6E Theory Thoughts on the balance of classes across editions (past, present, future)

[SableWyvern]

Well, the point I've been making all the way along is that these hypothetical situations, or even actual events from games, need to be recognized for what they are - interesting points but not really all that useful. Because we all cherry pick examples. The hypotheticals always support our arguments. The events we remember from games ignore the all the other times that whatever we're talking about didn't happen.

And my counterpoint is that these are not just hypothetical situations, they're representative of (and sometimes literal examples of) how some people's games work. For those people, they're a lot more than "interesting points" -- they're fundamental to the way the game works for them.

You can't just tell people, "Well your example isn't a true representation of your game," without claiming you literally know and understand what happens at their table better than they themselves do.

Telling people that the game at their table doesn't work the way they think it does, it works the way @Toe Knee Nose is telling them it does, and they'd recognise this if only they were more honest with themselves and had better memories about the events of their games, is not going to win you friends or arguments.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you pass the check without assistance from the ability, in which way are you screwed?

If it counts to it’s PROS If it convinces you to attempt a check that you succeed at without needing it does it also equally count as a CON against it when it convinces you to attempt a check you’re not great at (that you fail) because you thought you had tactical mind safety net to save you?

 

[Zardnaar]

And my counterpoint is that these are not just hypothetical situations, they're representative of (and sometimes literal examples of) how some people's games work. For those people, they're a lot more than "interesting points" -- they're fundamental to the way the game works for them.

You can't just tell people, "Well your example isn't a true representation of your game," without claiming you literally know and understand what happens at their table better than they themselves do.

Telling people that the game at their table doesn't work the way they think it does, it works the way @Toe Knee Nose is telling them it does, and they'd recognise this if only they were more honest with themselves and had better memories about the events of their games, is not going to win you friends or arguments.

Well that and its great outside combat.

Spells dont do everything and there's a lot of downsides to something like knock.

You can't prepare everything and theres no guarantee the right class is in the party or that player has prepared the spell. You cant prepare everything you need. I hate spending spelk slots on things that can be done by someone else. Its a last resort not first.

The ability is got. Powerless cantvseem to comprehend anything outside their playsyle rf combat for some reason.

 

[SableWyvern]

If it counts to it’s PROS If it convinces you to attempt a check that you succeed at without needing it does it also equally count as a CON against it when it convinces you to attempt a check you’re not great at (that you fail) because you thought you had tactical mind safety net to save you?

Again, I'm not really in a position to analyse it closely, as I don't play 5e and am not even clear on how hard checks are to pass generally. However, speaking broadly, I'd suggest that:

For a player capable of making effective risk-reward assessments (which also means they need to be playing in a game where they have the necessary information to do so), it should be a net pro, and for someone who isn't, it's likely to either have a randomised impact or actively lead them into bad decisions, making it a net con.

Overall, it can't be any more a con than just getting a flat +2 bonus to everything and, because of that, taking on too much risk too often. Or, being my nephew with his AC 19 gnome and convincing himself he's invulnerable.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

You can't just tell people, "Well your example isn't a true representation of your game," without claiming you literally know and understand what happens at their table better than they themselves do.

Sigh.

It would be really helpful if you didn't keep misreading what I said. At no point did I even remotely suggest any of this.

What I said was "Your example ONLY applies to YOUR TABLE." It IS a TRUE REPRESENTATION of YOUR table. But, since no one else plays at YOUR TABLE, being a TRUE REPRESENTATION of YOUR TABLE, doesn't really tell us anything other than what your table is like. The same way you completely dismissed looking at published adventures as a window into the thought processes of the game designers as not being representational of anything, is exactly how I feel about anecdotes from tables.

But, and this is really the last time @SableWyvern. Please. I am asking politely. I will not respond to you in this thread again, do not quote me. You have repeatedly misinterpreted and misrepresented what I've said and repeatedly ignored any clarifications. Feel free to have the last word, but, we're done here.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

. Powerless cantvseem to comprehend anything outside their playsyle rf combat for some reason.

