D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Neonchameleon]

If math is bad design, get rid of math.

Too much math is bad design. By the same token too much friction is a problem but frictionless environments are weird.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then you are both wrong and intentionally injecting something into their words and mine that none of us has said.

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?

Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahahaha.

Oh, the wheel turneth, and yet the cart moveth not. How things change and yet how they stay precisely the same.

Do you remember the 4e edition wars? There were folks who screamed bloody murder because they "couldn't" play a 4e Fighter specialized in doing damage (even though you totally could, you just had to pick certain features and build up to it over time.) 4e players naturally said, "Well, if you want to play a martial character in medium to heavy armor who is very good at killing people and never really needs to use anything especially supernatural, that's precisely what the Ranger is."

No points for guessing who won that argument, I'm afraid.

Now, you come to me and say, "So, you want to play a character that wears heavy armor (something no Bard can do natively), who fights purely with grit and thews (something no Bard does because every Bard is not just a spellcaster but a full spellcaster), but who also can make significant but not overwhelming contributions to social or exploration scenes? Why not play a Bard?"

In the 4e case, it was literally true that Ranger did everything the critics asked for, it just had a different set of letters written at the top of the character sheet. In this 5e case, Bards are completely unacceptable, being full casters who can only dabble in lightly-armored dextrous fighting and have little to no reason to pick up a bow. It completely defeats one of the key points, wanting to be a character that doesn't cast spells.

If you had at least said Rogue I could be mollified by the fact that you at least tried to care about one of the most important reasons someone might want to play a Fighter, a reason that is dramatically more important than mere "so...the problem is the name at the top of the page???" Rogue would still be inadequate for other reasons, but it would have been a good effort.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I guess it's time for me to introduce a new fallacy into this thread. I call it..........................................The Chum Bucket Fallacy. If you don't like Sponge Bob, none of your posts or opinions can be correct.

View attachment 296941

I liked early SBSP. Toward the end it started getting really uncomfortable. It was always weird. It became disturbing.

 

[Scribe]

Now, you come to me and say, "So, you want to play a character that wears heavy armor (something no Bard can do natively), who fights purely with grit and thews (something no Bard does because every Baef is not just a spellcaster but a full spellcaster), but who also can make significant but not overwhelming contributions to social or exploration scenes? Why not play a Bard?"

Just refluff it. Wizards said the same thing to people who want the Psion.

A melee attack is a cantrip in melee range. The various resource points are all the same thing, just with a different name. There is next to zero mechanics beyond 'spend your special resource points to gain an effect'.

Those effects, may as well be spells, but the actual relevance is negligible outside of things like Anti-Magic, and is that a pressing concern?

Whats the difference between

A mundane ability done X times per long rest.
A spell used X times per long rest.
A special ability done X times per long rest using a secondary or tertiary resource.
A species based ability done Proficiency times per long rest.

5e is too damn basic for these things to matter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Whats the difference between

A mundane ability done X times per long rest.
A spell used X times per long rest.
A special ability done X times per long rest using a secondary or tertiary resource.
A species based ability done Proficiency times per long rest.

5e is too damn basic for these things to matter.

VSM components, Dispel Magic, Counterspell, and quite a bit more.

 

[Scribe]

VSM components, Dispel Magic, Counterspell, and quite a bit more.

I mean you cannot dispel a melee cantrip, or counter it as it has no VS component (right? I would have to look up the new text).

 

[Cadence]

If math is bad design, get rid of math.

Does the rest of the world have math phobia like America does? (The 10 Deutschmark bill used to have Gauss on it and the normal probability density function written out).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean you cannot dispel a melee cantrip, or counter it as it has no VS component (right? I would have to look up the new text).

Shocking Grasp is VS, Booming Blade is SM. Yes you can.

 

[Scribe]

Shocking Grasp is VS, Booming Blade is SM. Yes you can.

I mean the hypothetical where a Melee attack is really nothing more than a Melee range Cantrip.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean the hypothetical where a Melee attack is really nothing more than a Melee range Cantrip.

If they were redesigned to be that way possibly. But if you're going to make hypothetical class and magic redesigns then why not just design an actually good fighter class rather than invent a collection of spells?