D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[James Gasik]

I already established, that several different rules can grant the same ability.
Such a rule just closes of the Arnesonian Space - but if you add another rule, you are still in the Gygaxian Space.

And the actor feat is just an example. You can also go with casting spells, which is maybe easier to comprehend, because it is not something a normal person could just try.

Did you? Mea culpa. I just keep seeing "Actor Feat" plastered on post after post, lol, like it was the only proud nail here.

 

[M_Natas]

That adds mental load and is unnecessary complicated. It is way easier to fix the Actor Feat, then to implement a general rule that forces you to reference all the specific rules.

Maybe I make that more clear with an example:

The general rule for movement trough another hostiles creatures space is, that it is not possible, unless the creature is two sizes larger than you.
The specific rule of the Halfing is, that the halfing can do that, even if the creature is only one size larger.

So, anybody on the table knows, I can't do X per general rule. Halfling says, my specific rule says, I can do X.
Everything is fine. Only yhe halfling player needs to know the nimble rule, the other players don't.

Now with the Actor Feat and the implementation of the house rule, it goes like that:
The general rule for ability checks does ot apply to do X.
In order to do X by the general rule, you need feat actor.
If you want to do X without the feat, there is a new rule, you do ability check with disadvantage.

So, now every player who doesn't have the Actor feat, need to keep in mind, that in order to mimic speech, they can have to.use this new special general rule.

That is way more complicated and it gets way more frustrating to do, if you not only have to do that for mimic speech, but for other things as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Depends on how you define "often". There are a non-trivial number of people who if not giant fans of a given setting may not be particularly tolerant of setting conventions for it if they penalize the character type they'd prefer to play.

But that's pure power gaming.

 

[James Gasik]

So say you're a Star Wars fan, and you think the Jedi are incredibly cool. But you join a SW game, and the GM says "No Space Wizards!".

So now you can't play the character you really wanted to. Are you going to have the same excitement? Is it wrong if you don't?

 

[Thomas Shey]

But that's pure power gaming.

Bluntly, nonsense. Its not power gaming to have a character type you prefer to play and not want them to be ineffective. The idea that anyone who dislikes playing an actively hampered character is a power gamer corrupts the use of the term completely.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So say you're a Star Wars fan, and you think the Jedi are incredibly cool. But you join a SW game, and the GM says "No Space Wizards!".

So now you can't play the character you really wanted to. Are you going to have the same excitement? Is it wrong if you don't?

And let's not forget the opposite end of it; people who might not object to playing in a space opera game but have no special attachment to the Star Wars setting, but would like their non-Space Wizard to actually not be undercut by the Space Wizard character constantly.

 

[Minigiant]

Bluntly, nonsense. Its not power gaming to have a character type you prefer to play and not want them to be ineffective. The idea that anyone who dislikes playing an actively hampered character is a power gamer corrupts the use of the term completely.

Its power gaming to want to play a character archetype that is ineffective in the source reference and wanting it to be more effective.

Coming to something like Warhammer fantasy and wanting to be a regular knight but be as strong as a grail knight or chaos champion is power gaming.

Random Gondor warrior is not as strong as some ranger of Aragorn's bloodline.

You can change that but it is changing the source reference.

The problem 99.999% is not agreeing on the reference.

 

[payn]

Its power gaming to want to play a character archetype that is ineffective in the source reference and wanting it to be more effective.

Coming to something like Warhammer fantasy and wanting to be a regular knight but be as strong as a grail knight or chaos champion is power gaming.

Random Gondor warrior is not as strong as some ranger of Aragorn's bloodline.

You can change that but it is changing the source reference.

The problem 99.999% is not agreeing on the reference.

Thats... an interesting take. Not my experience from problem power gamers.

 

[Minigiant]

So say you're a Star Wars fan, and you think the Jedi are incredibly cool. But you join a SW game, and the GM says "No Space Wizards!".

So now you can't play the character you really wanted to. Are you going to have the same excitement? Is it wrong if you don't?

And let's not forget the opposite end of it; people who might not object to playing in a space opera game but have no special attachment to the Star Wars setting, but would like their non-Space Wizard to actually not be undercut by the Space Wizard character constantly.

It all comes down to reference.

It it SW where

1) Jedi and NonJedi are both equal and playable.
2) Jedi and NonJedi are not equal but both playable.
3) Jedi and NonJedi are not equal but only nonforce users are playable.

You need to stamp down the reference of the game.

The thief debate happens because the thief is placed down and no one agrees what the thief is because they're not referencing a specific source.

 

[payn]

It all comes down to reference.

It it SW where

1) Jedi and NonJedi are both equal and playable.
2) Jedi and NonJedi are not equal but both playable.
3) Jedi and NonJedi are not equal but only nonforce users are playable.

You need to stamp down the reference of the game.

The thief debate happens because the thief is placed down and no one agrees what the thief is because they're not referencing a specific source.

That be because D&D is a choose your own adventure system and doesn't have a singularly solid source reference. Its a stew of many source references. So, there is not A,B,C choice, but a whole alphabet of them.