Well, there's definitely some reading comprehension failures going on, and a really bizarre failure to type for some reason, but, again, it would be really nice if folks would stop trying to tell me what I'm saying and actually respond to what I am actually saying.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sigh.

It would be really helpful if you didn't keep misreading what I said. At no point did I even remotely suggest any of this.

What I said was "Your example ONLY applies to YOUR TABLE." It IS a TRUE REPRESENTATION of YOUR table. But, since no one else plays at YOUR TABLE, being a TRUE REPRESENTATION of YOUR TABLE, doesn't really tell us anything other than what your table is like. The same way you completely dismissed looking at published adventures as a window into the thought processes of the game designers as not being representational of anything, is exactly how I feel about anecdotes from tables.

But, and this is really the last time @SableWyvern.

That's not what you said in the quote I was replying to you, at all. In that quote you said:

Well, the point I've been making all the way along is that these hypothetical situations, or even actual events from games, need to be recognized for what they are - interesting points but not really all that useful.

So, the things people say to show others how their own games work are not useful. You then go on to explain why they're not useful:

Because we all cherry pick examples. The hypotheticals always support our arguments.

Here you are saying people only choose to share examples that match their claims -- with the implication that they are not telling the whole truth about their games; they're concealing things from us to hide the fact their games don't really work the way they claim they do.

Is it possible that they're choosing examples that match their claims because their claims match what what actually happens in their games? No, you are simply not allowing for that to be possible.

The events we remember from games ignore the all the other times that whatever we're talking about didn't happen.

Here you give a second possibility -- people might not be lying, they just might be self-deluded. They are forgetting or ignoring things that happen in their games that contradict the way they remember the game working.

Either way, whether it's due to intentional falsehood or self-deception, you are absolutely making the claim that people talking about how their own games work are wrong about what they're claiming, and that you know better than them what's really going on.

Now, if you want to walk all that back and acknowledge these all or most of the examples people have been giving are true statements that accurately represent their games, not cherry-picked examples that ignore contrary evidence, not misleading examples limited by poor memory, that they're not made up examples that never really happen and aren't representative of what really happens at their tables, that they're not things people are stating in bad faith, that's great and I'm glad you're doing so, but please don't try and claim you didn't ever say these things, because the quotes are right there.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not how math works. Of those 8 checks, the result will only be changed twice.

I've no idea what this ability is you're talking about, but 2 out of 8 is 25%. .250 isn't a bad batting average, which makes this worth trying at every opportunity provided those attempts carry no obvious drawback.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, there's definitely some reading comprehension failures going on, and a really bizarre failure to type for some reason, but, again, it would be really nice if folks would stop trying to tell me what I'm saying and actually respond to what I am actually saying.

You have consistently minimized and questioned everyone's examples as you've already made up your mind.

Distinct whiff of one true wayism and you're wrong. When people are actually playing the game.

You've also been outright wrong a few times how things actually work. Seems youre not actually playing.

Then pull the victim card dont talk to me when people call you on it.

Its different from the usual arguments over what people prefer.

 

[Bluenose]

In all seriousness though, I'm pretty convinced that all you need to do to make meaningful mundane techniques (in the "discrete package of mechanics that specify outcomes" that spells are) palatable is put them in a universal system like skills. If spiderclimb is an inherent function of a sufficiently high Athletics check, and not a unique Rogue ability it's not going to read as magic. Even if "+10 to climbing checks" is a rogue ability, and spiderclimb is at a DC 30 or whatever makes the scale work for when it comes online.

I think it'd be perfectly possible to add to the skill rules by giving examples of what is possible for someone with each rank of proficiency. Basic +2 you can do the fairly mundane things that the 5.5 rules suggest; +3, you're getting into the realm of hard to justify as being humanly (dwarfly, elfly) possible; +6, you can give Atlas a short break with your Athletics.

Tactical Mind is proof you could even get away with making those "+y to skills" abilities x/rest, and now they literally function like spells with one degree of separation.

And in five years WotC may even find another genuinely good ability that they can hand out to non-casters.