D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[CreamCloud0]

Right, but the poster my response was to, explicitly stated they wanted all choices to be viable. Then they backtracked and said all choices but ASI’s and etc.

The logic I spoke of fails because it’s not being applied the same to ASIs as to the other choices - which is why I asked what logic you are talking about. Or said more plainly - there is no logical path to get to ‘all choices except ASIs should be viable.’ - even though that’s a perfectly valid preference - it’s just not derived from principles being logically applied, but from aesthetics.

i would just like to clarify here on the claim that i backpedaled on ASI or that i said ALL choices should be viable

first thing: i claimed that all presented choices should be equally viable, and that meant in my view, all choices that are built into or determine your class progression, be they class, subclass, base weapon proficiencies, fighting styles or eldritch invocations or anything else similar, things that if you level in your class it is inevitable that you will either have or have or have at least one of them, and which are designed to be part of your class package, for your choice between rogue or paladin to be between two equally viable classes, and your choice between assassin or arcane trickster to be between two equally viable subclasses, and so that when i compare my arcane trickster rogue with your oath of ancients paladin they have an equal amount of viable things going for them, different viable things almost certainly, but equal amounts of viable things.

martial weapon proficiencies or extra attack are not built into the sorcerer and therefore i do not consider it a presented choice for the sorcerer to attempt to perform martial combat using weapons, unless of course, they gained a subclass that granted martial weaponry and extra attack in which case i would expect it to be a viable choice to perform martial combat as that is the choice of role it is presenting, in a similar example, i don't expect the heavy armoured cleric to be good at stealth unless there's an explicit subclass who's presented to be meant to be good at stealth.

second thing: the reason i exclude ASI, feats, background, species (and multiclassing) is that these choices are not built into your class' progression and intended to work as part of a whole in the same way that class abilities are, yes you may get these other choices at certain designated points in your class progression but the array of choices provided is designed to be equally available to ALL CLASSES not just a singular one,

if i order a chocolate sundae at an ice cream shop and it comes with black olives in it then i consider that the fault of whoever either constructed or designed the sundae that there is this thing in it that is not fit for being a dessert, but if i recieve an olive-less sundae and walk over to the toppings station which serves not just for the sundae bar with sauces and sprinkles but also the salad bar too with salad dressing and feta cheese and yes, black olives and i pick olives to put on my sundae, then that's all on me.

 

[Oofta]

Then you have not been paying attention. It has been said, in various ways, multiple times. Over many years. It would likely not be wise for me to name names in this thread, but I could do so if I really wanted to. I just don't.

The structure of 4E, the pursuit of and approach to balance over everything else was one of the reasons I ultimately burned out on 4E.

That's different from stating "It's a fact that balance is bad" that is the foundation of these "fighters drool" arguments.

But feel free to link to actual quotes. If there are any, I will disagree with them as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The structure of 4E, the pursuit of and approach to balance over everything else was one of the reasons I ultimately burned out on 4E.

That's different from stating "It's a fact that balance is bad" that is the foundation of these "fighters drool" arguments.

But feel free to link to actual quotes. If there are any, I will disagree with them as well.

As I said: I'm not going to. I have been admonished for risking a combative stance already in this thread. Naming names would only increase that risk.

 

[Oofta]

As I said: I'm not going to. I have been admonished for risking a combative stance already in this thread. Naming names would only increase that risk.

I never said name names. I said link to a quote that clearly states that it's a fact that balance, in and of itself, is bad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I never said name names. I said link to a quote that clearly states that it's a fact that balance, in and of itself, is bad.

There is no difference when it comes to making things personal on that front, or at least I don't see one. Both directly cite some specific person and name names as a result. I would rather not annoy the moderators any further than I have. My apologies if that is not to your liking, but I'm not interested in intentionally violating a direct red-text admonishment.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't think the ability to willfully build a bad character ever disappears from any TTRPG, that, y'know, lets you build your character.

I don't know if it ever disappears, per se, but I'm told that it can be very hard (at least in 5E):

It Is Surprisingly Hard To Create An Incompetent Ass-Clown In Dungeons & Dragons

The great escapist fantasy of Dungeons & Dragons is that you are not a salaryperson shoveling handfuls of gummy bears into your mouth and rolling 20-sided dice. Rather, you are a singularly important hero with a singular capacity to disarm some impending plot bomb. It’s a time-tried formula, one...

kotaku.com

 

[Oofta]

There is no difference when it comes to making things personal on that front, or at least I don't see one. Both directly cite some specific person and name names as a result. I would rather not annoy the moderators any further than I have. My apologies if that is not to your liking, but I'm not interested in intentionally violating a direct red-text admonishment.

There's a difference between making accusations and simply linking to posts that prove an accusation you have already made. No names, just links that prove your assertion.

I make no claims that many people on this forum have stated that parrot droppings are a nutritious breakfast cereal topping. If I had, and someone called me out on it, they would be justified to ask for actual quotes. Until then? It's just another unproven statement masquerading as truth.

