D&D 5E The Fighter and Arcana

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That's because you have preconceived ideas about what the mechanics for your concept should be and your concept is plainly outside the genre expectations of the game. No one in their right mind gets shirty because their fantasy adventure game won't let them make the chef character they want without some tinkering. D&D isn't a game about fantasy cookery, or even peripherally about that. Let me give you a very similar complaint to your own:

Oh, D&D is a badly designed game because I can't create my elven fantasy hairdresser without having to take sneak attack or spell casting.

Do you see the problem with that statement? I sure do.

I didn't say it was badly designed. I said it was one indicator of poor design. Just because I don't like the way my wife doesn't cut her toenails, I'm planning to get a divorce.

I see no reason why "I want to player an adventuring elf hairdresser master" (not having imaged lockpicks or spells) in the set of all things including in "step 1...think about the kind of adventurer you want to play" (PHB page 11). Therefore, I see no problem.

Someone decided to include these two sentences (see my previous post), using those words, in that order. Therefore I should take them seriously.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I truly hope this whole line of reasoning you are developing is meant facetiously.

God save me from a generic game that allows the instantiation of any character concept and the mechanical resolution of any fiction.

I see an irregularity in the PHB instructions. What is facetious about pointing it out?

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not an indicator of poor design. That statement begs the question. The design goals of the game would have had to include providing rules and space for fantasy chef characters, but they don't, and based on genre expectations nor should they. I can imagine a being of godlike power, and the D&D character creation rules don't do that for us either, but that's also not an indicator of poor design. Essentially, you're complaining because the hammer you bought won't screw in hex bolts like you thought it would. The problem there isn't with the hammer, it's in your understanding of the tools.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It's not an indicator of poor design. That statement begs the question. The design goals of the game would have had to include providing rules and space for fantasy chef characters, but they don't, and based on ganre expectations nor should they. I can imagine a being of godlike power, and the D&D character creation rules don;t do that for either, but that's also not an indicator of poor design. Essentially, you're complaining because the hammer you bought won't screw in hex bolts like you thought it would. The problem there isn't with the hammer, it's in your understanding of the tools.

The way I see it, the instruction to your hammer say that is can crew in bolts, but in reality it can't. I'm not so much criticizing the hammer being good at what it's going, but the instruction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Bards cast spells. Why must chef use magic (lockpicks or musical instruments)? How can one refluff a harp into a knife? Which musical instrument on the proficiency list acts sufficiently like a knife to act like one?

The concept isn't magic-cook or music-cook. It's master chef who adventures. Probably a fighter. Too bad fighters make worse chefs than lock picks, musicians, and loreseeking clerics.

This isn't GURPs. If you don't want to ever get abilities that aren't directly relevant to your very specific concept, play a classless system or be ready to create your own class/subclass.

But I'd make that character as a rogue. Guess what, you don't have to use the Theive's Tools, and few GMs are gonna balk at you making your character less powerful by switching them to Cook's Utensils. A monster chef should be able to dress a slain creature, so the scout works well with it's bonus training in Survival, and Nature helps identify what you can do with an animal. A short sword or scimitar works fine as a carving knife. My wife is playing a half-orc cook along these lines now.

Or, make a fighter subclass. Fighters get extra feats, so take Skilled if necessary, though it shouldn't be. A subclass could include some advanced monster knowledge, expertise with Cook's Utensils, and advanced benefits when they make a meal as part of a rest. Perhaps even the ability to make rations that give bonuses to travel, saves against exhaustion, etc. Spells can help guide what sort of effects are balanced at a given level, but don't give it spellcasting. It takes a short rest to make X amount of special foodstuffs, and at a given level, you can make foodstuffs that give XYZ benefits. Keep it simple.

 

[Fenris-77]

The way I see it, the instruction to your hammer say that is can crew in bolts, but in reality it can't. I'm not so much criticizing the hammer being good at what it's going, but the instruction.

Not at all. Keep in mind we aren't talking about some arcane tool here, but a common one. D&D is much like that. Between our basic grasp of the fantasy genre and whatever knowledge we might have about the actual game, even as brand new players we know roughly what to expect. Warriors, Wizards, Dragons - you get the picture. Not fantasy chefs. There's nothing in the PHB to even suggest that any character you can possibly imagine is possible using the rules.

I want to make Santa Claus! No wait, I want to make Samuel Pepys! No, I'm going to make the stuffed tiger from Calvin and Hobbes!

Reasonable people aren't upset that they can't do these things, nor do they see that lack as an indicator of poor design.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Not at all. Keep in mind we aren't talking about some arcane tool here, but a common one. D&D is much like that. Between our basic grasp of the fantasy genre and whatever knowledge we might have about the actual game, even as brand new players we know roughly what to expect. Warriors, Wizards, Dragons - you get the picture. Not fantasy chefs. There's nothing in the PHB to even suggest that any character you can possibly imagine is possible using the rules.

I want to make Santa Claus! No wait, I want to make Samuel Pepys! No, I'm going to make the stuffed tiger from Calvin and Hobbes!

Reasonable people aren't upset that they can't do these things, nor do they see that lack as an indicator of poor design.

I don't understand your use of the word "upset." Is assuming someone's emotional state considered a rhetorical technique?

Also, I don't see any limitations set on "step 1...think about the kind of adventurer you want to play" until after that step is already finished. It seems like an odd choice to make possibilities from step one invalid only after the player has moved on from step one.

Also, I see quite a large difference between creating "Santa Claus," "Samuel Pepys" and "a stuffed tiger." None of those would typically exist in a fantasy world, yet I would be surprised if elves didn't have hair stylists and humans didn't have master chefs. And I see nothing stopping the hair stylist or master chef from picking up a battle axe and taking up a life of adventure. Perhaps I don't understand something about your argument, however.

 

[Fenris-77]

'Upset' in this context = bothered enough to complain on a public forum. I wasn't saying you were in tears, or frothing with anger. Irritated, confused, exasperated - these all carry parts of the same meaning.

The answer to rest of your issue is 'managed expectations'. You don't have 'em and you should. The sentence you're referring to isn't one that people trip over regularly, because they don't attach the same meaning to it that you. Not a judgment, just an observation.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

'Upset' in this context = bothered enough to complain on a public forum. I wasn't saying you were in tears, or frothing with anger. Irritated, confused, exasperated - these all carry parts of the same meaning.

The answer to rest of your issue is 'managed expectations'. You don't have 'em and you should. The sentence you're referring to isn't one that people trip over regularly, because they don't attach the same meaning to it that you. Not a judgment, just an observation.

But I feel neither irritated, confused, nor exasperated. I'm simply enjoying the intersection of gaming, argument, and close reading.

I don't think my analysis is "tripping over anything." I'm simply limiting my assumptions and looking at what the game says about itself, then asking whether the game holds up to that statement.

 

[Fenris-77]

OK, if you're enjoying yourself, that's cool, That's why we're all here. I've disagreed about as much as I care to.