D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[Sacrosanct]

Why on earth would you reward creativity? Freezing my poop and then making an ice sculpture out of it would be creative, but I wouldn't be expecting a reward for it. Nah, in my group we stick with rewarding good play, i.e. play that furthers the chances of the PCs winning. And just to be clear, yes, I said WIN. Don't suck or you will die - no reward for creativity at my table.



Nah, you can still come play, but we will laugh at you, be condescending, and in general make it very clear how bad you suck. And even if your play improves, we will never let you forget about that time you decided to play a sickly old wizard lol.....

Let me be very clear so there is no ambiguity. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a style of play that focuses on optimization. One of my players is a self described optimizer and loves to find the most mechanically effective build (and yes, it's true, we have an optimizer and someone doesn't care less about optimizing and playing at the same table and the "imbalance" between PCs hasn't broken anything). In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong if someone wanted to ignore large parts of the game and turn it into a tactical boardgame with no role-playing at all (that actually sounds a bit fun, and goes back to the roots of D&D. Just have to know that doing so means you will have to tweak some rules here and there to make things work).

But this last part? That is everything wrong with players in this hobby. Since my son was little, we only had one rule: Don't be a d**k. The attitude you are showing? Breaking that rule in spades. Normally I wouldn't care how you act in your own group, but I want to see this hobby grow, and if that's how you treat players, there is no doubt you're turning people away from the game. Shame on you.

 

[smbakeresq]

This might be the first time in 17 years that I've thought someone genuinely doesn't grok D&D and maybe shouldn't be playing it. People say there is no such thing as badwrongfun, but laughing and being condescending to people more creative than you because they are more creative than you and don't view D&D as a game you win is in fact badwrongfun.

Its about 37 years for me. I have probably completed more adventures then shoak1 has ever played, but he and his group know it all, just ask. I am sure he has many open spots in his group.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Back on point, I've long said that fighters are the more tricky class to design (despite their simplicity on the surface) because they represent the largest umbrella of archetypes, and everyone draws their line a bit differently. Even if you completely put aside archetypes like fighter magic users (Elric, etc) and focus just on those who use mundane combat only, it's a class that has to be able to replicate them all.

Merceanries
Soldiers
knights
swashbucklers
pirates
samurai
Zulu
the list goes on and on

And then you have literary heroes that fall under the umbrella, and this is where it gets hard, because you have one group (like myself) that views the classic mundane fighter without superhuman abilities, such as:

Thorgrim and Rexor (Conan the Barbarian)
Bombata (Conan the Destroyer)
Boramir (LOTR)
Helt and Menion Leah (Sword of Shannara)
Batman
Durnik and Hetter (Pawn of Prophecy)
Mad Martigan (Willow)
Uther Pendragon
and the list goes on and on and on (look at any 80s fantasy movie)

And then you have plenty or archetypes that do have superhuman abilities
Captain America
Sampson (biblical)
Perseus
Jason (from the Argonauts)
Pretty much any Wuxia film

What I'm seeing pop up in this thread is a version of "Person X from list 2 is a fighter, so you should accept that fighters have those things." and "But I want my fighters to come from list 1, and everything else is an add on, like a multi-class or a feat."

Personally, I don't see why folks are treating them as mutually exclusive. The best way to appease both groups is to have a core fighter cover only list 1, then have options (like subclasses or feats) that allow you to have a fighter like list 2. The core foundation should always be the more basic, because like a building or a car, it's easier to add on to rather than try to strip away. And then you can have the fighter be BOTH lists

 

[smbakeresq]

Let me be very clear so there is no ambiguity. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a style of play that focuses on optimization. One of my players is a self described optimizer and loves to find the most mechanically effective build (and yes, it's true, we have an optimizer and someone doesn't care less about optimizing and playing at the same table and the "imbalance" between PCs hasn't broken anything). In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong if someone wanted to ignore large parts of the game and turn it into a tactical boardgame with no role-playing at all (that actually sounds a bit fun, and goes back to the roots of D&D. Just have to know that doing so means you will have to tweak some rules here and there to make things work).

But this last part? That is everything wrong with players in this hobby. Since my son was little, we only had one rule: Don't be a d**k. The attitude you are showing? Breaking that rule in spades. Normally I wouldn't care how you act in your own group, but I want to see this hobby grow, and if that's how you treat players, there is no doubt you're turning people away from the game. Shame on you.

This is true. Its fine to be an optimizer but its not what the game is about. That's the whole idea behind bounded accuracy. The purpose of bounded accuracy to give flexibility to builds but not penalizing them, although some players clearly don't get that. There is a player out there with a thread that is playing a low INT wizard to test his knowledge of the rules and see if it is even possible.



Now just wait for the insincere apology on the way.

 

[shoak1]

This might be the first time in 17 years that I've thought someone genuinely doesn't grok D&D and maybe shouldn't be playing it. People say there is no such thing as badwrongfun, but laughing and being condescending to people more creative than you because they are more creative than you and don't view D&D as a game you win is in fact badwrongfun.