But if you're unwilling to provide specific links we may as well drop it.

 

[FrogReaver]

i would just like to clarify here on the claim that i backpedaled on ASI or that i said ALL choices should be viable

first thing: i claimed that all presented choices should be equally viable, and that meant in my view, all choices that are built into or determine your class progression, be they class, subclass, base weapon proficiencies, fighting styles or eldritch invocations or anything else similar, things that if you level in your class it is inevitable that you will either have or have or have at least one of them, and which are designed to be part of your class package, for your choice between rogue or paladin to be between two equally viable classes, and your choice between assassin or arcane trickster to be between two equally viable subclasses, and so that when i compare my arcane trickster rogue with your oath of ancients paladin they have an equal amount of viable things going for them, different viable things almost certainly, but equal amounts of viable things.

That may have been what you meant. It was not what you said. I’m good talking about what was meant but we can’t do that as long as what was said keeps being defended.

Also - even with this I don’t understand what disqualifies ASI from being a presented choice.

martial weapon proficiencies or extra attack are not built into the sorcerer and therefore i do not consider it a presented choice for the sorcerer to attempt to perform martial combat using weapons, unless of course, they gained a subclass that granted martial weaponry and extra attack in which case i would expect it to be a viable choice to perform martial combat as that is the choice of role it is presenting, in a similar example, i don't expect the heavy armoured cleric to be good at stealth unless there's an explicit subclass who's presented to be meant to be good at stealth.

you no longer seem to be talking about viable character creation choices. You’re now talking about in game moment to moment decisions. Those are 2 different things and 2 different discussions.

Like consider a sorcerer that dumps charisma and takes the weapon master feat, there’s still a path to make that a viable character provided the right moment to moment decisions are made (which is something applicable to any character creation decision).

second thing: the reason i exclude ASI, feats, background, species (and multiclassing) is that these choices are not built into your class' progression and intended to work as part of a whole in the same way that class abilities are, yes you may get these other choices at certain designated points in your class progression but the array of choices provided is designed to be equally available to ALL CLASSES not just a singular one,

Principle - options buckets applicable to ALL CLASSES don’t need to have every option viable to every class.

I can get behind that. But at this point we are already in agreement that some options are going to be non viable for some classes - which is one of the points I was making.

if i order a chocolate sundae at an ice cream shop and it comes with black olives in it then i consider that the fault of whoever either constructed or designed the sundae that there is this thing in it that is not fit for being a dessert, but if i recieve an olive-less sundae and walk over to the toppings station which serves not just for the sundae bar with sauces and sprinkles but also the salad bar too with salad dressing and feta cheese and yes, black olives and i pick olives to put on my sundae, then that's all on me.

If the restaurants puts olives in the ice cream toppings bar then I’d say it’s on them. I’d you go out of your way to the salad bar and start adding salad toppings to your ice cream then that’s on you. Salad options were never presented as a choice for ice cream toppings. Note that this aligns with my point - feats are presented as choices for every class. Wouldn’t this analogy then mean they shouldn’t be presented that way?

 

[James Gasik]

How about a quote that states:

Know that imbalance is actually bad. The first thing that I think everyone has to do is to internalize the idea that balance is good, and imbalance is bad. I've actually heard people try to argue that a little bit of imbalance is necessary for a fun game. Not only do I disagree, but I think that they don't even really believe that. Someone who says this is simply failing to see one of two factors:

1. Like I stated earlier, there are sometimes elements that seem imbalanced when looking at one level of scope, but when looking at the whole picture are actually in balance.

2. That a game can be "fun" whether or not it's balanced -- the word "fun" is a notoriously crappy metric. Anything "can be fun" with the right attitude -- flicking a dust-ball around on the floor, brushing your teeth, anything.

If a game is fun despite being imbalanced, that's great, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it's fun because it's imbalanced.

-Keith Burgun

 

[Oofta]

How about a quote that states:

Know that imbalance is actually bad. The first thing that I think everyone has to do is to internalize the idea that balance is good, and imbalance is bad. I've actually heard people try to argue that a little bit of imbalance is necessary for a fun game. Not only do I disagree, but I think that they don't even really believe that. Someone who says this is simply failing to see one of two factors:

1. Like I stated earlier, there are sometimes elements that seem imbalanced when looking at one level of scope, but when looking at the whole picture are actually in balance.

2. That a game can be "fun" whether or not it's balanced -- the word "fun" is a notoriously crappy metric. Anything "can be fun" with the right attitude -- flicking a dust-ball around on the floor, brushing your teeth, anything.

If a game is fun despite being imbalanced, that's great, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it's fun because it's imbalanced.

-Keith Burgun

I would say that I disagree with Mr Burgun. Even when I sort of agree with #1. Balance, much like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder when it comes to contributions to the team that are significantly different.

So no, an appeal to authority doesn't mean anything.