about how I was thinking of playing an arcane archer because the theme sounded cool and to a person, every comment was not to do that because the class sucks and isn't as powerful as other builds. 3e seems built for those who like optimization, and that's not me at all. I'm an old school gamers. I like fast combat, rulings over rules, and flavor over mechanics.

I'm not trying to bash 3e objectively. It's a great system for a lot of people. Just not me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, what I'm reading begs the question. If you (general you) want to basically swap stats and attributes to fit your theme (I want to have a high CHA fighter and use CHA bonuses in place of STR and DEX), then the question is, "Why have stats at all?" If we're going to make the bonuses totally replaceable and interchangeable, why have them at all? I'm not asking this as some sort of gotcha or sarcastic response, but an honest one.

Do you get rid of them completely and just go to something sorta skill based and bake them into the class?

Fighters: Gain a +3 bonus to hit and damage with attacks (to replicate STR or DEX)
Background: Choose strength based, agility, personality, intellect, or willpower based skills. Gain a +3 bonus to any saving throw or check when doing one of these skills.

That way you could have a fighter who gets the bonuses to attacks as "traditional" fighters, but can be personality rather than strength or dex if they choose.

 

[payn]

I enjoyed 3e when it was a computer game running it. I loathed 3e as a ttrpg. Just opening the book and seeing how you had to figure different base attack bonuses for each of your attacks? No thanks. And looking at a 3e statblock for a monster? Yikes. And seeing as how I DM more than play? Good lord no...lol

One of the biggest turn off moments to me in 3e when I toyed with moving over to it (this was after 3.5 came out) was when I had posted a comment about how I was thinking of playing an arcane archer because the theme sounded cool and to a person, every comment was not to do that because the class sucks and isn't as powerful as other builds. 3e seems built for those who like optimization, and that's not me at all. I'm an old school gamers. I like fast combat, rulings over rules, and flavor over mechanics.

I'm not trying to bash 3e objectively. It's a great system for a lot of people. Just not me.

As my favorite edition to date, I didnt mind all the mechanical fuss about 3E. I liked NPCs being developed same as PCs. I can certainly admit the weaknesses and tediousness of parts of it though. I'm looking at you BAB!

I do recall (in pathfinder) a forumite asking about how to make the best swashbuckler. The answers were, despite an actual class, to be, I kid you not, a monk with a piercing fist feat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, what I'm reading begs the question. If you (general you) want to basically swap stats and attributes to fit your theme (I want to have a high CHA fighter and use CHA bonuses in place of STR and DEX), then the question is, "Why have stats at all?" If we're going to make the bonuses totally replaceable and interchangeable, why have them at all? I'm not asking this as some sort of gotcha or sarcastic response, but an honest one.

Well I'm in the Death To Ability Scores camp. And my 4e retroclone (by this point 4e inspired) dumps the six stats entirely and just gives class bonuses to the 17 or so skills.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, what I'm reading begs the question. If you (general you) want to basically swap stats and attributes to fit your theme (I want to have a high CHA fighter and use CHA bonuses in place of STR and DEX), then the question is, "Why have stats at all?"

Because the stats do other things aside from the game's core competencies everyone is required to have to not die/pull down the group.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As my favorite edition to date, I didnt mind all the mechanical fuss about 3E. I liked NPCs being developed same as PCs.

Quick question: Are you a player or a DM mostly? As a player I see the appeal. As a DM there's no way in hell I'm doing anything close to that for every named NPC. Making a rogue or high level wizard I'm going to be playing for months is tedious enough as a player.