It's called breaking balls - something adult males do in good fun (often during some other activity such as sports, games, or drinking) when gathering in numbers of three or more. Its not known to be common among creative/sensitive peeps who use words like "badwrongfun," so I can understand your unfamiliarity with it, and how you seem to have confused it with "bullying" or "hazing."

 

[smbakeresq]

Back on point, I've long said that fighters are the more tricky class to design (despite their simplicity on the surface) because they represent the largest umbrella of archetypes, and everyone draws their line a bit differently. Even if you completely put aside archetypes like fighter magic users (Elric, etc) and focus just on those who use mundane combat only, it's a class that has to be able to replicate them all.

Merceanries
Soldiers
knights
swashbucklers
pirates
samurai
Zulu
the list goes on and on

And then you have literary heroes that fall under the umbrella, and this is where it gets hard, because you have one group (like myself) that views the classic mundane fighter without superhuman abilities, such as:

Thorgrim and Rexor (Conan the Barbarian)
Bombata (Conan the Destroyer)
Boramir (LOTR)
Helt and Menion Leah (Sword of Shannara)
Batman
Durnik and Hetter (Pawn of Prophecy)
Mad Martigan (Willow)
Uther Pendragon
and the list goes on and on and on (look at any 80s fantasy movie)

And then you have plenty or archetypes that do have superhuman abilities
Captain America
Sampson (biblical)
Perseus
Jason (from the Argonauts)
Pretty much any Wuxia film

What I'm seeing pop up in this thread is a version of "Person X from list 2 is a fighter, so you should accept that fighters have those things." and "But I want my fighters to come from list 1, and everything else is an add on, like a multi-class or a feat."

Personally, I don't see why folks are treating them as mutually exclusive. The best way to appease both groups is to have a core fighter cover only list 1, then have options (like subclasses or feats) that allow you to have a fighter like list 2. The core foundation should always be the more basic, because like a building or a car, it's easier to add on to rather than try to strip away. And then you can have the fighter be BOTH lists

That's why IMO 4e (and the Martial Tome from 3.5) was very good for fighters, you could build many different types with many different, fun powers that reflected experience and training as opposed to something mystical. The BM for me doesn't do it, its mostly Precision Strikes and Ripostes. Are better implementation of the BM using the current rules would be each individual maneuver was limited to once per short rest so PC would have to pick from their list and think about when to use them. This is just an example of course.

 

[shoak1]

Let me be very clear so there is no ambiguity. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a style of play that focuses on optimization. One of my players is a self described optimizer and loves to find the most mechanically effective build (and yes, it's true, we have an optimizer and someone doesn't care less about optimizing and playing at the same table and the "imbalance" between PCs hasn't broken anything). In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong if someone wanted to ignore large parts of the game and turn it into a tactical boardgame with no role-playing at all (that actually sounds a bit fun, and goes back to the roots of D&D. Just have to know that doing so means you will have to tweak some rules here and there to make things work).

But this last part? That is everything wrong with players in this hobby. Since my son was little, we only had one rule: Don't be a d**k. The attitude you are showing? Breaking that rule in spades. Normally I wouldn't care how you act in your own group, but I want to see this hobby grow, and if that's how you treat players, there is no doubt you're turning people away from the game. Shame on you.

Jeez I guess nerds REALLY don't like breaking balls.....Probably brings back bad memories of being bullied on the playground.... Round here, ball breaking is considered a hallowed rite of passage. I'm guessing you would probably also find all the filthy things we say about each others' mothers offensive as well.......

 

[Azzy]

It's called breaking balls - something adult males do in good fun (often during some other activity such as sports, games, or drinking) when gathering in numbers of three or more. Its not known to be common among creative/sensitive peeps who use words like "badwrongfun," so I can understand your unfamiliarity with it, and how you seem to have confused it with "bullying" or "hazing."

No, it's simply toxic behavior and has nothing to do with masculinity or any of the other excuses that bullies, abusers, and their ilk use when condescending to others in an effort to justify their toxicity.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Jeez I guess nerds REALLY don't like breaking balls.....Probably brings back bad memories of being bullied on the playground.... Round here, ball breaking is considered a hallowed rite of passage. I'm guessing you would probably also find all the filthy things we say about each others' mothers offensive as well.......

Dude, I spent all six years of my enlistment in the military deployed overseas. Don't make assumptions that I'm just some weak guy who can't handle things. In fact, I'd bet I've experienced things way harder than anything you've ever had to. I know your type; I've seen it enough times. You act all tough guy trying to prop your own sense of false ego up when the truth is that you're just acting like a jerk to other people. Mocking people and treating them like crap isn't just "good ol boy fun". It's deplorable behavior.

*Edit* And maybe your table does think that's all in good fun. But it's toxic for the hobby. And that's what I care about. The message you're sending to everyone else, especially new gamers.

 

[smbakeresq]

It's called breaking balls - something adult males do in good fun (often during some other activity such as sports, games, or drinking) when gathering in numbers of three or more. Its not known to be common among creative/sensitive peeps who use words like "badwrongfun," so I can understand your unfamiliarity with it, and how you seem to have confused it with "bullying" or "hazing."

Well, at least its not an insincere apology. Instead everyone but him is a snowflake and therefore his crassness is excused.