Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8623627" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Nope. Not what I said, not even a vaguely charitable reading thereof. Having something meaningful to contribute to combat does not mean "literally all combats, you WILL be a star." Having something meaningful to contribute to socialization does not mean a "special rule" for literally all possible social contexts and it is ridiculous to assert that that is what is being said.Combat, exploration, and socialization are not "everything," and "having something meaningful to contribute" is not the same as being "good" at it. The fact that you, again, have enforced a false dichotomy of "literally incapable beyond absolute rock bottom baseline" and superlative skill is an error. There are many, many more possibilities on a spectrum between the two.Because having at least one meaningful contribution is in no way a guarantee that it works in absolutely all possible conditions and states of affairs? Huh, imagine that, it is almost like I'm not calling for absolute universal perfection, but rather clear and at least somewhat defined areas of competence. Which is a far less dramatic request than "good at everything" and far harder to knock down...almost as though my position were being characterized in a extremist and illogical manner so it could be dismissed without actually engaging with it....Then power creep cannot possibly be a universal evil. If you intend to define the phrase this way, you're going to have to accept that some of the time, power creep is a straight-up good thing. Because, for example, 5e is an increase in Fighter and Monk power relative to 3e. By definition, if you think 5e does better at full-caster vs non-caster balance, you are in favor of at least some amount of power creep. Importantly, this means calling it "power creep" is no longer a slam-dunk "that's as many as four tens" argument; you will have to explain why THIS power creep is bad while 5e's other, baseline forms of power creep were not.As others noted upthread, casters being denied in this way gets players bloody rioting. Do it to a Fighter and that's par for the course. You present as symmetrical a situation that is fundamentally not and the fact that you refuse to see the asymmetry is part of the problem.That said? Your example of sneaking is exactly on point. Yes, that is the kind of thing where a Fighter (that has not chosen to invest any resources into it) SHOULD find herself with few options, and possibly nothing more than the baseline. Because "exploration" means a lot of things, and stealth is only one small but often salient component thereof. The un-stealthy plate-wearing Fighter may be forced to doff her armor, putting her in greater danger in order to lay low. Or she may try to leverage her eagle eyes to be overwatch for her more stealth inclined teammates, at the cost of being unable to directly assist should an area of her greater expertise (like combat and surviving within it) suddenly become relevant. Or she may need to rely on her teammates, like the covert-ops Warlord who can guide her through some basic exercises he knows to get ready for something like this, or the Wizard casting a muffle spell on her to ameliorate her weak ability to conceal herself (but in so doing, committing some or all of their concentration to it, making further choices tougher). Conversely, these choices may be useful in that the Fighter's mighty thews and indefatigable back may be incredibly useful for getting past blocked paths (DW's Bend Bars, Lift Gates), an example of a well-defined contributiom to exploration (and sometimes yes, even specifically stealth challenges) that IS NOT omnicompetence in all possible exploration challenges.I tire of Fighters and Rogues etc. being separate but equal. It has a long, long track record of being continuously unsatisfactory for the non-casters and always taken over the variable strident objections of casters. You know, the ones who actually have to give up some amount of power to those denied it. Funny how that happens.Unless, of course, they're Wizards, Druids, Clerics, or Bards. Then they're <a href="https://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw" target="_blank">magical superbeings adventuring alongside horse jockeys</a>.And you're always, ALWAYS better off making sure Angel Summoner is well rested and ready for action. People rarely, if ever, say, "man, I know our Wizard and Cleric are totally out of spells and can't do anything but cantrips, but thankfully we brought a Fighter so we can keep going even without that!" That's another facet of the asymmetry.Cool.Question: Assume your character was, instead, a badass Paladin. Same (or as close as possible) personal story arc. (Perhaps a devotee of a more athletic, Strength-based dudebro deity like Kord.) What would change about your statement above? Does being a Paladin somehow impede or restrict your ability to "find ways for him to contribute just by speaking or acting as himself the person rather than himself the [Paladin]"?Because unless you are asserting that being a Paladin (or hell, even a friggin' Barbarian, with the right subclass anyway, looking at you Totem Warrior) actually PREVENTS you from "finding ways...to contribute just by speaking and acting as...[oneself] the person," you would seem to be admitting that you are relying on stuff literally anyone (as a player) could do with literally any character, making the choice to be Fighter superfluous.The sustained dissatisfaction from a significant chunk of the audience seems to belie this assertion. Because isn't it curious how it's always the ones upset about the gap being told to suck it up, and always the ones totally cool with the current state of affairs that get to decide who gets what?And yet you were contributing, because you had been given DM favoritism via a magic item that (surprise, surprise) replicates a low-level but useful spell. Had your little lie detector gone off, would you still have Done Nothing And Stayed Quiet? I am more than a little skeptical about that.</blockquote>

Verification