D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Scribe]

Because the extra skill proficiency the Battlemaster, Cavalier, and Samurai is equal to the same thing anyone gets with background.

Then use the components in the rules, to solve for your problem, because unless you get a feature that puts Fighter, built for and aimed at combat, on par with a Bard/Wizard/Sorc/Warlock, I dont get the impression you'll be satisfied.

Is it the 'Fighter' you are hung up on? You want to play a Fighter, but you want Social power? Just play a Bard, and call it the Fighter?

 

[Oofta]

Not possible without twisting the game into a incomprehensible mess, for mechanical reasons. 1e/2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e are all different games. So is OD&D/BX/BECMI for that matter. A game can emulate one of those, even improve upon it for some, but it can't emulate all of them at once, and trying to do so with mutually exclusive optional rules (which they would have to be) leads to the mess I referenced above. The biggest mistake from a design perspective (which I think you all know is what I care about) is insisting that all these different games still be called D&D, and treating them as the same game when they very much aren't.

Is the evolution of the game any different from the majority of other products that have had a long lifespan? Coca-Cola no longer has cocaine in it, it should have been rebranded! The Ford Mustang you buy today shares (thank goodness) no components with the car that was released in the 60s, it should have been renamed multiple times!

It hits basically the same themes and genre, resolution still typically comes down to rolling a D20, we're still fighting everything from goblins to ghosts to beholders. It still has the same feel to me. Change is eternal, the core themes of the game remain much the same for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The relevant points in the DMG are pretty simple. If multiple PCs participate in a conversation, the players decide who makes the charisma check. It encourages things like insight during the conversation to figure out what the NPC is thinking. Adding to the conversation grants advantage to the person that makes the check. It specifically states "Create situations where characters who might not otherwise be engaged with a social interaction have to do at least some of the talking." Along with "If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others." A conversation may involve multiple rolls, etc..

If you follow the chart on reactions, during a conversation the worst thing is that you get is "The creature opposes the adventurers’ actions and might take risks to do so." if you get a result of less than 10 with a creature that was already hostile at the start of the social encounter. Last, but not least, bards are less capable in combat because they are supposed to be the skill monkey outside of combat. That doesn't mean the balance is perfect, but if you follow what is actually written in the DMG you still include everyone in social encounters on a regular basis. If one person is dominating every social encounter, the DM is not following the advice in the DMG.


Could the DMG be better? Absolutely. Are people that have 1 person dominate the social aspects of the game while everyone else is mute following the guidance we do have? Absolutely not.

Multiple rolls lead to decreased chances of success, as any discussion of the Stealth skill in 5e will tell you. The players are incentivized to push for a single roll with advantage by the PC with the highest possible bonus, time and practicality permitting.

 

[Oofta]

Then use the components in the rules, to solve for your problem, because unless you get a feature that puts Fighter, built for and aimed at combat, on par with a Bard/Wizard/Sorc/Warlock, I dont get the impression you'll be satisfied.

Is it the 'Fighter' you are hung up on? You want to play a Fighter, but you want Social power? Just play a Bard, and call it the Fighter?

Or, I don't know, play a fighter and take a level or two of bard. You gain the specialization without sacrificing much fighting ability.

 

[Oofta]

Multiple rolls lead to decreased chances of success, as any discussion of the Stealth skill in 5e will tell you. The players are incentivized to push for a single roll with advantage by the PC with the highest possible bonus, time and practicality permitting.

Assuming 1 bad roll means the end of the conversation, perhaps. I don't make that assumption and neither do the rules of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It could be done (see the current playtest) without twisting.

It was chosen not to be done in 2014.

Show me how you can accommodate every editions preferences in one. I've seen the current playtest and have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is the evolution of the game any different from the majority of other products that have had a long lifespan? Coca-Cola no longer has cocaine in it, it should have been rebranded! The Ford Mustang you buy today shares (thank goodness) no components with the car that was released in the 60s, it should have been renamed multiple times!

It hits basically the same themes and genre, resolution still typically comes down to rolling a D20, we're still fighting everything from goblins to ghosts to beholders. It still has the same feel to me. Change is eternal, the core themes of the game remain much the same for me.

Perhaps they should have been. In any case, there are many, many games that hit similar themes and genre, and come down to rolling a d20, and fighting fantasy monsters, that aren't called D&D because those things are not all a game is.

 

[Minigiant]

Then use the components in the rules, to solve for your problem, because unless you get a feature that puts Fighter, built for and aimed at combat, on par with a Bard/Wizard/Sorc/Warlock, I dont get the impression you'll be satisfied

Oh I fixed it.
And WOTC mostly are in their playtest.

The issue is many denying others having problems and saying their style doesn't match D&D and should leave.

Is it the 'Fighter' you are hung up on? You want to play a Fighter, but you want Social power? Just play a Bard, and call it the Fighter?

No it's all the classes.

I shouldn't have to take barred levels and gain the spell casting that comes with it in order for my barbarian to mimic the archetype of being the chief's son and having some diplomacy powers as well as being a raging brute in battle.

The fight really is between people who want to add new archetypes to D&D and people don't want to add new archetypes to D&D.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps they should have been. In any case, there are many, many games that hit similar themes and genre, and come down to rolling a d20, and fighting fantasy monsters, that aren't called D&D because those things are not all a game is.

So? There are many brands of toothpaste but just one Crest. There's no reason for them to rename something, products rarely do that. After a certain point it may be a Ship of Theseus, but it still fulfills the same target niche even if other products do as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh I fixed it.
And WOTC mostly are in their playtest.

The issue is many denying others having problems and saying their style doesn't match D&D and should leave.


No it's all the classes.

I shouldn't have to take barred levels and gain the spell casting that comes with it in order for my barbarian to mimic the archetype of being the chief's son and having some diplomacy powers as well as being a raging brute in battle.

The fight really is between people who want to add new archetypes to D&D and people don't want to add new archetypes to D&D.

If D&D isn't doing what you want in such a fundamental way, why would you stick with it?